Topic

animal law

8 petitions

Update posted 2 months ago

Petition to The Deputy Secretary (Animal Welfare), Hobbyists , Enthusiasts , Breeders, traders, Companion animal keepers, animal welfare organisations, NGOs, Rescuers , Animal lovers, Pet keepers

Plea to Reconsider the proposed 'Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2016'

KIND ATTENTION, PET AND ANIMAL LOVERS OF INDIA PS: LAST DATE OF SUBMISSION  is 14th JAN 2017 (soft copies are to be delivered by 14th) There has been a recent proposal to amend the pet laws in the country.  At the outset, these are meant to serve as guidelines for the wellbeing of the animals. As much as we welcome the move, there are several points in the guidelines, which are vague, contradictory and even impractical. Since these could affect all of us, keepers, lovers and traders alike, it is imperative that we voice our opinion, and point out these discrepancies to the authorities. Overall, the proposal needs to be revisited and drafted in a better fashion. Only a collective effort would help raise awareness and also show the authorities our concerns regarding the same. We have drafted a letter raising some of these concerns, and have also made an effort to provide suggestions which could be looked into, as effective alternatives. We kindly request you to go through the letter and voice your opinions. Please do share this widely, so that more people become aware of these proceedings. Apart from signing this petition, we kindly request you to try to send signed hard copies of the letter to the authorities. The recipient address is included in the letter below. We have included links to the printable PDF version of the letter, as well as the link to the complete original proposal, below. Links :   Objections and Suggestions - Letter - PDF Original Amendment Proposal - PDF   Date: 6th January 2017To,The Deputy Secretary (Animal Welfare),Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,Government of India (Animal Welfare Division)5th Floor, “Vayu” Wing,Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Baug Road,New Delhi 110003Email id: dsaw-mef@gov.inSubject: Objections & Suggestions to Draft Rule under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2016.   As we welcome the Draft Rules under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2016, certain points mentioned under the Drafts have added to several Ambiguities and Contradictions. Several provisions have been overlooked and omitted and a few stringent guidelines which do not take into consideration the ground realities of running a successful Pet outlet in our Country have been drafted, which severely affect livelihood and day to day business of Pet related Stake holders in our Country. There are several countries across the globe which have rules and regulations for Pet Shops/Traders, Pet Breeders, Pet Keepers, commercial and non-commercial Pet Hobbyist, Etc. which are part of one gamut yet totally different entities and are successful in running all aspects with logical and practical rule frame work. This Draft Act fails to identify such entities and has confused all stakeholders related to this trade/hobby rather than clarifying things. Globally there are norms and regulations, which are in place since several decades and are drafted with logical and practical approach; such logical and practical approach in operating this trade is lacking severely in this the Draft Rules under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2016. Keeping wellness of our Pets as our primary concern, we are suggesting that the following issues and guidelines be altered or amended to ensure the best for our Pets and their keepers. These recommendations shall invariably improve the standards of our Pet Shops and take into account all the affected parties. I/We hope these recommendations are taken into consideration in formation of the Pet Shop Rules.   Objections & Suggestions POINT NO.1 Page 2: Definition: (f) “breeder” means an individual or group of persons who own dogs of specific breeds for breeding and sale of dogs and pups, and includes a boarding kennel operator, intermediate handler and trader; 1. Objection: The definition of “breeder” only talks about dogs and pup. The entire draft act talks about Pets which include Birds, Cats, Rabbits, Dogs, Rodents etc. BUT the “Breeder” definition mentioned on page no.2 point (f) ONLY talks about “Dogs” in particular and NO other Species. 1. Suggestion: Must include all pets/animal breeder and not just dogs & pups. The Act to Identify / Include/ mention / give due Recognition to “Breeders” of other Pet Species apart from just Dogs/Pups. However as per the current applicable rules & regulations there is NO Provision for “Breeders” of other Species like Pet Birds, Cats, Rodents, Fish, Amphibians, Reptile Etc. of exotic origin which is not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations;   POINT NO.2 Page 2: Definition: (k) “pet animal” includes dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, rodents of the rat or mice category, and captive birds, the ownership of, and trade in, which is not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations; 2.1 Objection: Definition (k) of “Pet Animal” does not mention other mammals, Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, insects, invertebrates etc. (which are not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations); which are also kept as Pets by many enthusiasts. 