A2, #1

NLSAPPC ANIMAL PROTECTION PIL COMPETITION (SNHP-IV) 2020

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION: _______\2019

[UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER OF

……………………………….………….PETITIONERS

V.

UNION OF INDIA………………………………………….…..RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

i|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

STATEMENT OF FACT ..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

MEASURES AT ISSUE ................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

LEGAL PLEADINGS……………………...……………………………………………… Error!

Bookmark not defined.

ii | P a g e
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

§ Section

& And

Art. Article

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Ors. Others

Ch. Chapter

SCR Supreme Court Report

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Report

UOI Union Of India

UP Uttar Pradesh

Guj. Gujrat

Ltd. Limited

v. Versus

PCA Protection of Cruelty to Animals

iii | P a g e
 T.N Tamil Nadu

Ibid In the same place

Supra Above

S/d Signed

iv | P a g e
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India ......................................................................................... 24

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja &Ors ................................................................................ 22

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors ....................................................................................... 19

Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi..................................................................... 16

Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund India v .Union of India ................................................ 24

Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of U. P............................................................................................................... 13

Ex parte Side botham .................................................................................................................................. 12

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v. Union of India and Ors ...................................................................... 17

Kochunni v. State of Madras ...................................................................................................................... 12

M C Mehta vs. Union of India ................................................................................................................... 18

Muhammad bhai Jlalbhai Serasiya v.State of Gujarat ................................................................................ 21

Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation ............................................................................... 18

People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. v. Union of India ............................................................... 19

S. Kannan v. Commissioner of Police ........................................................................................................ 21

S.P. Gupta vs President of India And Ors ................................................................................................... 12

Shanti Star Builders vs. Narayan Totame ................................................................................................... 17

Shri D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal ...................................................................................................... 11

Smt. Ujjam Bai v.State of U.P ................................................................................................................... 18

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Ja ................................................................................ 23

Subhash Kumar vs. State. of Bihar ............................................................................................................. 17

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India ................................................................................... 19

Vishaka&Ors v. State of Rajasthan............................................................................................................. 11

Statutes
Constitution of India, 1949 ......................................................................................................................... 11

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960............................................................................................... 20

Other Authorities

v|Page
Law Commission of India, Report no. 269, Transportation and House-keeping of Egg-laying hens (layers)
and broiler chickens, 2017. ..................................................................................................................... 20

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ANIMAL PRODUCT PROCESSING INDUSTRIES. ... 14

vi | P a g e
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Petitioner has approached this
Hon’ble court under Art. 32 of Constitution of India on the grounds of violation of fundamental
right by poultry farming and cruelty exercised on broiler and layer chickens by this farming.

vii | P a g e
 FACTS OF THE CASE

The material case is regarding negative environmental impact caused due to poultry farming
which leads to plethora of health problems in both farm workers and residents in the area and
cruelty on broiler and layer chickens due to practices involved in this farming.

Production of eggs and meat

India is the third largest producer of eggs and sixth largest producer of chicken meat.

Practices involved in this farming

Both varieties of chicken broiler and layer are housed in small spaces due to which waste
disposal is extremely difficult.

Environmental impact

Poultry production is associated which several of environment pollutants like ammonia,

antibiotics and nutrients. This farm also deteriorates the quality of soil and groundwater. It also
generates unpleasant odour and it is also leads to acidification and eutrophication.

Health impact

The negative environmental impact leads to various health hazards to both the farmer workers as
well as the residents of those areas.

viii | P a g e
 ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?

II. WHETHER THE POULTRY FARMING IS LIABLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

DEGRADATION AND BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

III. WHETHER THE POULTRY PRODUCTION IS LIABLE FOR CRUELTY ON

THE FARM ANIMALS?

ix | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?

The petitioners humbly submit before this hon’ble court that the PIL is maintainable under Art
32 of Constitution of India. The petitioners have locus standi and the petitioners are acting with
bona fide intention.

II. WHETHER THE POULTRY FARMING IS LIABLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

DEGRADATION AND BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

The petitioners humbly submit before this hon’ble court: That environmental degradation has
been caused due to poultry farming.That right to life of people living in that area and of farm
workers. That the authorities have failed to take required actions and the defendants are liable to
pay compensation according to “polluter pays principle.”

III. WHETHER THE POULTRY PRODUCTION IS LIABLE FOR CRUELTY ON

THE FARM ANIMALS?

The petitioners humbly submit before this hon’ble court: That practices involved in this poultry

farming is cruel in nature for these farm animals. That the right to life of farm animals has been

infringed. That duty enshrined under constitution is not complied and that there should be

promotion of animal welfare.

x|Page
xi | P a g e
xii | P a g e
xiii | P a g e
 PLEADINGS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?

