BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:
Angel Trust

…Petitioner

versus

Union of India

…Respondent

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

PRASHANT BHUSHAN: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 INDEX

S.No.

Particulars

1.

LISTING PERFORMA

2.

WRIT PETITION

3.

ANNEXURE P1: True copy of the Law
Commission report No. 261 - “Need to
Regulate Pet Shops and Dog and
Aquarium Fish Breeding” (submitted to
the Union Minister of Law and Justice),
dated 28th August 2015

4.

ANNEXURE P-2: True copy of the
announcement from the official FBI
website regarding re-categorization of the
animal abuse cases with serious crimes,
dated 02 January 2016.

5.

ANNEXURE P-3: True copy of the op-ed in
the New York Times by Gregory Berns,
Professor of Neuroeconomics at Emory
University, USA and the author of “How
Dogs Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His
Adopted Dog Decode the Canine Brain
dated 05 October 2013.

6.

ANNEXURE P-4: True copy of “The
Admissibility of Evidence of Animal Abuse
in Criminal Trials for Child and Domestic
Abuse” by A Campbell, cited as (2002)
43(2) Boston College Law Review 463)
dated NIL.

7.

ANNEXURE P-5: True copy of “Making
The Dogman Heel: Recommendations For
Improving
The
Effectiveness
Of
Dogfighting Laws” by F Ortiz cited as
(2010) 3 Stanford Journal of Animal Law
and Policy 1 dated NIL.

8.

ANNEXURE P-6: True copy of “Is Animal
Cruelty a “Red Flag” for Family Violence?:
Investigating
Co-Occurring
Violence
Toward Children, Partners, and Pets” by
Sarah DeGue and David DiLillo, cited as
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24:6
(June 2009), pp. 1036–1056, dated NIL.

9.

ANNEXURE P-7: True copy “‘Animal
Abuse and Youth Violence” by of FR

Page No.

 Ascione, cited as (2001) Juvenile Justice
Bulletin at 1, dated NIL.
11.

ANNEXURE P-8: True copy of “The
Relationship of Animal Abuse to Violence
and Other Forms of Antisocial Behaviour”
by A Arluke, J Levin, and F Ascione, cited
as (1999) 14 Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 963, dated NIL.

12.

ANNEXURE P-9: True copy of “The
Relationship between Animal Cruelty,
Delinquency, and Attitudes toward the
Treatment of Animals” by Bill C. Henry,
cited as Society & Animals 12:3,
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004, dated
NIL.

13.

ANNEXURE
P-10:
True
copy
of
“Conceptualising Animal Abuse with an
Antisocial Behaviour Framework” by
Eleonora Gullone, cited as Animals
(Basel). 2011 Mar; 1(1): 144–160, dated
NIL.

14.

ANNEXURE P-11: True copy of a
Hindustan Times report showing a man in
Delhi torturing and beating a street dog
and then posting it on Facebook dated
July 12, 2015

15.

ANNEXURE P-12: True copy of an India
Today piece reporting about a stray dog
being tied up to a tree and beaten
mercilessly with Lathis by residents of a
Cooperative Group Housing Society in
Sector 48 Chandigarh, dated 28 January
2016

16.

ANNEXURE P-13: True copy of a Hindu
newspaper piece, reporting on a man
stabbing to death three stray dogs and a
puppy outside Green Park Metro Station in
South Delhi dated 20 March 2016

17.

ANNEXURE P-14: True copy of a Times of
India piece, reporting on a Bengaluru
woman thrashing 8 puppies to death to
teach dog a lesson dated 21 March 2016.

18.

ANNEXURE P-15: True copy of a
Hindustan Times piece, reporting on a
man pouring acid on 5 new-born puppies
for barking at him dated 26 March 2016

 19.

ANNEXURE P-16: True copy of a Times of
India piece, reporting on a police man in
Andheri, Mumbai, beats a stray dog till it's
eye pops out dated 07 April 2016

20.

ANNEXURE P-17: True copy of a an
Indian Express piece, reporting on the
Dehradun incident of police horse
Shaktimaan getting her leg crushed
allegedly due to being beaten up by a stick
and then later on having her leg
amputated and then finally dying of the
same injury dated 21 April 2016

 SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That the present writ petition is being filed in public interest
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, read with Article
21 read with Article 51A(g). The petitioner is seeking, inter alia,
the immediate intervention of this Hon’ble Court to address the
rising instances of barbaric animal cruelty and inhumane
exploitation in the pet shop industry. In the last few years there
has been a sudden rise in the cases of instances of barbaric
animal cruelty such as:
• A Delhi man torturing and beating a street dog and then
posting it Facebook (Jul 12, 2015)
• A stray dog tied up to a tree and beaten mercilessly with
Lathis by residents of a Cooperative Group Housing
Society in Sector 48 Chandigarh (28 January 2016)
• A man stabbing to death three stray dogs and a puppy
outside Green Park Metro Station in South Delhi (20
March 2016)
• A Bengaluru woman thrashing 8 puppies to death to teach
dog a lesson (21 March 2016)
• A man in Agra, pouring acid on 5 new-born puppies for
barking at him (26 March 2016)
• A police man in Andheri, Mumbai, beats a stray dog till it's
eye pops out (07 April 2016)
• The Dehradun incident of police horse Shaktimaan getting
her leg crushed allegedly due to being beaten up by a stick
and then later on having her leg amputated and then
finally dying of the same injury (21 April 2016)
One of the salient reasons for an alarming increase in animal
cruelty has to do with the fact that as of right now there is
vacuum of law w.r.t. to protection of animals. The reason for
such a vacuum is that the main legislation for animal protection
- The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (“PCA Act”) has not been amended since 1960 to keep up with the times
and even today the only punishment for such dastardly acts is
a mere 50 Rupees fine and no jail term. The only other
provisions of law that deal with such barbaric crimes are section
428 and section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
These sections provide for punishment for the “mischief by
killing or maiming animal”, but then go to on to limit it’s scope
to only animals of value above 10 Rupees (for section 428) and
of value more than 50 Rupees (for section 429). Furthermore,
sections 428 and 429 come in “Chapter XVII: Of Offences
Against Property”. It is because of this limit of 10 and 50 Rupees
and the fact that these sections come in the heading of offences
against property, that they are not readily applicable in cases of
abuse to stray animals. For a stray animal, is technically not of
any monetary value (be it above or below 10 or 50 Rupees) and
also such a stray animal is not a household pet of anyone, so
possibly cannot be classified as property, and hence does not
attract the provisions of chapter XVII of the IPC. For example, if

