RK Joshi
Ever since the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, have been notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, there has been an outburst of opposition to these Rules and the occurrence of a most deplorable incident of calf slaughter in the open by the Youth Congress workers in Kerala.
According to the procedure, the draft rules were published in the gazette of India on January 16, 2017, i.e. almost four months ago, inviting objections and suggestions from the public. Hardly any objections came around, so eventually the Rules were notified. The vehement opposition to the notified Rules is surprising.
Let us see what is the crux of these Rules. The Regulation of Livestock markets Rules has basically led to creation of two authorities i.e. Animal Market Committees and District Animal Market Monitoring Committees. Hitherto animal markets have been operating, all over the country, in most unregulated manner and the animals bought and sold in these markets were treated very cruelly. The main object of these rules is to end the cruelty and ensure basic facilities in markets and lay the responsibility of properly maintaining these markets on specified officials.
The District Animal Market Monitoring Committee would be an empowered body for monitoring the markets within a district. They are entrusted with the task of granting registrations to animal markets and oversee their functioning. The State Animal Welfare Boards are empowered to issue directions to the monitoring committee from time to time as they deem fit, to ensure compliance of these Rules.
The Monitoring Committee would consist of the District Collector and officials from the veterinary department, the forest department, the police department, representative of District SPCA and two non-official members representing animal welfare organisations of that local area.
The animal market committees would be constituted by the local authorities (local self-government bodies) and each animal market will have a Chairman of the Local authority and the second layer of officials from the other government departments, are members.
The Rules lay down in detail the facilities that need to be provided at animal markets so that the animals do not suffer any cruelty and their welfare is ensured. However, the most important aspect is that no animal is bought or sold in these markets for the purpose of slaughter. The opposition to the rules is basically in respect of this aspect. The buyer or seller of the animals has to give various undertakings and declarations which form part of official records for a period of six months. The object of these rules is to nail the malpractices and stop availability of animals for illegal slaughter.
International smuggling
Smuggling of animals across the State borders (from States which have stringent laws to prohibit slaughter, specially of cow progeny animals to the neighbouring States where such slaughter is not prohibited) and to the neighbouring countries like Bangladesh (from West Bengal), Pakistan (from Punjab, Rajasthan and Kutch in Gujarat) and Nepal (from Bihar) has been a source of major concern. The Rules intend to tackle this situation to some extent by laying down that animal markets will not be set up within a distance of 25 kms from the State Border on either side and 50 km from the International border. This may not fully mitigate the menace, but is expected to check it substantially.
The Rules have unequivocally placed responsibilities on the identified officials. It will not be easy now for the officials either to shirk their responsibility or shift it on somebody else. Substantial responsibility has been assigned to the veterinary inspectors at the animal markets.
Another notable feature of the Rules is identifying prohibited practices that are cruel and harmful. Animals in our country are treated most cruelly and the decades old Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 falls miserably short in its objects of preventing cruelty. The new Rules prohibit about 15 practices which are identified as cruel and harmful and which are quite rampant.
No ban on slaughtering
It should be clearly understood that these Rules do not prohibit slaughter per se. Persons in meat trade can source their animals directly from the owners and slaughter them, of course abiding by the relevant laws in this connection.
It would be worthwhile to refer to the Supreme Court Judgement on animal rights in Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014 SCCL.COM 253). The Hon’ble Court referred to Chapter 7.1.2 of the Guidelines of World Health Organisation of Animal Health (OIE) which lays down five internationally recognized freedom for animals, such as (i) freedom from Hunger, thirst and malnutrition, (ii) freedom from fear and distress, (iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; (iv) freedom from pain injury and disease; and (v) freedom to express normal patterns of behavior. The Hon’ble Court directed in the above Judgement that the Parliament was expected to elevate these rights of animals to the level of constitutional rights. The new Rules are a step in that direction.
Defiance to the rules by the opposition parties, that too in a most brazen way, seems to have become a norm in the Indian democracy. One must appreciate the spirit behind any step taken by the Government in the right perspective before jumping to the bandwagon of opposition for the sake of it.
Let us now turn to the other set of rules viz. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules 2017.
Custody of seized animals
At present animals are often seized whenever an offence of cruelty towards animals is committed or when animals are being taken for illegal slaughter or when animals are transported in violation of Motor Vehicle Rules etc. So far no clear legal provisions were available as to the right to claim custody of seized animals, their care and maintenance and payment of maintenance charges. The new Rules aim at tackling these issues.