The petitioners humbly submit before this hon’ble court: That the PIL is maintainable under Art
321. (1.1). That the petitioners have locus standi (1.2). That the petitioners have bona fide
interest. (1.3)

1.1.THAT THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ART 32.

The rights which are guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution are essential for all-round
development of an individual and to preserve human dignity. These rights not only protect but
also prevent grave violation of human rights.
Fundamental Rights occupy a place of pride in the Indian Constitution.”2
In the landmark case of Vishaka&Ors v. State of Rajasthan3 it was held that: “The obligation of
this court under Art 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of these fundamental rights in the
absence of legislation must be viewed along with role ofJudiciary envisage in the Beijing
Statement of Principles of Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region. The objectives
of judiciary mentioned in the Beijing Statements are:
1.1 To ensure that all persons are able to live securely under the rule of law.
1.2 To promote, within the proper limits of the judicial function, the observance and
attainment of human rights; and
1.3 To administer the law impartially among persons and between persons and the state.”

1
Art 32 of Constitution of India, 1949
2
Shri D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal,(1997) 1SCC 416
3
Vishaka&Ors v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241

1|Page
It was held in the case of Kochunni v. State of Madras4 that: “The right to move before this court
under Art 32, when a fundamental right has been breached, is a substantive fundamental right by
itself.”

In the instant case the petitioners has approached the court as fundamental right of public at large
has been breached.

1.2.THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI.

“Locus Standi” means the right of any party to appear before the court or to bring an action
before it.This traditional rule of locus standi states that judicial redress is available only to a
person who has suffered a legal injury due to violation of his legal right. This means only a
person aggrieved can approach the court.

The definition of “person aggrieved” given by Lord James L.J in the cases of Sidebotham5:
“Who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced
which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or
wrongfully affected his title to something”

“Restrictive rules about standing are in general inimical to a healthy system of administrative
law. If a plaintiff with a good case is turned away, merely because he is not sufficiently affected
personally, that means that some government agency is left free to violate the law, and that is
contrary to the public interest.”6

In the cases of S.P. UOI7, the court held that: “Any member of public having sufficient interest
can claim for an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty
or for violation of some provisions of the constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such
public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision.”

4
Kochunni v. State of Madras, 1959(2) Supp. SCR 361
5
Ex parteSidebotham, (1980)14 Ch D 458
6
S.P. Gupta vs President of India And Ors, AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365
7
Ibid

2|Page
The court held in the case of Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of U. P.8, that:“But it must now be
regarded as well settled law where a person who has suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury or
whose legal right or legally protected interest is violated, is unable to approach the Court on
account of some disability or it is not practicable for him to move the Court for some other
sufficient reasons, such as his socially or economically disadvantaged position, some other
person can invoke assistance of the Court for the purpose of providing judicial redress to the
person wronged or injured, so that the legal wrong or injury caused to such person does not go
un-redressed and justice is done to him.”

The rule of locus standi has been relaxed in order to provide justice to people who are unable to
approach the court due to some disability. The court has also decided the matters of great public
importance and has passed orders under its PIL jurisdiction under Art. 32.

In the instant case poultry farming is not only leading to plethora of health problems in both farm
workers and residents in the area, but also having several negative environmental impacts.9 This
is matter related to substantial public interest. Thus, the PIL filed by the petitioners is
maintainable in the hon’ble court.

1.3.THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE BONA FIDE INTEREST.

“Bona Fide” means in good faith. In the landmark case of S.P. Gupta v. UOI10, it was held that:
“But we must hasten to make it clear that the individual who moves to the court for judicial
redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of
justice….”

It was also held that: “—litigation undertaken for the purpose of redressing public injury,
enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests or vindicating
public interest, any citizen who is acting bona fide and who has sufficient interest has to be
accorded standing.”

8
Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of U. P.1982 (1) SCALE 502 a, (1983) 2 SCC 308
9
As per the facts
10
Supra note no. 6

3|Page
In the instant cases the petitioners are acting with bona fide intention. There is a grave public
injury due to this poultry farming, asnot only the residents of the area but also the farm workers
suffer from various health problems.11 Thus, the PIL is maintainable in this hon’ble court.

II.WHETHER THE POULTRY FARMING IS LIABLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

DEGRADATION AND BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

The petitioners humbly submit before this hon’ble court: That environmental degradation has
been caused due to poultry farming (2.1). That right to life of people living in that area and of
farm workers (2.2). That there has been public injury and the aggrieved are liable to get
compensation according to “polluter pays principle.” (2.3)

2.1.THAT ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION HAS BEEN CAUSED DUE TO

POULTRY FARMING.