 a person hacks a stray dog to death, then applying these
provisions of the IPC would be very tough as the stray dog was
not purchased from pet shop for a few thousand Rupees and
hence it does not have any monetary value (let alone above or
below 10 or 50 Rupees) nor can it be classified as anyone’s
property. It is because of such insufficient statutory provisions
(compounded by lax enforcement), that there is a vacuum of law
w.r.t to animal abuse and as a consequence there is no
deterrence in society, as regards to animal cruelty. The
perpetrators exploit this vacuum and commit heinous acts
against animals with impunity.
It is further most humbly submitted that in “Asiatic Wild
Buffalo and Red Sanders case” - T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India, [(2012) 3 SCC 277], this
Hon’ble Court held that environmental justice can only be
achieved if we shift our focus from anthropocentric to
ecocentric. The Hon’ble Court went on to further say that as per
the ecocentric approach we must protect all animals that are
there in nature and not just those who have a certain monetary
value. Thus keeping such a ecocentric approach in mind, it is
humbly submitted that section 428 and section 429 of the IPC,
(an Act enacted in 1860) should interpreted so to include all
animals and not just the one’s that cross a certain monetary
value. This will help in achieving the goals envisaged in the
Asiatic Wild Buffalo case (Supra) of shifting our jurisprudence
from being anthropocentric to ecocentric.
Studies show that animals like dogs, have the same emotions
as humans. They feel love, fear and pain. This was proven using
sophisticated and latest scientific methods such as F-MRI
(functional MRI) and it conclusively proves that dogs, and many
other animals (especially our closest primate relatives), have
emotions just like us, humans.
It is also pertinent to mention here that it is now scientifically
proven that those who abuse animals escalate to women and
children – With time, the high of abusing a defenseless animal
dissipates and to impose their power, such abusers, then prey
on women and children. Also there are ample studies which
show an overlap animal abuse has with domestic violence and
child abuse Further more, in criminology, the following truisms
are widely accepted as regards animal cruelty:
• Cruelty to animals is a precursor to larger crime
• There is an inextricable connection between abuse and
criminal violence
• If somebody is harming an animal, there is a good chance
they also are hurting a human as well
• Animal abusers of today could be the serial killers of
tomorrow.
These truisms can be best captured by the following Venn
Diagram:

 In fact, many notorious serial killers, who committed
abominable and unspeakable crimes on women and children,
started off by torturing animals. Such killers include:
• Richard Ramirez - 14 murders, > 24 rapes (Stabbed,
gutted animals.)
• Ted Bundy: > 36 rape and murders of young women.
(Tortured animals as a youth.)
• Jeffrey Dahmer: 17 murders, mutilations. (Killed animals
and mounted their heads on stakes)
• Edward Cole: > 16 murders (Strangled puppies.)
Also now the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) in the US
(United States of America), has re-categorized acts of animal
cruelty and put it in the same table as other serious offences
like arson, burglary, assault, and homicide. By doing so, the
FBI sent out a message that abuse of animals is a crime against
society. Also, under the new categorization they will begin
tracking and collecting information about incidents of animal
cruelty and putting them in the FBI’s criminal database. This
database then will help the FBI using statistical method be able
to figure out abusers and killers, before they move to on women,
children and larger society. Such an enforcement of animal laws
benefits the larger society greatly and is a valuable tool in law
enforcement.
It is pertinent to note that this Hon’ble Court in the “Jallikattu
judgment” (Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj
[(2014) 7 SCC 547]) expanded the scope of Article 21 and said
that Article doesn’t only apply to humans but applies to animals
also. The court laid down:
“Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights
of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given
an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic
environment which includes all forms of life, including
animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within

 the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution... Right to
dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to
human beings alone, but to animals as well.”
The Hon’ble Court further goes on to opine how the penalty in
the PCA Act is paltry and reduces the deterrence in society and
then exhorts the Parliament to urgently amend the PCA Act and
provide sufficiently deterrent punishments:
“Penalty for violation of those rights are insignificant, since
laws are made by humans. Punishment prescribed in
Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the
offence, hence being violated with impunity defeating the
very object and purpose of the Act... Parliament is expected
to make proper amendment of the PCA Act to provide an
effective deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the
Act and for the violation of section 11, adequate penalties
and punishments should be imposed.”
It also imperative to point out another facet of despicable animal
abuse – that in the form of pet shops, dog breeding and fish
shops. As of right now, there are no regulations in India,
pertaining to this burgeoning 80,000 crore market, which is
marked by rampant animal abuse and unabated exploitation.
This matter is so grave, that on 28th August 2015, the Law
Commission of India, under the Chairmanship of Justice
AP Shah, submitted its Report No. 261 on the “Need to
Regulate Pet Shops and Dog and Aquarium Fish Breeding”
to the Union Minister of Law and Justice. The report observes
that pet shops and breeders violate provisions of animal welfare
laws with impunity, and recommends that it is necessary to
regulate their practices. Some of horror that go on in this illicit
and unregulated trade include: (citing from the Law
Commission report)
• Selling unweaned pups – taking the pups away from the
mothers much before they can open their eyes and need
their mother’s milk to survive
• Puppies drugged to prevent them from crying
• Large birds are stuffed into small cages
• De-beaking birds – cutting the beaks of birds with hot
knives
• De-clawing kittens – taking out the claws of cats with
plyers so that they don’t scratch the pet shop surface
• Docking of dogs tails - cutting tails without anesthesia for
cosmetic purposes)
• Lack of basic veterinary care in such pet shops
• Star tortoises and other protected animals are sold openly
and wild animals (including parakeets, munias and
mynas) are caught and sold in complete violation of the
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
• It is estimated that for every bird sold in the market, two
die en route. Fledglings are stolen from their nests and