2.1 Suggestion: To Identify/Include/Mention/Give due Recognition to other species of Pets which are not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations; 2.2 Objection: The draft act talks about Pets, which include Birds, Cats, Rabbits, Dogs, Rodents etc. However, all the Pets which are for Sale or event kept at home are “Captive” which is applicable to a Dog with Leash, Cat at home, Fish in an Aquarium or a bird in its Cage. Hence, to use the word “Captive” is not correct or explanatory.  2.2 Suggestion: To replace the word “Captive” Bird with “Pet Bird”   POINT NO.3 Page 2: Definition: (L) “pet shop” means a shop, place or premises, including any shop, place or premises in a weekly or other market, where pet animals are sold or housed, kept or exhibited for sale, or where any retail or whole-sale business involving the selling or trading of pet animals are carried out, and includes online platforms over which the sale and purchase of pet animals is carried out where-ever the context permits; 3. Objection: The definition mentioned in point (L) on Page no.2, does NOT clarify whether place and people like Breeding centres/Breeders (other than Dog Breeders (for which the provision is in place), Keepers of Pets at Home (regardless of the number of pets he/she keeps), Hobbyists Etc. are also included in the definition of “Pet Shop” as per point (L) on page no.2 There are several people across the country who keep pets in large number and they may not be commercially engaged in pet trade at all, are they also required to register themselves under this Act? Does the pet owner need to register if his pet / pets ownership is being transferred and there is an exchange of sorts.  3. Suggestion: Clear definition of Non-Commercial Pet keepers, Hobbyists to be defined herewith and to be provided exemption from the need to register themselves under “Pet Shop” in particular. Provision of Stock Declaration, License for Breeders (apart from Dog Breeders for which the provision is in place), Registration of Hobbyists to be done with local authorities.   POINT NO.4 Page no. 2 Definition (d) “local authority” means a municipal committee, district board or other authority for the time being invested by law with the control and administration of any matter within a specified local area; 4. Suggestion: Local Authority needs to form a sub-body comprising of pet lovers and hobbyists form that area associate with them in order to educate pet owners, pet shop owners on keeping and maintaining pets which are to be displayed at the pet shops.   POINT NO.5 Page no. 2 (h) “inspector” means a person appointed by the local authority or the State Animal Welfare Board and includes a representative of the State Board: Provided that any person who is or has been a pet shop owner or breeder, or is related to a pet shop owner or breeder, shall not be appointed or authorized as an inspector under these rules; 5. Objection: The definition of “Inspector” does not provide any clarity on his/her qualification/subject knowledge/certification/capability to understand and monitor the situation of the said Pet Shop 5. Suggestion: Inspector should be qualified enough to understand the requirement, species etc. of the pet since he/she would have good amount of authority under this act   POINT NO.6 Page 3: Point no. 3. Prohibition of operating pet shops without registration.—(1) No person shall— (a) carry on or continue the business of sale or trade in pet animals, whether retail or wholesale; or (b) establish or operate a pet shop, or any other establishment engaged in sale, purchase or exchange of pet animals by whatever name called; without obtaining a certificate of registration in accordance with these rules: Provided that any person operating a pet shop on the date of the commencement of these rules shall, within sixty days of such commencement, obtain a certificate of registration of pet shop under these rules: Provided further that if a person referred to in the first proviso fails to apply for the registration within such period of sixty days or is refused the registration for any reason specified in these rules, then, the State Board or Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shall seal the shop, and confiscate the pet animals displayed or housed for sale and the pet animals so confiscated shall be handed over to as deemed fit by the magistrate under the provisions of section 29 of the Act. 6. Objection: Considering the amount changes to be made to existing Establishment / Area / Infrastructure of an existing pet Shop, the time frame of Sixty days is too less to make the necessary changes (if the Act comes into play). Not All shops are Owned, some are rented Hence, Sixty days is not enough for a tenant to make necessary changes.  6. Suggestion: Timeline of Sixty Days to be extended to 180 days minimum to make the necessary changes to an existing establishment of a Pet Shop.   POINT NO.7 Page 3: Point no. 3. Prohibition of operating pet shops without registration.