_edited.jpg){kind=logo}
The desire to do the right thing, regardless of obstacles and challenges, is not present in anyone. This pandemic and locking situation in the world has been a challenge for all of us and has forced us to take tough decisions. One such community (connected only through the purpose of doing well) which has to make immense sacrifices, to keep their selfless efforts alive, is – “Animal Lovers”.
It was understood that the lockdown would be challenging for everyone, whether people or the government. It wasn't different for animals, particularly street animals. We very well know the misery of - starving, thirsty, without shelter, and powerless to do anything about it. This is currently the normal life of millions of stray animals in India.
Before lockdown, these animals would rummage through restaurant dustbins, trash dumps, or discarded food. The areas near offices and warehouses were often seen with people feeding the leftovers to strays, and this is how they lived.
Since markets and offices were shut down and people were trapped in their houses, and so the sources of food supplies for the stray animals were also locked up. Despite severe limitations on travel, animal feeders had to struggle to feed strays. The question was compounded by the lack of support from local authorities.
A few days ago on my Instagram feed, I saw a video in which a volunteer revealed how difficult it was for her to feed stray animals away from her area with fuel stations closed down and insufficient support from local authorities. She had to spend hours trying to persuade local officials to let her feed them. Gradually, with greater policy transparency on basic programs, their obstacles were lessened.
Not just her, but a lot of feeders and shelters around India face a variety of difficulties, such as running from pillar to post for feeder transfer, maintaining adequate financial support to feed the animals at least once a day, aggressive actions and abuse by people who felt these street animals were a nuisance, to name a few.
So many NGOs and individual feeders were desperate to make donations from known and unknown sources, and some even took loans to finance the growing animals coming to the shelters. This made me realize the degree to which this country has neglected its animals, especially stray animals.
The role of AWBI under the PCA Act, 1960
It is necessary to see what provisions the law offers for tackling this issue. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter the PCA Act), the Central Law on Cruelty to Animals, was enacted with a view to the cruelty of animals in India and resolving the shortcomings of the earlier Preventing Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890.
Aside from broadening the definition of the word 'cruelty,' the Act also sought to avoid needless pain and suffering on animals. The Act also provides for penalties if a person is found guilty. It is interesting to note that for the first time offenders, the fine is fifty ropes and for the next offender, it is a fine of one hundred ropes or imprisonment for three months or both.
The Animal Welfare Board is formed under the Act to promote animal welfare initiatives. The composition and the roles have also been set out in the Act. In 1982, the name of the Board was changed to the Animal Welfare Board of India (hereinafter AWBI) to reflect the national character of the Board.
In addition to providing advice to the Government on matters relating to animal welfare, amendments to the Act and the development of laws, the AWBI has also been obliged to take all measures to improve the health of animals, provide veterinary assistance, build sheds and provide financial assistance to animal welfare organizations.
It is very disappointing to conclude that AWBI has been ineffective in fulfilling its duties. The RTI has been lodged with the Board to learn the steps it has taken to perform its duties and how it has contributed to the operation of the animal welfare organizations during the lockdown. In its reply, the Commission presented the circulars which were sent to the Government of the States after the lockdown.
It is interesting that they have not followed up with the state or local authorities whether the instructions in these circulars have been applied or not. AWBI stated that it is the state government and the local authorities that are responsible for the treatment of stray animals. The reply did not discuss any financial assistance/assistance offered by the AWBI to animal welfare organizations. The picture drawn by AWBI is that it simply plays an advisory role in the whole matter.
From the perspective of the provisions of the PCA Act of 1960, it can be seen that AWBI was constituted as the custodian of the provisions of the Act. AWBI will send circulars to the state and local authorities to ensure that animals do not suffer unnecessarily and do not suffer needlessly.
Nevertheless, there is no accountability of these states and local authorities to AWBI for the efforts made by them in compliance with the Act and whether the provisions of the Act are being followed in accordance with the guidelines.
Legislative intent and legal opinion on the AWBI
The question that keeps bothering me is that - the intention of the legislature to form the AWBI? Have the architects of the PCA Act, 1960, discussed extensively, for years, the formation of a board which was responsible only for issuing circulars/directions without any responsibility on the part of state or local authorities, to be a mere advisory body? Section 9 of the Act sets out the functions of the AWBI.
Clauses (b), (c), (e), (j), and (l) of Section 9 are explicit in their intention to grant AWBI an advisory role in the matters referred to in these clauses. However, if we look at the wording of Section 9 (d), (f), (g), (h), (I), and (k), it describes the actions that the AWBI will perform as part of its functions.
From taking 'all such measures' to improving the health of animals and offering medical assistance, to offering financial and other support to animal welfare groups at the local level, it seems that the Act gives AWBI a more active role in the care of animals. Had the legislature intended to retain AWBI as an advisory body? The words would have been used accordingly, as it had been done in the case of the other clauses of section 9.
Also besides, the view of the Supreme Court also tends to offer AWBI an active role in the defense of animal rights. The Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors (The Jallikattu case), the court, while acknowledging that five universally recognized freedoms granted to animals have a position under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act, 1960, ordered AWBI and the government to take appropriate measures to ensure the well-being of animals and not to cause unnecessary pain.
Further, in the Animal Welfare Board of India v People for the Elimination of Stray Troubles & Ors. [2015 SCC Online SC 1193]; The Court held that it was the duty and obligation of AWBI to ensure that the provisions laid down in the Act and the Rules of Procedure were sincerely implemented by the State and by the municipal authorities. The Supreme Court also reiterated this view in other cases.
Deceiving the welfare of animals
Why is it that, given established legislation and recognition of the rights of animals by the Apex court, the country continues to fail to support its animal population, particularly during this crisis? It's a harsh reality, but when it comes to execution, our country has been insensitive and disrespectful towards animals and their rights. The lack of proper regulation has hindered the country's little progress in enacting an Act against Animal Cruelty.
According to the order of the Supreme Court in Geeta Seshmani vs Union of India & Ors (2008) and Gauri Maulekhi vs Union of India & Ors (2015), all state governments were directed to make the State Animal Welfare Board (SAWB) functional at the State level and the District Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs) at the district level in order to address animal cruelty issues, to promote animal welfare, etc.
On 1 June 2020 (more than two months after the country was closed down), AWBI sent an advisory to the Chief Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry of all States / UTs asking them to enable the functioning of all SAWBs. 60 years since the Act was passed, 12 years since the first order, the SWAB and the SPCA have either not been created or have remained unfunctional or barely operating. If only the SAWBs and the SPCAs were already working and healthy, we could have accomplished so much by giving so many animals a decent life, before, during, and after the lockdown.
Conclusion
So, the question arises as - Who is responsible for this? Who can clarify which authority in India is responsible for animal welfare? Are the provisions of the PCA Act of 1960 adequate to protect the rights of animals and to provide them with a decent life? What, as citizens and animal lovers, can we do for those who cannot speak for themselves? Have we been doing whatever we can? These are some of the relevant questions that one really needs to consider.
As has rightly been said, "... the negligence of those who should have acted; the ignorance of those who should have known better; the absence of the voice of justice when it counted the most; that made it possible for evil to prevail."
Comments