 smuggled to market in cartons and tiny boxes, and some
are even rolled up inside socks during transport to cities.
Captive birds’ wings are crudely clipped with scissors to
prevent them from flying.
• Fish become stressed and sometimes die because of
confinement, crowding, contaminated water and
unnatural temperatures
The report also cites how such practices pose a human health
hazard – “PFA Fatehabad unit, besides several others, drew
attention to the practice of disposal of waste from pet shops.
Waste from pet shops is allowed to mix with household waste
that pollutes the neighbourhood as well as the ground water.
Dead animals are dumped with household waste or buried in
the neighbourhood, which leads to more contamination, and no
post mortem is conducted to rule out infectious diseases that
could spread to humans. They suggest that the spread of
avian/bird flu may have a close relation with the manner in
which animals are indiscriminately bred and sold in the
country.” It is submitted here by the Petitioners, that this is
gross a violation of Article 21 – Right to clean and disease free
environment - without which no society can ever sustain let
alone develop. Furthermore, the virulence and large scale loss
of life that bird flu brings with itself is known by everyone. And
if tomorrow there is an outbreak of the same, let’s say in Delhi
(which is as it is very densely populated and hence the disease
will travel like lightening) then such filthy pet shops will act like
a mass transmission station for the disease. These pet shops
will be like mobile signal towers, just that instead of radio
waves, they would do large scale broadcast of the disease to all
the neighbouring areas. In such a case, the Petitioner begs to
ask, that who would be responsible? The unregulated pet shops
(who will claim innocence as they had no regulation to follow) or
the State (who have currently abdicated their responsibility to
promulgate and enforce such regulations). It is most humbly
submitted, that this situation, is nothing short of a ticking time
bomb.
Considering the serious nature of the problem, the Law
Commission in its recommendations notes that “Commission is
of the opinion that firstly, based on an analysis of the legal
position, the representations received by the Commission, and
the large number of reports on the issue, it appears that the
provisions of the law are violated with impunity by pet shops
and breeders.”
The Law Commission then goes on to recommend that the three
sets of rules as drafted by the AWBI (Animal Welfare Board of
India) be notified immediately by the Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate Change (“MoEF”). The three sets of rules
regarding pet shops are:
1. Pet Shop Rules, 2010
2. Dog Breeding, Marketing and Sale Rules, 2010 and

 3. Aquarium Fish Breeding and Marketing Rules
These rules have been lying with the Animal Welfare Division of
the MoEF since 2010.
It is appalling to mention that, despite about 1 year being
passed since the submission of the report by the Law
Commission to the Law Ministry, no such rules have been
notified, and the egregious violation of animal laws and
inhumane exploitation in the pet industry, runs rampant.
It is because of severe cruelty meted out to animals every day
and also the appalling exploitation that occurs in these breeding
mills and pet shops, that Article 21 (which as per the Jallikattu
judgment, applies to animals also) is violated and also since the
penalty in the PCA Act is paltry and virtually non-existent, that
Article 14 is also violated since, such low penalties in
antithetical to the principle of “Anti-Arbitrariness” in the
constitutional jurisprudence of India.
Furthermore, the Respondent is obliged under Article 21 read
with Article 51A(g) and section 3 of the PCA Act, to ensure
that all animals are treated with compassion and dignity and
are not meted out with unspeakable cruelty. Section 3 of the
PCA Act says that –
“3. Duties of persons having charge of animals. – It shall be
the duty of every person having the care of charge of any
animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the
wellbeing of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon
such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.”.
This section is applicable in the present Petition because the
State is the person (as envisaged in the section) who has the
charge of all the animals in the country and this responsibility
is not only for the animals in the reserved forests and
sanctuaries etc but also every other animal in its jurisdiction –
be it the stray dog on the streets of Ernakulum or sparrows (a
fast dying breed) on the buildings on Delhi. And since the State
is under such a duty as put by section 3, it is failing the same
by not bringing out legislations to cure the vacuum of law,
despite the exhortation by this Hon’ble Court in Animal Welfare
Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (Supra) and also by the Law
Commission in it Report No. 261.
It is also equally important to note here that the Directive
Principle of State Policy under Article 48A enjoins the State to
take steps to protect the wildlife of the country and that wildlife
doesn’t only mean the animals in the forests but animals all
over the country. Furthermore, such protection doesn’t only
mean from poaching but also the severe cruelty, they are meted
out every day. The Directive Principle of State Policy under
Article 48A reads as –

 “48A. The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of
the country.”
It is also humbly submitted that it does not behoove a civilized
society and the worlds largest democracy, that the under the
current laws, the only order for hacking a puppy to death is a
paltry 50 Rupees fine and no jail term. It flies in the face of our
constitutional duty under Article 51A(g), which enjoins us to
have compassion for all living beings and not just humans – “to
protect and improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures”. In fact Mahatma Gandhi, once famously said that
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated.”
This Hon’ble Court has been the foremost protector of rights and
liberties of the voiceless and has in a catena of judgments such
as Vineet Narain Vs Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226] and in
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241], has held
that when there is a legislative vacuum, the Supreme Court of
India can step in, and issue guidelines, to cure the vacuum. In
Vineet Narain case (Supra) this Court has observed as under in
Paragraph 51 of the reported decision:“There are ample powers conferred by Article 32 read
with Article 142 to make orders which have the effect
of law by virtue of article 141 and there is mandate to
all authorities to act in aid of the orders of this Court
as provided in Article 144 of the Constitution. In a
catena of decisions of this Court, this power has been
recognised and exercised, if need be, by issuing
necessary directions to fill the vacuum till such time the
legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive
discharges its role.”
Since the executive and legislature have not performed their
part, the animal rights activists have no hope that this grim
situation of abuse of exploitation of the voiceless, will abate. And
therefore, they seek this Hon’ble Court’s intervention in putting
an end to this tyranny against the voiceless, which eventually
harms us, the humans as well.
LIST OF DATES:
1860

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is enacted to cover all
substantive aspects of criminal law,
on the
recommendations of first Law Commission of India
established in 1834, under the Chairmanship of
Thomas Babington Macaulay, under the Government
of India Act 1833.

