SHILLONG, Aug 2: The High Court of Meghalaya has directed the state government to indicate the measures undertaken to set up local bodies with respect to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017.
The rules have been framed by the Centre under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the court said.
Bakul Narzary, the petitioner who filed the case in the public interest, drew the attention of the court to Rule 8 of the 2017 Rules, which read: “Additional precaution to be taken regarding animal markets in the border areas. The District Animal Market Monitoring Committee (DAMMC) shall take steps to ensure that no animal market is organised in a place which is situated within 25 km from any state border or which is situated within 50 km from any international border.”
The state government’s counsel argued that the petitioner approached the court directly without availing of the remedy from the relevant DAMMC or making a representation to such a committee.
The state claimed that the petition was incomplete or defective without the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change being impleaded. It also claimed Rule 8 would have a retrospective operation and may not apply to the existing animal markets.
Noting the state’s objections, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice B. Bhattacharjee said there does not appear to be any effective mechanism in place. “There is, however, no doubt that a notice could have been issued to such a committee before instituting the petition. But the facts indicated in the petition are so notorious and undeniable that the making of a representation may have been an idle formality in this case.
In any event, no prejudice has been suffered by the state as a consequence of a representation not having been made by the petitioner prior to the filing of this petition,” the court said.
In view of the ground taken by the state, the MoEFCC was added as a respondent to the proceedings.
The entire object and purpose of the present exercise appear to be for animals culled for their meat to be treated more ethically, for the wanton display of animal carcasses to be avoided and for a more hygienic and caring attitude toward the animals, the court said.
“Despite the state lagging behind in several other fields… the state may consider being the model in the country as regards the ethical treatment of animals is concerned,” the bench said.
The court said appropriate measures ought to be taken not only to comply with the said Rules of 2017 but also to generally inculcate a culture of better treatment of animals, even if such animals are bred to be culled.
The deputy solicitor general submitted that the Ministry of Animal Husbandry would have been the more appropriate entity in this case.
“If, on instructions, the submission is repeated, the more appropriate ministry may be impleaded instead of the added respondent now,” the court said.