"Environment" to include "water, air and land and the inter- relationship which exists among
and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-
organism and property."12

Poultry slaughterhouses release large amounts of waste into the environment, polluting land and
surface waters as well as posing a serious human-health risk13. The discharge of biodegradable
organic compounds may cause a strong reduction of the amount of dissolved oxygen in surface
waters, which in turn may lead to reduced levels of activity or even death of aquatic life 14.

11
As per the facts

12
Anon, (2019). [online] Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228128247_Coalbed_Methane_Development_and_Environmental_Sustain
ability_in_Alberta [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019]

13
Fao.org. (2019). [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/brief_notes/BNlivest-
enviro10.pdf [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019].

14
Fao.org. (2019). 1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ANIMAL PRODUCT PROCESSING
INDUSTRIES. [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/X6114E/x6114e03.htm [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019].

4|Page
Macronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) may cause eutrophication of the affected water bodies15.
Excessive algal growth and subsequent dying off and mineralization of these algae may lead to
the death of aquatic life because of oxygen depletion16.

With a combination of industry specific association and commodity specific export promotion
boards, financial and environmental issues are also discussed. A sample picture of these inter-
linkage:

15
Macronutrients.net. (2019). Nutrient | MacroNutrients | MicroNutrients | Macro Nutrients | Micro Nutrients.
[online] Available at: https://www.macronutrients.net/nutrient/ [Accessed 16 Dec. 2019].

16
Supra note no. 13

5|Page
PATHWAY OF BROILER MANUAL AND DEAD BIRDS

2.2.THAT RIGHT TO LIFE OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT AREA AND OF FARM

WORKERS.

“No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except procedure established by law.”17

In the case of Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi18, it was held that:
“The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching.
Right to live in clean environment comes under the ambit of right to life and this has been
reiterated in various international and national statutes and case laws.

In the case of Shanti Star Builders vs. Narayan Totame19, the court held that:“Right to life is
guaranteed in a civilized society would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to

17
Article 21, The Constitution of India 1950

18
Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi (1959) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 528,

6|Page
clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in”.
In the case ofSubhash Kumar vs. State. of Bihar20, the court held that:“Right to life is a
fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution and it include the right to enjoyment of
pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that
quality of life in derogation of laws a citizen has recourse to Art.32 of the Constitution for
removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to life.”
“Human rights cannot be secured in a degraded or polluted environment. The fundamental right
to life threatened by soil degradation and deforestation…….Environment conditions clearly help
to determine the extent to which people enjoy their basic right to life, health…….It is time to
recognize that those who pollute or destroy the natural environment are not just committing a
crime against nature, but are violating human rights as well.”21

As in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v. Union of India and Ors22, the writ petition
was filed in order bring end to the woes of people living in the vicinity of chemical industrial
plants in India. In the instant case the writ petition is filed in order to end plight of farm workers
and residents in the area.

2.3.THAT THERE HAS BEEN PUBLIC INJURY AND THE AGGRIEVED ARE
LIABLE TO GET COMPENSATION ACCORDING TO “POLLUTER PAYS
PRINCIPLE.”

In the case of S.P. Gupta vs President of India and Ors23, it was held that: “…In cases of this kind
it would not be possible to say that any specific legal injury is caused to an individual or to a
determinate class or group of individuals. What results in such cases is public injury and it is

19
Shanti Star Builders vs. Narayan Totame (1990) 1 SCC 520

20
Subhash Kumar vs. State. of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598

21
The statement by Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme 57th Session
of the Commission on Human Rights 2001

22
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v. Union of India and Ors.22 1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212
23
AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365

7|Page
one of the characteristics of public injury that the act or acts complained of cannot necessarily
be shown to affect the rights of determinate or identifiable class or group of persons: public
injury is an injury to an indeterminate class of persons.”

It was also held that:

“Now if breach of such public duty were allowed to go un-redressed because there is no one who
has received a specific legal injury or who was entitled to participate in the proceedings
pertaining to the decision relating to such public duty, the failure to perform such public duty
would go unchecked and it would promote disrespect for the rule of law.”

In the case of Smt. Ujjam Bai v.State of U.P24, it was held that:
“The Constitution is not only the paramount law of the land but, it is the source and sustenance
of all laws. Itsprovisions are conceived in public interest and are intended to serve a public
purpose.”
In the case of Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation25, it was held that:
“Fundamental rights are undoubtedly conferred by the Constitution upon individuals which have
to be asserted and en forced by them, if those rights are violated. But, the high purpose which the
Constitution seeks to achieve by conferment of fundamental rights is not only to benefit
individuals but to secure the larger interests of the community.”
In the instant case public injury is caused and right to live in clean environment has been
infringed.