1960

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is
enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain
or suffering on animals.

 05.10. 2013

Gregory Berns, Professor of Neuroeconomics at
Emory University, USA and the author of “How Dogs
Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog
Decode the Canine Brain, writes in New York Times
about his studies on animals using F-MRI, to show
how animals have the same emotions as humans and
feel pain, love and anger as the rest of us.

07.05.2014

The Supreme Court of India passes a milestone
judgment in the matter titled “Animal Welfare
Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (Supra)
banning the bulls and bullocks in exhibitions, for
example, Jallikattu, bullock cart racing, and
emphasized the need to urgently amend the PCA Act
and expanding the scope of Article 21 to include
animals as well.

28.08.2015

The Law Commission in its Report No. 261 on the
“Need to Regulate Pet Shops and Dog and Aquarium
Fish Breeding” to the Union Minister of Law and
Justice, notes the inhumane abuse and despicable
exploitation in the pet shops industry and
recommends that the AWBI (Animal Welfare Board of
India) three sets of rules regarding pet shops (“Pet
Shop Rules, 2010”), dog breeding (“Dog Breeding,
Marketing and Sale Rules, 2010”), and aquarium fish
breeding (“Aquarium Fish Breeding and Marketing
Rules”), lying pending since 2010, with the Animal
Welfare Division of the Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate Change (“MoEF”) for scrutiny be
“be notified and implemented at the earliest.”

01.0.2016

The FBI re-categorizes acts of animal cruelty and
puts it in the same table as other serious offences like
arson, burglary, assault, and homicide. It also tracks
such animal abuses cases, so that it locate such
abusers before they escalate and commit crimes on
women and children.

12.07.2015

A man tortures and beats a stray dog in Delhi and
then posts the video on Facebook.

29.01.2016

A stray dog is tied up to a tree and beaten mercilessly
with Lathis by residents of a Cooperative Group
Housing Society in Sector 48 Chandigarh.

20.03.2016

A man stabs three stray dogs and a puppy to death
outside Green Park Metro Station in South Delhi.

21.03.2016

A Bengaluru woman thrashes 8 puppies to death to
teach dog a lesson

26.03.2016

A man pours acid on 5 new-born puppies for barking
at him

 07.04.2016

A police man beats a stray dog till it's eye pops out in
Andheri, Mumbai

21.04.2016

Police horse Shaktimaan dies after getting her leg
crushed allegedly due to being beaten up by a stick
and then later on having her leg amputated

__.04.2016

Hence, the present writ petition.

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:
ANGEL TRUST
Through its Director
Mr. Siddhartha K Garg
Siddhartha@angeltrust.org

…Petitioner
versus

UNION OF INDIA
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Environment,
Forests & Climate Change,
Shashtri Bhawan
New Delhi – 110001

…Respondent

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And his companion judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Most respectfully showeth:
1.

That the present writ petition is being filed in public
interest under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
petitioner is seeking, inter alia, the immediate intervention
of this Hon’ble Court to address the rising instances of
barbaric animal cruelty and inhumane exploitation in the
pet shop industry.
THE PARTIES

2.

That the Petitioner Angel Trust, is a registered trust (Reg.
No. 1,221 in Book No. 4, Vol. no. 4,249, dated
18.09.2014). It is a non-profit body. The petitioner NGO
works for animal rights and activities include feeding
about 25 dogs daily, providing emergency medical

 assistance for stray animals, conducting neutering drives,
rescuing animals, arranging adoption homes, counselling
of children who abuse animals and taking up pro-bono
cruelty animal abuse cases. Till now the Petitioner has got
about 50 dogs neutered, 25 kittens rescued and provided
emergency medical assistance to several animal (mostly
stray dogs) hit and run cases and given legal advice to
many on animal cruelty cases. For achieving such goals,
the petitioner works with larger NGO’s in the NCR region
such as the Friendicoes-SECA (Society for Eradication of
Cruelty to Animals) and Noida SPCA (Society for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). The petitioner has no
personal interest, or private/oblique motive in filling the
instant petition. There is no civil, criminal, revenue or any
litigation involving the petitioner which has or could have
a legal nexus with the issues involved in the PIL.
3.

The Respondent herein is ‘State’ for the purposes of Article
12 of the Constitution. The Respondent is the Central
Government through the nodal Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests which is tasked with the
initiation and implementation of all steps for the
protection of the Environment and animal welfare under
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. Under its
auspices are the measures to ensure there is no animal
abuse.
THE CAUSE OF ACTION

4.

The facts that lead to the cause of action for the present
Petition is the alarming rate of the rise of instances of
barbaric animal cruelty and inhumane exploitation in the
pet shop industry, which occur due to the vacuum in law
w.r.t to animal abuse and exploitation. Many of such
instances are mentioned in the Petition.

5.

The present Petition is based on authentic information and
public documents sourced from authentic news reports,
opinions and writings of eminent experts and scholars on
criminology and other publicly available information.
BACKGROUND

6.

One of the salient reasons for an alarming increase in
animal cruelty has to do with the fact that as of right now
there is vacuum of law w.r.t. to protection of animals. The
reason for such a vacuum is that the main legislation for
animal protection - The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960 (“PCA”) - has not been amended since 1960 to
keep up with the times and even today the only
punishment for such dastardly acts is a mere 50 Rupees
fine and no jail term.

 7.

