In India, it is common to see crudely castrated bulls pulling carts full of huge loads and being always whipped when they rest on their way. People were peeling stones at dogs and cats out of fun and how to forget, all the ‘taming’ contests, battles, and cart races where animals like bulls, cows, and hens are handled as if they were just animated objects. In this world of progress and growth, people are increasingly losing their ethos and their values not only towards each other but also towards these poor animals.
Table of Contents
Cases of brutality and inhumanity against animals are on the rise, and what has been done to stop them? Several laws in India have been put in place to protect and deter cruelty to animals, but very few are aware of what they are and how they operate. As it has been rightly said by Abraham Lincoln, “I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being”. But in India, many don’t feel precisely the same way.
To put an end to animal cruelty, the Central Government has passed a range of laws, the most commendable of which is the Act on the “Prevention of Cruelty Animals, 1960”. Apart from that, there is also the “Wildlife Protection Act, 1972,” which was developed for the protection of animal species and plants.
The Prevention Of Animal Cruelty Act, 1960
The Cruelty to Animals Law, 1960 strictly prohibits everyone from inflicting, causing, or, if he or she is the owner, allows any animal to receive unnecessary pain or suffering. It is a crime of killing, kicking, torturing, mutilating, administering, or cruel killing an animal. It is also illegal for an unfit animal to be overdriven, overdriven, or overloaded. It is an offense to carry, contain, or chain an animal cruelly. It is a violation to compete or shoot animals in which animals are released from prison for the shooting. If an owner fails to provide enough food, drink, or shelter, leaves an animal unreasonably, or allows any diseased or disabled animal to roam or to die on any road, the owner is guilty of an offence.
Cruel Treatment Of Animals: A Criminal Offence
In any of the ways defined as the Cruelty Animals Act of 1960, where the animal is tortured, or any cruel act is performed, the offender is liable to bear the fine that could extend to Rs 50 and where this occurs within three years of the earlier offence. The offender shall receive a fine not less than Rs 25 but can extend to Rs 100 or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with both. If an animal is tortured or crucified if the offender has a vehicle, the vehicle will be confiscated, and the person will not be allowed to keep an animal in life again in the case of a twofold incident.
The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
This Act is for the safety of wild animals and fowls, and the interests of creatures can be defended by arrangements and there shall be strict disapproval for any damage to creatures under Section 39 of the Wildlife Protection Act, and penalties are referred to in Section 51 of the Law. The ban on keeping an Indian bird under the Act is also in place. If anyone wants to keep a permissible feathered creature, they must fully agree to Article 11 of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act of 1956. Section 50 of the 1972 Wildlife Protection Act provides cops with a right to arrest any person without a warrant. Monkeys cannot be shown or owned and are also guaranteed by the Wildlife Protection Act.
There are various issues concerning animal cruelty in India. They are as follows:
- Cosmetic tests: In brutal, cold blood tests that attempt to check for the hazardous impacts of customer items and fixtures, a large number of creatures are now and then being damaged and killed. Different characteristics, such as mice, pigs, rabbits, and various animals, are forced to breathe a large amount of the test substance to calculate their lethal impact. Indeed, there is a continuation of such cold-hearted practice, even after it was established that tests of creatures are unequipped to anticipate the effects of human skin, body, and accessibility of test methods without the use of animals. However, to help the beasts and the common-sense activists of every living creature, the center has received the principles which force the testing of beautifiers on the creature to become a national prohibition. The boycott occurred after the Bureau of the Indian Standard updated its regulations. In any case, the law has many areas where there are many escape clauses, such as boycott, because importing creatures tested is currently legally binding because the requirement for law also disallows the transaction and importation of things tested by creatures is legally binding.
- Animals kept in battery cages: India is the third-largest producer of eggs and approximately 70% of the eggs come from corporate poultry farms. Section 11(e) discusses in particular the space a creature should receive, but the boxes are extremely congested and do not enable the privilege of developing creatures, so the show is unmistakably negated.
A pit bull was recently found dead in Tampa, chained into a post in a shut-down house. A puppy had been burned alive in Sacramento. Dozens of men, women, and children in America are simultaneously victims of violent crimes. The links between torturers and murderers of animals and perpetrators of violent crimes against people must be taken very closely.
These are terrible examples. Jeffrey Dahmer did a mass murder where he cut off cats and dogs spearing them on sticks; Albert DeSalvo known as the ‘Boston Strangler’ and the trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through a box. While these stories are anecdotal about well-known serial killers, scientific research has shown that animal torture and human cruelty are directly connected.
Local law enforcement cannot always give top priority to incidents of animal cruelty with their limited resources. However, if we look at the link between animal crime and human violence, we would perhaps concentrate more on those who abuse livestock to prevent them from escalating into crimes against people.