In the Oleum Gas Leak Case26, it was held that:“The question of liability of the respondents to
defray the costs of remedial measures can also be looked into from another angle, which has
now come to be accepted universally as a sound principle, viz., the "Polluter Pays" Principle.”

"The polluter pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage
caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the
goods which cause the pollution.”

24
Smt. Ujjam Bai v.State of U.P [1963] 1S.C.R. 778

25
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
26
M C Mehta vs. Union of India AIR 1987 SCR (1) 819

8|Page
In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors27, S.P. Gupta v. Union of
India28and People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. v. Union of India29, it was held that:

“The power of the Court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to award
compensation in appropriate cases. The infringement of the fundamental right must be gross and
patent, that is incontrovertible and ex-facie glaring and either such infringement should be on a
large scale affecting the fundamental rights of a large number of persons.”

In the case ofVellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India30, the court held
that:“Industries are vital for the country's development, but having regard to pollution caused by
them, principle of 'Sustainable Development' has to be adopted as the balancing concept.
'Precautionary Principle' and 'Polluter Pays Principle' has been accepted as a part of the law of
the country.”
“The Polluter Pays Principle means that absolute liability of harm to the environment extends
not only to compensate the victims of pollution, but also to the cost of restoring environment
degradation.”31
In the instant case the polluter is liable for infringement of right to life of residents living near
farm and workers of farms. They are also liable to pay for polluting the environment.

III.WHETHER THE POULTRY PRODUCTION IS LIABLE FOR CRUELTY ON THE

FARM ANIMALS?

27
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors, [1984] 2SCR 67

28
Supra note no. 6

People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. v. Union of India, 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456
29

30
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715

31
Supra note no. 22

9|Page
The petitioners humbly submit before this hon’ble court: That practices involved in this poultry
farming is cruel in nature for these farm animals. (3.1) That the right to life of farm animals has
been infringed. (3.2) That duty enshrined under constitution is not complied. (3.3) That there
should be promotion of animal welfare. (3.4)

3.1.THAT PRACTICES INVOLVED IN THIS POULTRY FARMING IS CRUEL IN

NATURE FOR THESE FARM ANIMALS.

“keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure
sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal are reasonable opportunity for
movement.”32

“The hens used for the production of eggs in the egg industry are reared in small, barren wire
cages called ―battery cages, a name given due to the arrangement of cages placed side by side.
The battery cages are so small that the animals are unable to stand up straight or spread their
wings without touching the sides of the cage or other hens or turning in a complete circle
without any impediment. The floor space available to each hen is approximately 623.7 cm2
which is almost the area of a sheet of A4 size paper. The most common cages hold 5-10 birds. A
typical egg farm in our country contains thousands of cages with tens of thousands of birds,
stacked multiple tiers high, lined in multiple rows.33 Also keeping these hens in such small and
confined spaces is a violation of their rights.34”

"Sufficient space should be allowed for the housing of each egg laying hen to permit the bird to
spread its wings, stand up straight, turn round without touching another bird or the side of the
cage. The bird must have access to nest box."35 Also, the extremely high prevalence of dangerous

32
§ 11 (e) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
33
Law Commission of India, Report no. 269, Transportation and House-keeping of Egg-laying hens (layers) and
broiler chickens, 2017.

Also see Poultry LawSpca| Animal Welfare | Poultry Farming. [online] Available at:
https://www.scribd.com/document/357777556/Poultry-Law-Space
34
§ 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
35
Law Commission of India, Report no. 269, Transportation and House-keeping of Egg-laying hens (layers) and
broiler chickens, 2017.

10 | P a g e
contaminants in chicken flesh is largely from the filthy conditions in the sheds where the birds
are raised.36”

In the instant casethe broiler and layer chickens are housed in incredibly small areas that make
waste disposal extremely difficult. Thus, these farm animals are not provided with sufficient
space for housing which amounts to cruelty under Sec. 11 (e) of the PCA.

It was held in the case of Animal Welfare Board Of India v. A. Nagaraja&Ors, that: “has any
historical, cultural or religious significance, either in the State of Tamil Nadu or in the State of
Maharashtra and, even assuming so, the welfare legislation like PCA Act would supersede the
same, being a Parliamentary legislation.”