The only other provisions of law that deal with such
barbaric crimes are section 428 and section 429 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). They read as follows:
“428. Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the
value of ten rupees.—Whoever commits mischief by
killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any
animal or animals of the value of ten rupees or
upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
429. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any
value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees.—
Whoever commits mis-chief by killing, poisoning,
maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel,
horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be
the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of
fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.”

8.

These sections provide for punishment for the “mischief by
killing or maiming animal”, but then go to on to limit it’s
scope to only animals of value above 10 Rupees (for section
428) and of value more than 50 Rupees (for section 429).
Furthermore, sections 428 and 429 come in “Chapter XVII:
Of Offences Against Property”. It is because of this limit of
10 and 50 Rupees and the fact that these sections come in
the heading of offences against property, that they are not
readily applicable in cases of abuse to stray animals. For
a stray animal, is technically not of any monetary value
(be it above or below 10 or 50 Rupees) and also such a
stray animal is not a household pet of anyone, so possibly
cannot be classified as property, and hence does not
attract the provisions of chapter XVII of the IPC. For
example, if a person hacks a stray dog to death, then
applying these provisions of the IPC would be very tough
as the stray dog was not purchased from pet shop for a
few thousand Rupees and hence it does not have any
monetary value (let alone above or below 10 or 50 Rupees)
nor can it be classified as anyone’s property. It is because
of such insufficient statutory provisions (compounded by
lax enforcement), that there is a vacuum of law w.r.t to
animal abuse and as a consequence there is no deterrence
in society, as regards to animal cruelty. The perpetrators
exploit this vacuum and commit heinous acts against
animals with impunity.

9.

It is most humbly submitted that in “Asiatic Wild
Buffalo and Red Sanders case” - T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (Supra) this Hon’ble

 Court held that environmental justice can only be achieved
if we shift our focus from anthropocentric to ecocentric.
The Hon’ble Court went on to further say that as per the
ecocentric approach we must protect all animals that are
there in nature and not just those who have a certain
monetary value. Thus keeping such a ecocentric approach
in mind, it is humbly submitted that section 428 and
section 429 of the IPC, (an Act enacted in 1860) should
interpreted so to include all animals and not just the one’s
that cross a certain monetary value. This will help in
achieving the goals envisaged in the Asiatic Wild Buffalo
case (Supra) of shifting our jurisprudence from being
anthropocentric to ecocentric. The relevant paras of the
judgment are reproduced below:
“14. Environmental justice could be achieved only if
we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric to
ecocentric...
20. Anthropocentrism considers humans to be the
most important factor and value in the universe and
states that humans have greater intrinsic value than
other species. Resultantly, any species that are of
potential use to humans can be a reserve to be
exploited which leads to the point of extinction of
biological reserves. Further, that principle highlights
human obligations towards environment arising out of
instrumental,
educational,
scientific,
cultural,
recreational and aesthetic values that forests has to
offer to humans. Under this approach, environment is
only protected as a consequence of and to the extent
needed to protect human well being. On the other
hand ecocentric approach to environment stress the
moral imperatives to respect intrinsic value, inter
dependence and integrity of all forms of life.
Ecocentrism supports the protection of all life forms,
not just those which are of value to humans or their
needs and underlines the fact that humans are just
one among the various life forms on earth.”
10. The main welfare legislation in India for the protection of
animals form abuse and cruelty is the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. But the problem is that this
Act has not been amended till now and even today, the
punishment for, let’s say, hacking a puppy to death is 50
Rupees and no jail term. This means that there is a
vacuum of law when it comes to animal cruelty. And such
a vacuum has resulted in there being no deterrence. The
perpetrators know that due to the toothless legislation and
lackadaisical enforcement, they will go scot free and hence
commit heinous crimes against animals with impunity.
11. The other main concern in the present Petition is the
burgeoning and completely unregulated Pet shop industry.

 This industry is rampant with horrific abuse and
exploitation. The same has been highlighted by the Law
Commission in its report No. 261 - “Need to Regulate Pet
Shops and Dog and Aquarium Fish Breeding”
(submitted on 28th August 2015 to the Union Minister of
Law and Justice). The report observes that pet shops and
breeders violate provisions of animal welfare laws with
impunity, and recommends that it is necessary to regulate
their practices. A true copy of this report is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-1 (from page nos.
_____to _____).
12. The report observes that pet shops and breeders violate
provisions of animal welfare laws with impunity, and
recommends that it is necessary to regulate their
practices. Some of horror that go on in this illicit and
unregulated trade include: (citing from the Law
Commission report)
o Selling unweaned pups – taking the pups away from
the mothers much before they can open their eyes
and need their mother’s milk to survive
o Puppies drugged to prevent them from crying
o Large birds are stuffed into small cages
o De-beaking birds – cutting the beaks of birds with hot
knives
o De-clawing kittens – taking out the claws of cats with
plyers so that they don’t scratch the pet shop surface
o Docking of dogs tails - cutting tails without
anesthesia for cosmetic purposes)
o Lack of basic veterinary care in such pet shops
o Star tortoises and other protected animals are sold
openly and wild animals (including parakeets,
munias and mynas) are caught and sold in complete
violation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
o It is estimated that for every bird sold in the market,
two die en route. Fledglings are stolen from their
nests and smuggled to market in cartons and tiny
boxes, and some are even rolled up inside socks
during transport to cities. Captive birds’ wings are
crudely clipped with scissors to prevent them from
flying.
o Fish become stressed and sometimes die because of
confinement, crowding, contaminated water and
unnatural temperatures
13. The report also cites how such practices pose a human
health hazard – “PFA Fatehabad unit, besides several
others, drew attention to the practice of disposal of waste
from pet shops. Waste from pet shops is allowed to mix
with household waste that pollutes the neighbourhood as
well as the ground water. Dead animals are dumped with
household waste or buried in the neighbourhood, which