—(1) No person shall— (b) establish or operate a pet shop, or any other establishment engaged in sale, purchase or exchange of pet animals by whatever name called; 7. Objection: Sub-Point no. (b) under Point no.3 Prohibition of operating pet shops without registration on page no.3 does not indicate the quantum or the nature of establishment.   POINT NO.8: Page no.5 Point no. (11) Notwithstanding anything in these rules, the following persons shall not require a license under these rules, namely: (a) an animal shelter operated by or on behalf of a local authority, or an Animal Welfare Organization; (b) a veterinary hospital or clinic; or (c) any other facility or establishment that operates for the welfare of animals, and is not engaged in commercial activity such as sale and purchase of animals. 8. Objection: There are several Pet Keepers/Collectors/Hobbyists/Pet Lovers/Breeders (Other than Dog Breeders, for which the provision is in place) who do not engage themselves under commercial activities, regardless of the number Or Species of Pet one keeps. There is NO Mention of such parties in point no. (11) on Page no.5 HENCE, Contradicting definition (L) of “Pet Shop” mentioned on page no.2 8. Suggestion: Hobbyists/Keepers/Collectors/Pet Lovers/ Breeders (Other than Dog Breeders, for which the provision is in place) who do not engage themselves under commercial activities, regardless of the number Or Species of Pet one keeps Should also be included in the list mentioned in Point no. (11) of page no.5 and such entities shall Not be required to Obtain License under these rules.   POINT NO.9 Page no.6, Point no. (4) under Accommodation, infrastructure and housing. (4) The floor of the enclosure or room for displaying or housing pet animals for sale shall not be of wire mesh, and shall be constructed such that no injury to the animals’ feet, or legs, or any other injury is caused to them. 9. Objection: Having a floor of the enclosure in solid form will encourage collection of organic matters like food waste, droppings/excreta & urine. Point no. (g) on page no. 7, under General care of animals, veterinary care, and other operational requirements, Contradicts the point under discussion. Most of the cages/enclosure bottom/floor have wire mesh / grill like design which is in fact complimenting and promoting Hygiene, since, organic matters like food waste, droppings/excreta & urine passes through it and lands on the floor or Tray below making it inaccessible for the pet animal/bird/rodent. 9. Suggestion: Since having a floor or wire mesh, grill like design which easily allows all organic matters like food waste, droppings/excreta & urine passes through it and lands on the floor or Tray below making it inaccessible for the pet animal/bird/rodent etc.  Such designs should be encouraged and incorporated within this act and point no. (4) under Accommodation, infrastructure and housing, on page no. 6 should be changed.   POINT NO.10 Page no. 8, Point no. (4) A pet shop shall not breed animals, Under General care of animals, veterinary care, and other operational requirements 10. Objection: This Point is the biggest “Contradiction” of this act if Breeders are to be registered under this act and obtain license of “pet shop” On one hand there is ambiguity on whether Breeders shall register under this Act to Obtain License, and on the other hand there’s point no.4 on page no.8 Under General care of animals, veterinary care, and other operational requirements, which says “A pet shop shall not breed animals”  There is NO Provision/Rules/Regulation/Guide Lines/License/Registration for any “Breeder” (apart from Dog Breeders, for which the provision is in place) currently in this country. 10. Suggestion: Separate Provision/Rules/Regulation/Guidelines/License/Registration to be drafted and made with help of All Stake holders viz. subject Experts, Registered Societies for the educational purpose of particular Species for Breeders (apart from Dog Breeders, for which the provision is in place)   POINT NO.11 Page no.10, Point no. (19) every pet shop owner shall make efforts to ensure the adoption or re-homing of any pet animal that has not found a buyer despite a month having elapsed since it was first displayed for sale at the pet shop: 11. Objection: Under what logic is the timeline of a month deiced for adoption? The pet kept in the pet shop is the property of the Pet Shop Owner and his responsibility, however due to lack of demand, competition and several other reasons a particular pet may not be sold off within a period of a month. 11. Suggestion: Point no. (19) on page no.10 to be removed since it may severely affect the pet shop owner’s business.   POINT NO.12 Page no.10, Point no. (21) Any and all items intended for sale, whether retail or whole-sale, including pet products and accessories, shall not be stored or displayed for sale in the animal areas within a pet shop. 12. Objection: Not all pet shops in India are of standard area and type, hence, it would be very impractical to make a separate section for the Pet Shop Owner for Pet products, pet food & accessories and make another section for pets. A pet shop is a complete place for all requirement of a particular species of a pet and its associated accessories, food items, supplements etc. which are a offered to customers for betterment of the pet is essential. 