Section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 deals with the subject of treatment and care of animals. However, no detailed Rules or guidelines for proper implementation of the provisions of this section were laid down till now. The new rules fill this vacuum. The procedure of dealing with such animals after their seizure is laid down in the new rules.
The Rules permit giving custody of seized animals to an infirmary, pinjrapole, District SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or a goshala. It has also made provisions for payment of maintenance charges to the organization to whom the custody of seized animals is given. The accused / owner of the animals has been made liable to pay maintenance charges of the animals pending trial of the offence. Not only this, he has to execute a bond and the organization to whom custody is given may draw funds against such bond on a fortnightly basis. This provision ensures the willingness of organizations to take custody of seized animals. Presently, the organizations, for reasons of their financial constraints, were reluctant to take custody of seized animals.
A new and quite imaginative concept of adoption of seized animals is also introduced in the Rules. This will ensure a legally sanctioned way of distributing animals to the farmers and others who can utilise such animals, subject, of course, to taking proper care of such adopted animals. A very elaborate documentation and record- keeping system has been put in place to ensure proper monitoring of welfare of the animals.
Penalty too meager
Though the Rules by themselves are laudable, the penalty for their violation is very dismal. The penal provision for violation of rules is laid down in section 38 of the Parent Act i.e. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Section 38 (3) lays down that if any person contravenes, or abets the
contravention of any rules made under this section, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.100/- or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with both. In view of this dismal penal clause, the Act as well as the Rules are vulnerable to rampant and contemptuous violation. In fact, there has been a consistent demand over the past few decades from the animal welfare activists and organizations for a very thorough overhaul of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.However, for some reasons, this has not been happening. In fact a totally newly drafted animal welfare Bill is available with the Ministry. This Bill has got very robust provisions to ensure animal welfare and must be introduced and passed in the Parliament without any loss of time.
(The writer is chairman of the Mumbai-based Viniyog Parivar Trust)
| History In 2014, a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court by animal rights activist Gauri Maulekhi to prevent illegal trafficking of cattle to Nepal. With the Supreme Court’s direction and approval, a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Banshi Dhar Sharma, DG, Sahastra Seema Bal. It submitted a report to the court that suggested steps to be taken to address this problem. The Supreme Court accepted this report and directed the Union Government and State Governments to take steps towards compliance. This order was passed on July 13, 2015. Each state government, in addition to several other steps, had to do the following: constitute a district SPCA within four weeks, constitute Animal Welfare Boards within four weeks, submit a compliance report to the Court within eight weeks and additional precaution to be taken regarding animal markets in the border area. On July 4, 2016, the Supreme Court passed an order confirming the receipt of compliance reports by all concerned States. The bench noted that the Centre had not yet complied with its direction to frame and notify rules. The Government of India responded that it is bound to frame the rules as per the directions of the Court, and would do so soon. On the 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court disposed of the case under the following directions: The Central government, which had informed the court that draft rules were almost ready, should finalise the rules ‘within three months’. The Central government would convene meetings between itself and the various stakeholder states to arrive at a comprehensive future plan to resolve this problem. As per the orders of the Supreme Court, as highlighted above, the Government of India framed the rules for governing livestock markets, placed it for review and feedback, and in the end notified the rules (with finalisation based on feedback inputs) on the 23 May 2017. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), the Central Government made the following rules. Excerpts:
|
Decoding New Rules
|
Following the footprints of the developed countries, the Union Government mooted an idea of UID number for cattle in a report submitted to the Supreme Court on cattle smuggling across the India-Bangladesh border in April. The recommendations were placed before a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud which listed the PIL filed by Akhil Bharat Krishi Gosewa Sangh for passing directions by considering these recommendations.
The committee, set up in pursuance of the court order, has recommended having tamper-proof identification of cattle by using polyurethane tags and a state-level database may be uploaded to a website which may be linked with a national online database.
The UID number should have details such as age, breed, sex, lactation, height, body, colour, horn type, tail switch, special marks etc. The report states that unique identification number for cows and their progeny should be made mandatory across India. The recommendation will hopefully stop trafficking of cattle across the Indo-Bangla border.
Leave a Comment