 leads to more contamination, and no post mortem is
conducted to rule out infectious diseases that could
spread to humans. They suggest that the spread of
avian/bird flu may have a close relation with the manner
in which animals are indiscriminately bred and sold in the
country.” It is submitted here by the Petitioners, that this
is gross a violation of Article 21 – Right to clean and
disease free environment - without which no society can
ever sustain let alone develop. Furthermore, the virulence
and large scale loss of life that bird flu brings with itself is
known by everyone. And if tomorrow there is an outbreak
of the same, let’s say in Delhi (which is as it is very densely
populated and hence the disease will travel like lightening)
then such filthy pet shops will act like a mass
transmission station for the disease. These pet shops will
be like mobile signal towers, just that instead of radio
waves, they would do large scale broadcast of the disease
to all the neighbouring areas. In such a case, the Petitioner
begs to ask, that who would be responsible? The
unregulated pet shops (who will claim innocence as they
had no regulation to follow) or the State (who have
currently abdicated their responsibility to promulgate and
enforce such regulations). It is most humbly submitted,
that this situation, is nothing short of a ticking time bomb.
14. Considering the serious nature of the problem, the Law
Commission in its recommendations notes that:
“Commission is of the opinion that firstly, based on an
analysis of the legal position, the representations
received by the Commission, and the large number of
reports on the issue, it appears that the provisions of
the law are violated with impunity by pet shops and
breeders.”

15. The Law Commission then goes on to recommend that the
three sets of rules as drafted by the AWBI (Animal Welfare
Board of India) be notified immediately by the Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change (“MoEF”). The
three sets of rules regarding pet shops are:
1. Pet Shop Rules, 2010
2. Dog Breeding, Marketing and Sale Rules, 2010 and
3. Aquarium Fish Breeding and Marketing Rules
16. These rules have been lying with the Animal Welfare
Division of the MoEF since 2010. And it is appalling to
mention that, despite about 1 year being passed since the
submission of the report by the Law Commission to the
Law Ministry, no such rules have been notified, and the
egregious violation of animal laws and inhumane
exploitation in the pet industry, runs rampant.

 17. It is pertinent to note that this Hon’ble Court in the
Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (Supra)
expanded the scope of Article 21 and said that Article
doesn’t only apply to humans but applies to animals also.
The court laid down:
“Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the
rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has
been given an expanded definition and any
disturbance from the basic environment which
includes all forms of life, including animal life, which
are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning
of Article 21 of the Constitution... Right to dignity and
fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human
beings alone, but to animals as well.”
18. The Hon’ble Court further goes on to opine how the penalty
in the PCA Act is paltry and reduces the deterrence in
society and then exhorts the Parliament to urgently amend
the PCA Act and provide sufficiently deterrent
punishments:
“Penalty for violation of those rights are insignificant,
since laws are made by humans. Punishment
prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with
the gravity of the offence, hence being violated with
impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the
Act... Parliament is expected to make proper
amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective
deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the Act
and for the violation of section 11, adequate penalties
and punishments should be imposed.”
19. It is because of severe cruelty meted out to animals every
day and also the appalling exploitation that occurs in
these breeding mills and pet shops, that Article 21 (which
as per the Jallikattu judgment, applies to animals also) is
violated and also since the penalty in the PCA Act is paltry
and virtually non-existent, that Article 14 is also violated
since, such low penalties in antithetical to the principle of
“Anti-Arbitrariness” in the constitutional jurisprudence of
India.
20. It is also submitted that the vacuum of law as regards
animal abuse flies in the face of our constitutional duty
under Article 51A(g), which enjoins us to have
compassion for all living beings and not just humans – “to
protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion
for living creatures”. In fact Mahatma Gandhi, once
famously said that “The greatness of a nation and its moral
progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

 21. Furthermore, the Respondent is obliged under Article 21
read with Article 51A(g) and section 3 of the PCA Act,
to ensure that all animals are treated with compassion and
dignity and are not meted out with unspeakable cruelty.
Section 3 of the PCA Act says that:
“3. Duties of persons having charge of animals. – It
shall be the duty of every person having the care of
charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures
to ensure the wellbeing of such animal and to prevent
the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or
suffering.”.
This section is applicable in the present Petition because
the State is the person (as envisaged in the section) who
has the charge of all the animals in the country and this
responsibility is not only for the animals in the reserved
forests and sanctuaries etc but also every other animal in
its jurisdiction – be it the stray dog on the streets of
Ernakulum or sparrows (a fast dying breed) on the
buildings on Delhi. And since the State is under such a
duty as put by section 3, it is failing the same by not
bringing out legislations to cure the vacuum of law, despite
the exhortation by this Hon’ble Court in Animal Welfare
Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (Supra) and also by the Law
Commission in it Report No. 261.
22. It is also equally important to not here that the Directive
Principle of State Policy under Article 48A enjoins the
State to take steps to protect the wildlife of the country
and that wildlife doesn’t only mean the animals in the
forests but animals all over the country. Furthermore,
such protection doesn’t only mean from poaching but also
the severe cruelty, they are meted out every day. The
Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 48A reads
as –
“48A. The State shall endeavor to protect and improve
the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild
life of the country.”
23. This Hon’ble Court has been the foremost protector of
rights and liberties of the voiceless and has in a catena of
judgments such as Vineet Narain Vs Union of India
(Supra) and in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (Supra),
has held that when there is a legislative vacuum, the
Supreme Court of India can issue guidelines. In Vineet
Narain case (Supra) this Court has observed as under in
Paragraph 51 of the reported decision:“There are ample powers conferred by Article 32 read
with Article 142 to make orders which have the effect
of law by virtue of article 141 and there is mandate to
all authorities to act in aid of the orders of this Court
as provided in Article 144 of the Constitution. In a