12. Suggestion: The rule for having separate areas of pets and separate area for other products and accessories to be abolished. Depending on the space available in a pet shop, the owner shall make arrangements for storage of all related accessories and food items in same or separate areas from where the animals are kept, in such a manner that the animal enclosure is not obstructed or causing harm to the pet kept in any way.   POINT NO.13 Page no.10, Point no. (26) No pet shop shall sell any pet animal acquired from an unlicensed breeder. 13. Objection: Currently there is NO provision in India for obtaining License for Breeding of any other Pet Species Animal such as Birds/ Rodents /Reptiles /Invertebrates/Fishes (which is not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations) apart from “Dog Breeding License” for which provisions exists. This will make impossible for the Pet Shop Owner to sell anything apart from a Dog/Pup, which is from a licensed Dog Breeder. 13. Suggestion: Until Separate Provisions/Rules/Regulation/Guidelines/License/Registration are drafted and come into place, Pets from all sorts of Breeders should be allowed to be traded at the pet shop (apart from Dogs/Pups)   POINT NO.14 Page no.9, Point no. (13) The species and numbers of pet animals, and the prices for which they are offered for sale shall be prominently displayed at the pet shop, with the name of the breeder and his address on the enclosures of all pet animals. 14. Objection: Display of details would not be possible for pets like Fishes, small pet birds like: Finches/ Canaries/Small Pet Type Budgerigars etc. which are larger in count and hence details cannot be put up for larger count of pets of such kinds 14. Suggestion: any ADULT pet under 200 grams(or decided weight which helps covers smaller pets like fish, insects, small birds and animals etc) of weight should be displayed for sale without any need of details on the enclosure. This may help in the overall management of Pet shop Rules.   POINT NO.15 Page no.11 8. Maintenance of records.— (1) Every pet shop owner shall maintain in a record book, the particulars of breeders and suppliers of pet animals intended for sale, including name, address, contact details, and date of transaction, and the number of pet animals received, their breed or species, and bird band number if applicable. 15.Objection: Maintenance of Record for any pet live Fishes, small Birds like Finches/Canaries/Small Pet Type Budgerigars Etc. since they are too many in numbers and very difficult/not possible to tag them and give any sort of unique identity to the pet. 15.Suggestion: any Pet species below 200 grams of weight should Not be mandatory for record maintenance   POINT NO.16 Page no.15 THE SECOND SCHEDULE (See rule 6) MINIMUM SPACE REQUIREMENTS 1. FOR BIRDS: (b) The aviaries shall be large enough to allow each bird full body extension, and wide enough to accommodate the fully stretched wings of all, and allow easy hopping, jumping, climbing and flight within the aviary. 16.Objection: No mention of companion bird/birds for it to socialize and reduce stress. 16. Suggestion: Mention of companion bird/birds should be there in above point, however not as a compulsion since its species/sub-species dependent.   POINT NO.17 Page no.15 THE SECOND SCHEDULE (See rule 6) MINIMUM SPACE REQUIREMENTS (c) Well-placed perches shall be provided within each aviary where the birds can stand upright without having head contact with any ceiling, and tail contact with the floor or grate, and for species such as Finches and Canaries that prefer flying or jumping to climbing, perches shall be positioned in a manner that allows the same. 17. Objection: Since the food waste, excreta/urine and other organic waste falls on the enclosure’s floor, it is more logical and practical to have wire mesh flooring rather than solid flooring since having wire mesh will allow all organic waste to pass through either in a tray or floor below the enclosure, making it impossible for the bird/birds to reach to it and hence prevent all sorts of contamination and infections. 17. Suggestion: Floor of the enclosure/cage can be of mesh, which will promote hygiene, since it is a globally accepted and ethical mean of keeping a pet bird. However, it should not be made compulsory to have mesh flooring since some bird species like Australian grass parakeets would have need to access the ground and forage on the grass. Aviaries of the bird can be either, Suspended types, Cages with trays below the floor wire mesh and also aviaries with ground.   POINT NO.18 Page no.11 8. Maintenance of records (3) Every pet shop owner shall maintain a record of the pet animals that die at the pet shop, with the day, date and time of death, and cause of death certified by a veterinary practitioner, and details of the medical attention and care provided to the deceased pet animal prior to its death certified in writing by a veterinary practitioner, and manner of disposal of carcasses. 18. Objection: There is no procedure given for carcass disposal of pets which die at the Pet Shop 18. Suggestion: There should be procedure/guide line for appropriate disposal of dead pet carcasses   POINT NO.19 Page no.13 11. Appeal.