Supreme Court asks Kapil Dev to approach Delhi High Court with his plea for stricter laws against Animal Cruelty
On July 24, 2023, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Hrishikesh Roy refused to entertain a plea filed by Kapil Dev, former Indian Cricket Team Captain, and other two activists against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The provisions challenged in the plea allow “the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed” and “the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law”. While hearing the matter, the bench observed that for relief sought, the petitioners can approach the High Courts. In this context, the SC bench asked Kapil Dev and other activists involved in filing a petition to first approach the Delhi High Court. The bench said, “Your petitioners’ standing is very high in the country, they will earn the same respect even if they go to HC”. It further added, “When the Supreme Court takes up such cases, it gives an impression that the High Court is not capable of taking up such issues”. Thus, the top Court allowed them to withdraw the petition and gave them the liberty to approach Delhi HC.
The petition was filed in relation to the backdrop of a shocking incident that took place in Delhi in November 2022 where a pregnant stray dog was tortured and killed. The petition challenged the constitutionality of Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). Also, the petition sought guidelines ensuring the dignified treatment of animals. Earlier in January this year, Kapil Dev said, “After the heinous and inhumane killing of the pregnant street dog at an educational institution, my wife Romi and I were shocked to learn about the inadequate animal cruelty laws in India. Being an animal lover and humanitarian, I believe that a change needs to be brought about.” During the court proceedings on July 24, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Aman Lekhi, pointed out the punishments mentioned under Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC for an offence of killing or maiming animals. He submitted that fixing different punishments on the grounds of the commercial and utility value of an animal, especially for similar offence is unreasonable and arbitrary.
Senior Advocate also referred to the judgment passed in the Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja (2014) which observed that “Animals also have a right against human beings not to be tortured and against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. 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”. After hearing the contentions, the bench noted, “After some submissions into the matter, the petitioner prays for liberty to withdraw writ petition so that they’re in a position to move HC with prayers made in this W.P. Accepting the above, WP stands dismissed”.
