Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)
S.G.M.Shaa @ Sheik Mohammed vs The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... on 10 September, 2020 cites

Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014

7.Article 51A (g) of the Constitution of India calls upon us to have compassion for living creatures. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Animal 5/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7655 of 2020 Welfare Board of India Vs. A.Nagaraja and others [(2014) 7 SCC 547] after noting that Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of World Organization of Animal Health (OIE), recognizes five internationally recognized freedoms for animals such as (i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; (ii) freedom from fear and distress; (iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; (iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and (v) freedom to express normal patterns of behavior declared that they shall be read into Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and be protected and safeguarded by the Governments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 113 - Full Document

Shri Malaprabha Co-Op. Sugar Factory ... vs Union Of India And Another on 22 September, 1993

“The courts now recognise that the impact on the administration is relevant in the exercise of their remedial jurisdiction. Quashing decisions may impose 9/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.7655 of 2020 heavy administrative burdens on the administration, divert resources towards re-opening decision, and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Earlier cases took the robust line that the law had to be observed, and the decision invalidated whatever the administrative inconvenience caused. The courts nowadays recognise that such an approach is not always appropriate and may not be in the wider public interest. The effect on the administrative process is relevant to the courts' remedial discretion and may prove decisive.” (Passage from Judicial Remedies in Public Law by Clive Lewis approvingly quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1994) 1 SCC 648 (Shri Malaprabha Co-Operative Sugar Factor Vs. Union Of India and another). If there can be cases where after the administrative decision is found to be bad in law, the logical consequences do not follow, the reverse can also equally hold good. In other words, the administrative decision may be found to be valid in law and yet there can be no sequitur. In the case on hand, the rights of the animal are more relevant and they determine the adjudicatory outcome and not the formal validity of the administrative order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 24 - S Mohan - Full Document
1