SHILLONG, Oct 23: The High Court of Meghalaya has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with regard to the implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017.
The court, presided over by Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh, ruled that it cannot direct or initiate legislation, while urging the central government to finalise the draft rules by December 31, 2024.
The PIL, filed by Bakul Narzary, raised concerns over the state’s implementation of the Act and the associated rules, particularly regarding the establishment and relocation of livestock markets without proper notice to stakeholders and the lack of adequate infrastructure.
The petitioners also cited non-adherence to Rule 8 of the 2017 Rules, which prescribes a minimum distance between the markets and the state or international borders.
During earlier hearings, the Additional Advocate General, K Khan, informed the Court that amendments to the rules were in progress but still awaiting finalisation. The petitioners, representing breeders of livestock meant for agricultural purposes, argued that these issues had created loopholes exploited by market operators.
The Court allowed the miscellaneous application (MC (PIL) No.2 of 2024), granting the applicant, John F Rymbai, sufficient standing to pursue the matter.
While the court could not directly influence legislation, it requested the central government to expedite the rule finalisation process.
In the meantime, the Registrar General will send a copy of the PIL and associated applications to the state government, treating it as a formal representation.
The government has until December 15, 2024, to make a decision on the complaints and communicate them to the parties involved.
The Court also opened the possibility of hearings for the petitioners and the applicants.
Once the rules are amended, the government is expected to reconsider the applications within three months of the rules’ publication.
The PIL and associated applications were disposed of, with liberty to apply for further redress if needed.
