Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3. Central to the Petitioner's argument is reliance upon Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 [henceforth "PCA Act"] and the rules framed under its purview, governing animal experimentation. The Petitioner highlights that the Central Government, in February 1991, set up the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals [hereinafter "the CPCSEA"] under Section 15(1) of the PCA Act.

Establishments were found to be in gross violation: veterinarians overlooked basic treatment standards, bleeding procedures were conducted in open sheds against the CPCSEA's guidelines, and improperly sized metallic cannulas were used, leading to open wounds on the animals. Despite receiving directives from the CPCSEA to halt their bleeding operations, four of these establishments continued their practices unabated. Recognizing the gravity of these infractions, on 18th January, 2002, the Supreme Court empowered the CPCSEA and Central Government to take action against these violators. The issue reached a resolution on 23rd September, 2002, with the Supreme Court acknowledging the CPCSEA's efforts against the erring establishments. The Court, in its final remarks, entrusted the Ministry of Environment and Forests with the ongoing responsibility of vigilance and enforcement in such matters. Recognizing the need for further clarity, the CPCSEA Protocol underwent an amendment in 2005. This revision introduced age specifications for equines. Interestingly, while it set clear guidelines on the age of equines and the bleeding schedule, it also removed the prior stipulation that prohibited retaining any animal beyond three years. Additionally, the amendment clearly defined the permissible amount of blood that could be drawn from the animals. In a subsequent chapter of this unfolding narrative, the Animal Welfare Board of India [hereinafter "the AWBI"] - a statutory body birthed by Section 4 of the PCA Act - initiated a comprehensive examination in 2015. Their goal was clear: inspect nine establishments, known for their involvement in the production of antibody and anti-snake venom derived from horses within India. This endeavour was spurred by a desire to gauge both the mental and physical well-being of equines in these establishments and scrutinize the standards of their housing, upkeep, and overall maintenance. What transpired during these inspections, carried out between July and September of that year, was deeply unsettling. They unveiled stark transgressions of both the CPCSEA Protocol and the PCA Act. These observations were meticulously documented and subsequently presented to the CPCSEA in December 2015, [collectively referred to as "AWBI Inspection Report(s)"]. A detailed exposition of the findings from this report has been encapsulated in paragraph 27 of the current petition:

2.10. Later in 2018, acting on their concern for the welfare of these equines, the Petitioner embarked on a personal, eyewitness investigation. Focusing on the conditions at the premises of Respondent No. 11, the findings were disheartening, revealing deplorable living conditions for the equines. The Petitioner promptly communicated the results of this investigation to the government and all members of the CPCSEA. Disappointingly, their efforts were met with silence, as no response or acknowledgment was forthcoming. 2.11. Set against the backdrop of these revelations, the Petitioner articulates a strong contention. Primarily, the repeated bleeding of equines for the purpose of antibody product development unequivocally qualifies as cruelty under the provisions of the PCA Act. Moreover, it's evident that a significant number of establishments have failed to adhere to the stipulated CPCSEA Protocol and the mandates of the 2006 Rules. Such negligence is not just a breach of legal and regulatory obligations but also culminates in the production of medical products of inferior quality. These substandard products have been known to trigger adverse reactions in humans. 2.12. Additionally, the Petitioner emphasizes the availability of non-animal biotechnological alternatives, both domestically and internationally. These alternatives not only exhibit superior efficacy but also significantly reduce the instances of adverse effects. In light of these considerations, the Petitioner urges the adoption of such advanced methods. Doing so would not only promote better health outcomes, but would also prevent blatant transgressions against animal rights, as enshrined in the Constitution of India and detailed in the PCA Act. The Petitioner's plea to the Court is encapsulated in the following reliefs:

3. We have carefully evaluated the submissions advanced by the counsel for both sides. In any democratic polity, the bedrock of its foundation is the equitable and just treatment of its constituents. This includes not only human beings, but also the environment they inhabit and the diverse species within the animal kingdom. Our Constitution, while conferring rights on individuals, also emphasizes duties towards animals, as can be discerned from the Directive Principles of State Policy. Cruelty to animals not only disregards these principles but also challenges our moral fabric. The PCA Act was constituted with a primary objective to prevent unnecessary suffering of animals. This Act, along with its subsequent amendments and rules, underscores the state's responsibility to ensure the welfare of animals. Thus the immediate question that beckons our consideration is whether the current practices of establishments, as claimed by the Petitioner, indeed amount to cruelty under the PCA Act. Further, we must also examine if there is merit in Petitioner's contention regarding tangible dissonance between legislative intent and its manifestation on the ground.