SHILLONG, Nov 4: The High Court of Meghalaya on Friday heard a PIL pertaining to the treatment of animals in the state during transportation or culling.
Gau Gyan Foundation, the petition, highlighted several aspects of the ill-treatment of animals. But the organisation submitted that the state has taken several key measures to deal with the matter and ensure that animals are treated with kindness and dignity.
The court of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh said several measures need to be taken in respect of the treatment of animals and to ensure better hygiene despite the steps taken by the state.
In earlier orders, the court had repeatedly referred to the brazen display of animal meat on the roadside, exposed to dust and grime. The practice continues in and around Shillong, it noted.
“Apart from the distressing sight of severed body parts of animals being put on display, the meat allowed to remain in such a state may not be ideal to consume. There is also the other matter of how chickens are transported. More often than not, a large number of chickens are tied by their legs and hung from bicycle handles or other forms of vehicles mostly carried upside down. While the animals have, no doubt, been raised to ultimately be culled for food, there is an element of decency that must be maintained. The practice now is one of extreme cruelty,” the court observed.
Four further points were made on behalf of the petitioner. The first pertains to the notification of July 12, 2019, for regulating the transportation of cattle within the state.
The second point pertains to paragraph 20(V) of the affidavit filed by the state on June 13, 2022. The third and fourth points are similar in that they refer to the constitution of district-level or market-level animal welfare committees and monitoring committees with representatives of animal welfare organisations.
The petitioner underlined the Central rules that deal with the transportation of various animals in different forms and warrant the compliance of the states.
The petitioner also pointed out that the instructions of July adequately talk about the transportation thereof within the state.
“This is a point of some importance and the state will surely look into such aspects and, if so advised, issue fresh instructions to provide for means of transport and the conditions thereof,” the court said.
As to the seized animals, the state’s affidavit said they would be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.
The petitioner pointed out that under the 2017 rules, seized animals are required to be preserved in various places and in prescribed conditions. The petitioner lamented that the state’s affidavit does not indicate appropriate infrastructure for preserving the animals during the pendency of the cases.
“Again, since it is the state’s obligation and also intent to act in accordance with the rules, no meaningful effect can be given thereto without setting up appropriate spaces for the due preservation of the animals,” the court said.
The third and fourth points pertain to how the animal welfare committees, whether at the district level or the market level or the monitoring committees, meet or decide on regulating the manner in which the animals would be dealt with within their jurisdictions.
For a start, the petitioner apprehended that there may not be adequate animal welfare organisations in existence or otherwise identified for member representatives there from being chosen. The second point is that since the other members of such committees are high-powered officials, the extent of participation of the invitee members representing the animal welfare organisations would be limited.
The petitioner suggested that appropriate rules or a memorandum of procedure be drawn up for meetings to be convened at regular intervals and for the animal welfare organisation representatives to have a forum to hear their grievances in the event that their suggestions are not adhered to or respected by the superior officials on the relevant committees.
The court said that the petitioner is perfectly justified in pointing out such aspects of the matter.
“Oftentimes, committees are constituted that never meet. Even if such committees meet once in a blue moon, very little comes out of such meetings. The state would do well to look into the various suggestions to set up a memorandum of the procedure so that there can be effective implementation of the rules and more ethical treatment of animals, whatever may be the end use thereof,” the court said while appreciating the measures already put in place by the state.
