Results
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Cruelty - THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960 | 59 OF 1960 |
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibits any person from inflicting, causing, or if it is the owner, permitting, unnecessary pain or suffering to be inflicted on any animal. The Act makes it a crime to beat, kick, torture, mutilate, administer an injurious substance, or cruelly kill an animal. It is also illegal to over-ride, over-drive, over-load, or work an unfit animal. It is an offense to cruelly transport, confine, chain or tether an animal. It is a violation to engage in animal fighting or shooting competitions in which animals are released from captivity to be shot. An owner commits an offense if he or she fails to provide sufficient food, drink or shelter, unreasonably abandons any animal, or permits any diseased or disabled animal to roam or die in any street.
|
Statute |
| IN - Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 | Act. No. 52 of 1972 |
India's Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 is a comprehensive piece of legislation that regulates sanctuaries, national parks, and zoos among other protected locations. Its primary aim is to curb the illegal trade in wildlife and the derivative parts. |
Statute |
| IN - Wildlife - THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 | THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002, No. 16 of 2003 |
This law comprises India's Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002. According to the amended long title, it is "An Act to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. " The Amendment Act also establishes the National Board for Wild Life. |
Statute |
| Karnail Singh and others v. State of Haryana | CRR-533-2013 High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh | The fact of the case arose in 2004 and related the transportation of cows from one province to another in violation of restrictions on the export of cows for meat slaughter. An opinion on that case was given in 2013, then a revised petition was submitted to this court, and several years later this opinion was given. Much of the 100 pages did not deal with the events of the case, but with the jurisprudence of animal rights. The ultimate holding of the judge directed a state agency to enforce a number of very specific standards for the transportation of animals. The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared, in this exceptional judgment, that animals and birds have legal rights, just as humans. It further declared citizens as the “guardians of [the] animal kingdom” with a duty to ensure their welfare and protection. Justice Rajiv Sharma, in his order, said, “All the animals have honour and dignity. Every specie[s] has an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by law. The rights and privacy of animals are to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks. The Corporations, Hindu idols, holy scriptures, rivers have been declared legal entities, and thus, in order to protect and promote greater welfare of animals including avian and aquatic, animals are required to be conferred with the status of legal entity/legal person. The animals should be healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour without pain, fear and distress. They are entitled to justice. The animals cannot be treated as objects or property.” | Case |