— (2) Local Governing Bodies i.e. District Magistrate or District Collector, as the case may be, shall after giving notice to the pet shop and the State Board, and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, either reject or allow the appeal, for the reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the breeder and the State Board 19. Objection: Why is there a mention of “Breeder” in the above paragraph 19. Suggestion: Word “Breeder” to be replaced by “pet shop owner” in paragraph (2) of Appeal on page no.13   POINT NO.20 Page no.11 9. Non-compliance with these rules.— (2) If during the course of such inquiry or any inspection, a pet animal is suspected to be sick or experiencing any kind of distress, an inspector or any person authorized by the State Board, may require the pet shop owner to forthwith provide medical or other care to the pet animal and confiscate the pet animal, and remove it for treatment and care to a shelter house run by an Animal Welfare Organization, after recording in writing the reason why such action is necessitated, and giving a copy of the reasons so recorded to the pet shop owner and the Animal Welfare Organization. 20. Objection: Confiscation of the pet animal by the authority straight away is a very impractical way to go about the treatment of the pet. There have been instances in the past of animal under illness and distress even in the Animal Welfare Organization’s custody. Hence, Confiscation of sick or distressed animal will not guarantee proper treatment to the animal. 20. Suggestion: If during an inspection a pet animal is suspected to be sick or experiencing any kind of distress then the authorized state board person or inspector to give a certificate of ill health and ask the per shop owner to provide medical attention to the sick animal and ask the pet owner to submit health report within 15 days post the inspection date.   POINT NO.21 Page no. 11 & 12: (3) The expenses incurred for treating and attending to the pet animal under sub-rule (2) shall be borne by the pet shop owner, and the Animal Welfare Organization shall return the animal to the pet shop owner after the pet animal has recovered fully, and the expense for its treatment and the care provided has been reimbursed to the Animal Welfare Organization. (4) The pet shop owner shall not, in the event of removal of a sick or otherwise distressed pet animal under this rule, be entitled to claim any compensation whatsoever, from the local authority or the State Board or the Animal Welfare Organization. (5) If a pet shop owner is found to be operating a facility without a valid certificate of registration, the State Board may seal the shop, and confiscate the pet animals displayed or housed for sale and the pet animals so confiscated shall be handed over to— (a) an Animal Welfare Organization; or (b) a rescue centre recognized by the Board. 21. Objection: If due to any instance, a pet animal is confiscated by the state authority due to whatsoever reason, then the liability of the same should be on the state authority or whatsoever concerned body and not the pet shop owner. There have been several instances and legal cases in the past and present ongoing cases where pet shopkeepers and owners of the pets are harassed by the authorities/NGOs 21. Suggestion: The onus, expense, responsibility and record maintenance of the health progress/death of confiscated pet should be on the state authority or whatsoever concerned body which has confiscated the pet animal due to whatsoever reason from the Pet Shop. State Board or the Animal Welfare Organization which may have confiscated a sick or distressed pet should submit timely report on the update of the pet to the pet shop owner every 15 days and the confiscated pet should be kept the similar or better way as sighted in the guide lines of this same act.   POINT NO.22 Page no.8 Under General care of animals, veterinary care, and other operational requirements Point no. (5) No pet shop shall sell any animal intended to be used for food, skin or accessories. 22. Objection: Certain pets like Fish eat live worms, Birds like Finches and Canaries feed on Meal worms, some species of Birds feed on insects which is essential for their well being and physiological needs 22. Suggestion: Worms/Insects which are part of diet for some pets should be allowed to be sold for the purpose of food.   POINT NO.23 Page no. 8 (6) Every pet shop owner shall— (b) Deploy sufficient number of employees at the pet shop to take care of, and attend to pet animals properly, and ensure that a minimum of two employees per fifty animals are available at all times to take care of the animals intended for sale. 23. Objection: Minimum two number Employees per fifty animals would not be possible for pets above fifty like small birds, fishes, rodents etc. 23. Suggestion: Minimum two number Employees per fifty animals should only be applicable to animal species like Dogs/Pups & cats and no other species of pet animal or bird.     We sincerely hope the above points are taken into consideration and will help bringing positive change in the pet trade which is livelihood of many in our country. Regards,Name:Address:Phone:Sign: ______________________       We appreciate you taking the time and supporting the cause. Together, we can move mountains. Cheers!  Thanks! 