 catena of decisions of this Court, this power has been
recognised and exercised, if need be, by issuing
necessary directions to fill the vacuum till such time
the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the
executive discharges its role.”
24. Furthermore, the FBI has recently in early of 2016, recategorized acts of animal cruelty and put it in the same
table as other serious offences like arson, burglary,
assault, and homicide. By doing so, the FBI sent out a
message that abuse of animals is a crime against society.
Also, under the new categorization they will begin tracking
and collecting information about incidents of animal
cruelty and putting them in the FBI’s criminal database.
This database then will help the FBI using statistical
method be able to figure out abusers and killers, before
they move to on women, children and larger society. Such
an enforcement of animal laws benefits the larger society
greatly and is a valuable tool in law enforcement. A true
copy of this announcement from the official FBI website is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2 (from
page nos. _____to _____).
SUPPORTING MATERIAL
Studies on Animal Sentience and Connection to Crimes
against Humans
25. Gregory Berns, Professor of Neuroeconomics at Emory
University, USA and the author of “How Dogs Love Us: A
Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine
Brain, writes on op-ed in New York Times about his
studies on animals using F-MRI, to show how animals
have the same emotions as humans and feel pain, love and
anger as the rest of us. A true copy of this piece is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-3 (from page nos.
_____to _____).
26. Animal abuse has become increasingly recognised as a
serious crime, as well as an indicator of human-directed
violence - A Campbell ‘The Admissibility of Evidence of
Animal Abuse in Criminal Trials for Child and Domestic
Abuse’ (2002) 43(2) Boston College Law Review 463). A
true copy of this journal article is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-4 (from page nos. _____to _____).
27. A strong connection exists between animal mistreatment
and human violence - F Ortiz ‘Making The Dogman Heel:
Recommendations For Improving The Effectiveness Of
Dogfighting Laws’ (2010) 3 Stanford Journal of Animal Law
and Policy 1. A true copy of this journal article is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-5 (from page nos.
_____to _____).

 28. Animal abuse may be a red flag indicative of domestic
violence - Sarah DeGue and David DiLillo, “Is Animal
Cruelty a “Red Flag” for Family Violence?: Investigating
Co-Occurring Violence Toward Children, Partners, and
Pets”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24:6 (June 2009),
pp. 1036–1056. A true copy of this journal article is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-6 (from
page nos. _____to _____).
29. The presence of abusive behaviour towards animals is a
characteristic of one in four violent adult offenders - FR
Ascione ‘Animal Abuse and Youth Violence’ (2001)
Juvenile Justice Bulletin at 1. A true copy of this journal
article is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-7
(from page nos. _____to _____).
30. People who commit an act of animal abuse are more likely
to commit other criminal offences than non-abusers.
Animal abusers are 3-5 times more likely to have a violent
criminal record than non-abusers (A Arluke, J Levin, and
F Ascione ‘The Relationship of Animal Abuse to Violence
and Other Forms of Antisocial Behaviour’ (1999) 14
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 963 – A true copy of this
journal article is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-8 (from page nos. _____to _____).
31. There is a relationship between acts of cruelty to animals
and involvement in other forms of antisocial behavior - Bill
C. Henry, The Relationship between Animal Cruelty,
Delinquency, and Attitudes toward the Treatment of
Animals, Society & Animals 12:3, Koninklijke Brill NV,
Leiden, 2004 .A true copy of this journal article is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-9 (from page nos.
_____to _____).
32. If an adult is abusing animal, then there is a sufficient
chance that he/she is engaging in other criminal
behaviour as well, particularly human directed aggressive
behaviour - Eleonora Gullone, Conceptualising Animal
Abuse with an Antisocial Behaviour Framework, Animals
(Basel). 2011 Mar; 1(1): 144–160. A true copy of this
journal article is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-10 (from page nos. _____to _____).
Newspaper Reports
33. A Hindustan Times report shows a man in Delhi torturing
and beating a street dog and then posting it on Facebook
(July 12, 2015) – A true copy of this report is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-11 (from page nos.
_____to _____).

 34. An India Today piece reports about a stray dog tied up to
a tree and beaten mercilessly with Lathis by residents of a
Cooperative Group Housing Society in Sector 48
Chandigarh (28 January 2016). A true copy of this report
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-12 (from
page nos. _____to _____).
35. A Hindu newspaper piece, reports on a man stabbing to
death three stray dogs and a puppy outside Green Park
Metro Station in South Delhi (20 March 2016) – A true
copy of this report is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-13 (from page nos. _____to _____).
36. A Times of India piece, reports on a Bengaluru woman
thrashing 8 puppies to death to teach dog a lesson (21
March 2016) – A true copy of this report is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-14 (from page nos.
_____to _____).
37. A Hindustan Times piece, reports on a man pouring acid
on 5 new-born puppies for barking at him (26 March 2016)
– A true copy of this report is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-15 (from page nos. _____to _____).
38. A Times of India piece, reports on a police man in Andheri,
Mumbai, beats a stray dog till it's eye pops out (07 April
2016) – A true copy of this report is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-16 (from page nos. _____to _____).
39. An Indian Express piece, reports on the Dehradun
incident of police horse Shaktimaan getting her leg
crushed allegedly due to being beaten up by a stick and
then later on having her leg amputated and then finally
dying of the same injury (21 April 2016) – A true copy of
this report is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-17 (from page nos. _____to _____).
40. In light of the vacuum of law created by not amending the
PCA Act, thus rendering it obsolete and also not notifying
the 3 sets of rules as formulated by the AWBI to regulate
the pet industry, the Petitioner is filing the instant Petition.
41. The present writ petition is being filed on the following
grounds amongst others:

 GROUNDS
A.

That a vacuum of law has been created, since the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 has not
been amended since its inception in 1960 and as a result,
there is no deterrence in society with w.r.t. to animal
cruelty. The current punishment for even hacking a pup
to death is a mere 50 Rupees and no jail term, as a result
perpetrators abuse animals with impunity. Furthermore,
sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
apply to animals above a certain monetary value and
animals that are property of a person, and as a result these
sections are inapplicable to stray animals and do not
protect them from abuse.

B.

That despite the Law Commission in Report No. 261 on
the “Need to Regulate Pet Shops and Dog and Aquarium
Fish Breeding” to the Union Minister of Law and Justice,
exhorting the MoEF to notify the rules prepared by the
AWBI, that no action has been taken so far. This has
created another vacuum of law, consequent to which there
is gross and inhumane abuse and exploitation that occurs
in this burgeoning 80,000 crore industry.

