Animal Husbandry Laws India

(e) Keep an animal in a cage where it does not have reasonable means of movement. Since 2001, circuses are no longer operated free of charge and are now subject to the Performance Animal Registration Rules, 2001, which were notified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It is forbidden to exhibit, exhibit or play with animals without a compulsory license in accordance with the prescribed rules. In addition, the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 prohibited the use of animals in performances. In a landmark decision by N.R. Nair and Ors. v. Union of India (2001), the High Court of Kerala ruled that wild animals such as bears, tigers, panthers, monkeys and lions may under no circumstances be taught or exhibited as show animals. Due to the collapse of vulture populations in India, which consumed large amounts of dead animal carcasses, the urban street dog population became a problem, especially in urban areas. An international animal protection organization, World Animal Protection, has developed the Animal Protection Index (API), which assesses 50 countries based on their animal welfare policies. The index determines which country has the highest score (A) and the lowest score (G).

India was rated “C” on the Animal Protection Index published in 2020 alongside Spain, France, Germany and Poland. Meanwhile, countries such as the United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark have been classified in the B band. With a grade of “G”, Iran was the lowest country, and no country received a grade of A. While India`s performance in the 2020 Animal Welfare Index was average, the results suggest that India`s animal welfare laws are quite weak compared to other countries and that the inefficiency of the current legal framework is a major reason for the growing number of animal cruelty cases in the country. 73. Laws, even in states where there are livestock protection laws, are mostly violated because of the powerful meat and butchery lobbies, the cattle trade mafia and their co-operation with the police and the administration. This happens in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and West Bengal, etc. The Mewat region of Haryana, inhabited by the minority communities of Mews and adjacent areas of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh such as Mathura, Alwar and Bharatpur, is a haven for beef traders. Here, cow slaughters take place illegally and openly in small villages, mainly in areas between 2 hills or sometimes even in village houses. An investigation conducted by Acharya Baldevji gives a very alarming picture, with thousands of cattle smuggled or slaughtered.

41. As already mentioned, there is intergovernmental transport of animals for slaughter in order to exploit shortcomings or neglect of implementation in neighbouring States. There are many cases in which animal welfare organizations and activists have intercepted such illegal transports at interstate border checkpoints. Many cases have been filed in Malegaon in Maharashtra, Vapi in Gujarat, Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh, Bhiwandi on the border with Maharashtra and in Haryana. For an occasional vehicle that is intercepted, hundreds are allowed to pass unhindered. Animal rights activists have to defy the associated risks and work almost without police support. The Animal Husbandry and Testing (Control and Surveillance) Rules, 1998, set out general requirements for the breeding and use of animals for research purposes. A 2006 amendment states that experimenters must first try to use animals “lowest on the phylogenetic scale”, use the minimum number of animals for statistical reliability of 95% and justify the use of non-animal alternatives. A 2013 amendment prohibits the use of live animal testing in medical education. [11] In 2014, India became the first country in Asia to ban all animal testing of cosmetics and the import of animal-tested cosmetics.

[12] “The State shall endeavour to organize agriculture and livestock according to modern and scientific criteria, and shall in particular take measures to preserve and improve breeds and prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves and other dairy and draught cattle. In 262 BC. King Maurya Ashoka converted to Buddhism. For the rest of his reign, he issued edicts shaped by Buddhist teachings of compassion for all beings. These edicts included the medical treatment of animals and the prohibition of animal sacrifices, the castration of roosters and hunting in many species. [6] Allahabad authorities said cattle reached other states daily via the GT road, although the number per day was only 200. Jalore officials said cattle are exported from Raniwada and Disa via Hirapur and Sanchor to Ahmedabad in Gujarat. The Collector of Bulandshahar District (UP) agreed that thousands of cattle are transported by truck, but that these animals remain in the state, according to reports. 29. In the absence of provisions on the temporary storage of bovine animals seized at the hearing pending for illegal transport/slaughter, animal protection organisations must always lodge an application with the Court of First Instance.

In some cases, custody is granted and in other cases it is not. In such cases, organizations must relocate the higher courts, and some of the cases were even taken to the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court eventually granted custody. Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh had published a compilation of these cases in which custody had been transferred to animal welfare organizations. This compilation, which covers 24 cases selected up to 1995, covers cases from different States, of which 16 cases have been brought before the High Court and 4 cases by the Supreme Court. The cases before the Supreme Court are as follows: (11) The penal provisions of state laws as well as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should be stricter with higher fines and longer prison sentences. There should also be a provision for automatic review of the acquittal decisions of the lower courts by a higher court. While the anti-vivisection movement developed in Britain, it could not prevail in India. British authorities and the SPCA (led by the British) both opposed the introduction of the British Animal Cruelty Act of 1876 – which established regulations for animal testing – in the Indian colony. It was created in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Ors.

(2014), that animals also have honor and dignity and cannot be arbitrarily deprived. According to the court, the rights and privacy of animals must be protected from unlawful attacks. As a result, the right to dignity has been extended and is not limited to individuals. Item 14 of the list of states states states have the power “to maintain, protect and improve stocks and prevent animal diseases and to enforce veterinary training and practice.” 24. Several States have adopted their own laws on the conservation of bovine animals. However, there is no coherence in these laws, even on fundamental issues. Article 48 explicitly prohibits the slaughter of “cows” and, therefore, most of these laws have imposed a ban on the slaughter of cows. Although the word “cows” is used in the plural in the constitution, which should include the entire family of cows, state laws have separated the family of cows into the female of the cow, a bull or oxen and the calf, according to protection only for the female of the cow (not either in the state of West Bengal and Kerala) and other descendants of the family of cows are slaughtered. 31.

As already mentioned, national animal welfare laws are more like slaughter manuals than laws protecting the wealth of livestock. They prescribe the procedure to be followed if the animals are to be slaughtered. As criteria for slaughtered animals, these laws speak either of age-related restrictions (there are no foolproof mechanisms to ensure the implementation of age-related restrictions) or they contain the criteria of economic viability, which are subjective in nature and certification is left to the sole discretion of the veterinarian. These criteria concern the existing or future economic benefits of bovine animals, to be determined by veterinarians who arbitrarily exercise their powers, almost always in favour of authorising slaughter. The erroneous decision not to certify an animal fit for slaughter may be challenged by the meat trader, while the decision taken in 99% of cases to certify the animals` ability to slaughter is not contested by anyone. This is the height of arbitrariness. (d) transport an animal in a vehicle in a manner that causes pain and discomfort to the animal. 1. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, if the Council of States has declared, by a resolution supported by at least two-thirds of the Members present and voting, that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest for Parliament to legislate on all matters listed in the list of States referred to in the resolution, it shall be lawful: that Parliament legislate for all or part of the territory of India in this matter as long as the resolution remains in force. 2. A decision taken in accordance with clause 1 shall remain in force for a maximum period of one year, which may be specified therein: if and as often as a decision authorising the maintenance of such a decision is taken in the manner provided for in clause (1), that decision shall remain in force for a further period of one year from that date: on which it would otherwise have expired under that clause.

to enter into force.