Sai Ram Akshayakumar
831 supporters
Update posted 8 months ago

Petition to Shri Narendra Modi, Smt. Sumitra Mahajan

Increase penalties for animal abuse!

Yet another animal treated mercilessly, yet another incident of inaction.  The country is up in arms against the cruel treatment of the dog by the medical students in Chennai. Yet, we will again fail to do justice to the dog. Why? Because India's animal protection law is as good as non - existent.This is because of the meagre penal provision that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides. For a maximum of 50 rupees, the accused rather plead guilty, pay the fine and walk away.  This along with the recent spate of animal abuse that has come to light in the past year - be it the stabbing of dogs in Delhi, the cold-blooded murder of 8 puppies in Bangalore in front of the mother dog, the acid attack on a pony in Hyderabad or the killing of police service horse in Dehradun, has shocked the collective conscience of this Nation. The call for an effective deterrent in law has only grown louder. Several Members of Parliament have written to the Environment Ministry in the past 6 months, spoken about it in the parliament and submitted a private member bill yet the Government of India continues to turn a blind eye to the immense suffering of animalss. The present penalties for animal abuse is just ₹50. The law has not been amended since the year 1960. As you finish reading this petition and while you think of signing it and sharing it on social media, there would be another hundred thousand animals kicked, beaten, maimed, stabbed, burnt, hung and flung. Some would die and some would be rendered immobile for life. You can also be the voice of millions of voiceless defenseless animals, by signing this petition! We need your support to help us reach as many signatures as possible! Write to the Honourable Prime Minister of India and the Honourable Speaker of Lok Sabha so that they know that there are compassionate citizens of the country who care about animals. Now! 

Humane Society International: India
91,032 supporters
Update posted 8 months ago

Petition to Shri Narendra Modi, Shri Sumitra Mahajan

Innocent puppies burnt alive for fun and recorded

To stop heinous crimes against animals for pleasure and create awareness that punishment is meted out for these crimes http://m.ndtv.com/hyderabad-news/video-of-boys-burning-puppies-alive-in-hyderabad-sparks-outrage-1433896 “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress is judged by the way its animals are treated” – M K Gandhi The virtue of kindness to all beings is enshrined in our constitution and our culture. It is thus apposite that we ought to ensure that our laws stand as a deterrent to anyone who abuses animals. The recent spate of animal abuse cases including that of dog thrown from a terrace in Chennai, dog stabbing in Delhi, or killing of one month old puppies in Bangalore that shocked the nation, the acid attack on a pony in Hyderabad or Shaktiman, the police horse’s tragedy, perpetrators of such violence and cruelty need to get punished so that they don't dare to hurt a living being again. There is an unimaginable amount of suffering that could be prevented by deterring those who think it is easy to get away with cruelty to animals brought the issue of animal welfare laws to the limelight. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA act) has been framed in the year 1960 and the penalties in the act have not been revisited ever since. I am certain you would agree that a mere fine of 50 rupees is in no way a deterrent for a person whose only intention is to hurt an animal. I am also certain that you would agree that the cost of an animal’s life is more than that same 50 rupees. In the year 2014, through a landmark judgement in the A Nagarajan v/s Union of India case, the Honourable Supreme Court of India directed the government to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. The Supreme Court stated “….Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of animals to that of constitutional rights, as done by many of the countries in the world, so as to protect their dignity and honour”. Despite this directive by the apex court, the law still remains in its original form. We the undersigned find the fact that the guilty would walk away with a mere fine of 50 rupees is disrespectful to any animal who has either lost its life due to violence or has been scarred forever. We, the undersigned, urge you to amend the existing PCA act to increase the penalties for animal abuse. We are hopeful that this will bring dignity to the lives of all animal citizens of our nation - the birth place of Ahimsa.

Srilu Bhopal
2,232 supporters