C.

That Article 21 (which applies to animals as well, as per
Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (Supra))
is violated due to the paltry and virtually non-existent
penal provisions as regards infliction of cruelty.

D.

That Article 14 is being violated since a paltry
punishment of 50 Rupees, even in the case of most
heinous cruelty perpetrated on animals, is antithetical of
the central tenet of “Anti-Arbitrariness” of the
constitutional jurisprudence of India.

E.

That in “Asiatic Wild Buffalo and Red Sanders case” T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India,
(Supra), this Hon’ble Court held that environmental justice
can only be achieved if we shift our focus from
anthropocentric to ecocentric and that as per the
ecocentric approach we must protect all animals that are
there in nature and not just those who have a certain
monetary value. And interpreting section 428 and 429 of
the IPC to include all animals irrespective of monetary
value and ownership, would go in aligning our current
laws to this approach.

F.

That Article 21 – Right to a clean and disease free
environment – is being violated because the waste disposal
practices and unhygienic conditions in such unregulated
pet shops pose a large civic and societal health risk since
the waste from pet shops is allowed to mix with household

 waste that pollutes the neighbourhood as well as the
ground water. Furthermore, dead animals are dumped
with household waste or buried in the neighbourhood,
which leads to more contamination, and no post mortem
is conducted to rule out infectious diseases that could
spread to humans including avian/bird flu. A clean and
disease free environment is a sine qua non of any society
without which it can never sustain, let alone develop.
Furthermore, these pet shops will be like mobile signal
towers, just that instead of radio waves, they would do
large scale broadcast of deadly diseases like Bird flu, to all
the neighbouring areas. It is most humbly submitted, that
this situation, is nothing short of a ticking time bomb as
regards to public health and safety.
G.

That the Respondent is obliged under Article 21 read
with Article 51A(g) and section 3 of the PCA Act, to
ensure that all animals are treated with compassion and
dignity and are not meted out with unspeakable cruelty.
This section is applicable in the present Petition because
the State is the person (as envisaged in the section) who
has the charge of all the animals in the country and this
responsibility is not only for the animals in the reserved
forests and sanctuaries etc but also every other animal in
its jurisdiction – be it the stray dog on the streets of
Ernakulum or sparrows (a fast dying breed) on the
buildings on Delhi. And since the State is under such a
duty as put by section 3, it is failing the same by not
bringing out legislations to cure the vacuum of law, despite
the exhortation by this Hon’ble Court in Animal Welfare
Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (Supra) and also by the Law
Commission in it Report No. 261.

H.

That the Directive Principle of State Policy under Article
48A enjoins the State to take steps to protect the wildlife
of the country and that wildlife doesn’t only mean the
animals in the forests but animals all over the country.
Furthermore, such protection doesn’t only mean from
poaching but also the severe cruelty, they are meted out
every day. The Directive Principle of State Policy under
Article 48A reads as – “48A. The State shall endeavor to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wild life of the country.”

I.

That there is no deterrence w.r.t. to animal cruelty due to
the paltry punishment provided in the PCA Act and that
there is an urgent need to amend the same was highlighted
by this Hon’ble Court in the “Jallikattu judgment” of 2014,
(Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (Supra)
case where it stated: “Penalty for violation of those rights
are insignificant, since laws are made by humans.
Punishment prescribed in Section 11(1) is not

 commensurate with the gravity of the offence, hence being
violated with impunity defeating the very object and
purpose of the Act... Parliament is expected to make proper
amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective deterrent
to achieve the object and purpose of the Act and for the
violation of section 11, adequate penalties and
punishments should be imposed.”
J.

That it has been held in a catena of judgments that in case
of a legislative vacuum, the Supreme Court of India can
issue guidelines. Same was held in judgments such as
Vineet Narain Vs Union of India (Supra) and in Vishaka
v. State of Rajasthan (Supra). In Vineet Narain case
(Supra) this Court has observed as under in Paragraph 51
of the reported decision:- “There are ample powers
conferred by Article 32 read with Article 142 to make orders
which have the effect of law by virtue of article 141 and
there is mandate to all authorities to act in aid of the orders
of this Court as provided in Article 144 of the Constitution.
In a catena of decisions of this Court, this power has been
recognised and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary
directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature
steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its
role.”

K.

That it has been determined in a plethora of scientific
studies that animals (like humans) feel the same emotions
like pain and hurt and that there is a strong link between
animal abuse and violent behaviour towards humans. The
criminology, the truisms are that cruelty to animals is a
precursor to larger crime, that there is an inextricable
connection between abuse and criminal violence and if
somebody is harming an animal, there is a good chance
they also are hurting a human as well and lastly that
animal abusers of today could be the serial killers of
tomorrow.

L.

That it does not behoove a civilized society and the worlds
largest democracy, that the under the current laws, the
only order for hacking a puppy to death is a paltry 50
Rupees fine and no jail term. It flies in the face of our
constitutional duty under Article 51A(g), which enjoins
us to have compassion for all living beings and not just
humans – “to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life,
and to have compassion for living creatures”. In fact
Mahatma Gandhi, once famously said that “The greatness
of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the
way its animals are treated.”

 PRAYER
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass the following orders:
(a) Issue an order under Article 142 to make sections 428 and
429 of the IPC applicable to all animals irrespective of
monetary value or ownership.
(b) Issue guidelines as regards punishment for animal abuse, till
the amendment to the PCA Act is not passed by the
Parliament.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to
form a task force to look into the severe health risk posed by
these pet shops and take preventative steps in stopping the
rise and the spread of various animal borne diseases.
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to
notify the 3 sets of rules as prepared by the AWBI to regulate
the pet shop industry.
(e) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper.
AND FOR THIS KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY
DRAWN BY:
SIDDHARTHA K GARG
Advocate

New Delhi
Dated

FILED BY:
PRASHANT BHUSHAN
Advocate for petitioner