In the case of S. Kannanv. Commissioner of Police37, it was held that: “protection shall be
granted to all kind of birds including poultry against cruelty in any manner, observing ―the
birds and animals are entitled to co-exist along with human beings.

In the case of MuhammadbhaiJlalbhaiSerasiyav.State of Gujarat38, it was held that:“to keep birds

in cages would tantamount to illegal confinement of the birds which is in violation of right of the
birds to live in free air / sky.”

It is evident that the two types of chickens39 are housed in incredibly small spaces that make
waste disposal extremely difficult and hence their freedom of movement is grossly hampered.

3.2.THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF FARM ANIMALS HAS BEEN INFRINGED.

Also see: https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/peta-india-eyewitness-footage-shows-chickens-are-

kept-in-crowded-cages-mutilated-in-ap-telangana-118100400716_1.html
36
Law Commission of India, Report no. 269, Transportation and House-keeping of Egg-laying hens (layers) and
broiler chickens, 2017.

Also see: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/chickens/chicken-industry/

37
WP (MD) No. 8040 of 2014
38
2015 JX (Guj)378:2014

39
As per the facts

11 | P a g e
 “No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except procedure established by
law.”40
While arriving at the meaning and concept of right to life under art 21 the attempt should always
be to expand the ambit rather than to attenuate its meaning.

In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja&Ors41(JallikattuCase), it was held

that: “The extended protection of right to life, was to allow all species a set of rights according to
international standards. It was observed in the case that ―animal has also honour and dignity
which cannot be arbitrarily deprived of and its rights and privacy have to be respected and
protected from unlawful attacks.”
Jeremy Bentham, argued that ability to suffer rather than the ability to reason should inform the
way law treats animal. In his words:“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation
may acquire those rights which never could have been withheld from them but by the hand of
tyranny. ... The question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?”42
In the instant case confinement of in incredibly small areas infringes their right to life.

3.3.THAT DUTY ENSHRINED UNDER CONSTITUTION IS NOT COMPLIED.

“To protect and improve the natural environment including forests lakes, rivers and wild life,
and to have compassion for living creatures.”43

“It shall be the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take reasonable
measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal
of unnecessary pain or suffering.”44

40
Article 21, The Constitution of India 1950

41
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja &OrsCivil appeal no. 5387 of 2014
42
See P. Singer, Animal liberation( Thorsons Publishers Ltd, 1975).

43
Art 51A(g), The Constitution of India

44
§3 of PCA

12 | P a g e
In the case of State of Gujarat v.Mirzapur Moti KureshiKassabJamat&Ors45,held that:“By
enacting Art 51A(g) and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to
be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Art 48 and 48A are
honoured as a fundamental duty by every citizen. Art 51A(g), therefore, enjoins that it is a
fundamental duty of every citizen ―to have compassion for living creatures, which means
concern for suffering, sympathy, kindliness etc., which has to be read along with sec 3.”

3.4.THAT THERE SHOULD BE PROMOTION OF ANIMAL WELFARE.

World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) defines Animal welfare as:
Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is
in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well
nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and is not suffering from unpleasant states
such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary
treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter
or killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal received
is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment.46
Five Freedoms, published in 1965 to promote the right to welfare of animals under human
control. According to this concept, an animal’s primary welfare needs can be met by providing:47
 Freedom from hunger, malnutrition and thirst;
 Freedom from fear and distress;
 Freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;
 Freedom from pain, injury and disease; and
 Freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour

45
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors20(2005) 8 SCC 534
46
World Organization for Animal Health, Animal Welfare. http://www.oie.int/en/animalwelfare/ animal-welfare-at-
a-glance/
47
Ibid

13 | P a g e
These five fundamental rights have been affirmed in A. Nagaraj case.48 The Court has reiterated
them in T. N. GodavarmanThirumulpad v.Union of India49; and Centre for Environmental Law
World Wide Fund India v.Union of India.50

48
Supra note no. 39

49
I.A. Nos. 1424-1425 of 2005 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

50
Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund India v .Union of India(2011) 14 SCC 816

14 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel
on the behalf of petitioner humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court to kindly adjudge and declare
that:

 The PIL is maintainable.

 A writ of mandamus shall be issued to stop cruelty on animals, infringement of right to

life of both animals and people and to comply with laws.

 Order and direct them to take corrective measures to restore the degraded environment.

 Award compensatory damages to the victims.

 The welfare of animals to be promoted.

And any other relief which this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant in the interest of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner is duty bound and shall pray forever.

All of which is respectfully submitted

S/d _______________________

(Counsel on the behalf of Petitioner)

15 | P a g e