SHILLONG, AUG 2: The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday asked the State to indicate the measures taken for setting up of local bodies pertaining to the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 in the state.
“The State will indicate the measures taken for setting up local bodies in terms of the said Rules of 2017,” the Division Bench said in its order after hearing a PIL filed by one Bakul Narzary on the matter.
The order said the entire object and purpose of the present exercise appears to be for animals which are culled for their meat to be treated more ethically; for the wanton display of animal carcases to be avoided and for a more hygienic and caring attitude to be taken to the animals.
“Despite the State lagging behind in several other fields, considering the natural beauty that the State has been bestowed with, the State may consider being the model in the country as regards ethical treatment of animals is concerned. If it appeals to the State, appropriate measures ought to be taken, not only to comply with the said Rules of 2017 but also to generally inculcate a culture of better treatment of animals, even if such animals are bred to be culled,” it said.
The petitioner, who has instituted this matter in public interest, draws the attention of the Court to Rule 8 of the said Rules of 2017 : “8. Additional precaution to be taken regarding animal markets in border area .–The District Animal Market Monitoring Committee shall take steps to ensure that no animal market is organised in a place which is situated within twenty – five kilometers from any State border or which is situated within fifty kilometers from any international border.”
At the outset, the State takes a few preliminary objections. According to the State, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing of the remedy before the relevant district animal market monitoring committee or even making a representation to such committee.
The State claimed that the petition is incomplete or defective in the absence of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change being impleaded.
The third preliminary ground canvassed by the State is that Rule 8 of the said Rules would have retrospective operation and may not apply to animal markets already in place.
The bench however said, “As far as the first objection is concerned, there does not appear to be any effective mechanism in place. There is, however, no doubt that a notice could have been issued to such committee before instituting the petition. But the facts indicated in the petition are so notorious and undeniable that the making of a representation may have been an idle formality in this case.”
By Our Reporter
+ There are no comments
Add yours