As per the Humane Society of the United States, researchers found that 71 to 83% of women entering households with violence reported that their partners have abused or killed a family pet, according to the Humane Society of the United States. 1) An additional study shows that pet abuse occurs in 88 percent of families in families that are supervised for their children’s physical abuse. 2) All boys involved had previously committed acts of animal cruelty in seven school shootings that took place across the country between 1997 and 2001.
Due to this increasing evidence of connections between animal violence and violent crime, those who misuse animals in states with cross-border laws requiring these professionals to report animal abuse are now on the radar of law enforcement agencies, social workers, and veterinarians.
In the case of young children and animal abuse, early intervention can stop these tendencies before it increases and includes violence against persons. The National School Safety Council of the United States Education Department, the American Psychological Association, and the National Crime Prevention Council now all agree that animal cruelty is a warning to risky young people.
Landmark Judgements: Animal Welfare
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Union of India & Ors
In 2006, the High Court of Bombay  passed an important ruling stating that any film intended for public viewing in which an animal is used and/or filmed must obtain a certificate from the Indian Animal Welfare Board stating that the provisions of the 2001 Performing Animals (Registration) Rules have been duly complied with. This ruling protects animals from being exploited or ill-treated during the film-making period, which may last several hours.
Shri. Ajay Madhusudan Marathe v. New Sarvodaya CHS Ltd.
The Consumer Court  ruled in favour of a resident who complained that the co-op society in which he resided had passed a resolution prohibiting the use of lifts by dogs. The society passed this resolution on the basis that the dog was not a consumer and that its use of the lift could lead to the spread of diseases and could therefore be prevented from using the facilities of the company. To this end, the Court held that the owner, being a member of the Co-op Housing society was a consumer and therefore well within his rights to bring his complaint to the Consumer Court.
Ozair Hussain v. Union of India
Taking into account the freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and Article 10(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the High Court of Delhi stated that the packaging of products, including food, drugs (except those that are life-saving) and cosmetics, must contain information on vegetarian or non-vegetarian items. Any article of food containing whole or part of an animal, but not including milk or milk products as an ingredient, shall be marked by a brown circle within a square contour. Likewise, all vegetarian foods must be identified by the presence of a green circle within a green square contour. The rationale behind this judgement was that the freedom of expression of the citizen also extended to his or her food choices and, therefore, that ruling would allow citizens to make informed choices about the products they consume.
Nair, N.R. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The High Court of Kerala has stated the notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forest that bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions may not be exhibited or trained as performing animals. When the notification was challenged in the Supreme Court, the court ruled that the animals suffered cruelty as they were abused and caged in order to make them perform, and that, therefore, contravened the PCA Act, 1960. It also rejected the argument that the right of the petitioner to engage in any trade or business pursuant to Article 19(g) of the Indian Constitution had been violated as it would not have allowed such activities to cause pain and suffering to the animals referred to above.
Role of Citizens
First of all, any animal abuse should be reported to local law enforcement authorities, which should prioritize arrests in such cases. In its animal cruelty legislation, only 28 states currently have provisions for counseling. Any person convicted of animal cruelty, with particular emphasis on helping children who abused animals, should be required to provide psychological advice. This is necessary for both their own and community welfare.
Animal welfare organizations should come together to provide significant benefits for information that leads to the arrest, conviction, and effort to push this story through local media. In cases across the country, the Humane Society of the US offers rewards, often in partnership with other organizations. Not only should prosecutors’ request time from prison, but it should also insist that those convicted of animal cruelty should have psychological advice. The law-enforcement authorities should question suspects in violent crimes regarding any animal abuse in their previous years.
It’s a grave problem. It is also one, only if left unchecked, that will get worse. The public should ask for persecution in the widest possible measure of law of anyone abusing an animal. It’s not a matter of animal rights. It is a way of identifying and helping people who might one day be a danger to the whole community.
If the disciplinarians for such offenses can be tightened, the government has an imperative capacity to do so, and then the public will try to do well and will not kill blameless animals in wisdom.
In 2011, it was felt necessary to change the old law to avoid crude animals and renamed the Indian Animal Welfare Act. Despite such numerous laws, the drive is only to come when people work with the common-sense bodies and associations of every living creature to promote the pitiable condition of creatures. Also, the framework can be modified by legislative and non-governmental organizations.
The Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty, an NGO which can function independently without any impedance from the State, is also recommended to strengthen the framework. Because there is no such board in many countries and that one has not been complied with over a considerable period, there is also a need to ensure that the State Animal Welfare Board is operating correctly.
Those few modifications by different meetings and partners could change the situation of animals in India, and there would be no misery of any kind in our public.
 W.P.(C) No. 23480/2005.
 First Appeal No. 676/2009.
 AIR 2003 Delhi 103.
 AIR 2000 Ker 340.
BY- RUPAL SRIVASTAVA | BANASTHALI VIDHYAPITH, RAJASTHAN