Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi, C.J., and Rakesh Thapliyal, J., directed the State to ensure that only registered Equines and handlers would be allowed on the Yatra route, and not others and the District Magistrate concerned should ensure that sufficient police force was deployed at the barrier to prevent unauthorized entry into the Yatra Route by unregistered handlers, along with their unregistered Equines. The Court opined that mere fining of the handlers or filing cases against them for inflicting cruelty to the animals, was not sufficient to rein in and discipline the erring handlers/owners of Equines, thus, the only effective way in which cruelty to the Equines could be curbed was by blacklisting such handlers/owners, who were found to be subjecting their Equines to cruelty and maltreatment.
In the present case, Dr. B.V.R.C. Purushottam, the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Uttarakhand submitted that, in comparison to the last year, i.e., 2022, the situation had seen significant improvement, regarding the Equine health, care and management, deployed on the Kedarnath Yatra.
The Court noted that a thirty-member Mule Task Force, consisting of Prantiya Rakshak Dal Jawans, had been constituted, with multiple objectives of Equine management, and to curb cruelty against Equines. The Mule Task Force Jawans kept a constant vigil on the Equines plying on the Yatra Trek and support the Sector Officers/Zila Panchayat Staff/Administration/Veterinarians in taking punitive action against law evaders. The Court further noted that a building, along with adjoining land in Phata, had been identified, and was being customized and renovated for use as an infirmary away from trek, so that sick animals might be segregated from healthy ones. The said infirmary was proposed to accommodate about 30-40 sick/injured Equines and apart from this, a smaller transit infirmary, with capacity of about 7-10 Equines, was under construction at Gaurikund.
The Court also noted that at the start of the Yatra Route, there was a barrier, through which the Equines must pass with their handlers and pilgrims and thus, opined that the State authorities should check the Equines and the handlers, when they cross the barrier, to ensure that only the registered Equines and handlers were permitted to cross the barrier, and others were stopped, in order to maintain the maximum carrying capacity for Kedarnath. The Court further opined that “the purpose of registration of Equines and handlers would lose its significance and purpose, if even unregistered Equines and handlers were able to pass the barrier unchecked. Such infiltration would also completely derail the Yatra on the route, with influx of unregistered Equines and handlers, thereby increasing their population even beyond the limit of 5000 Equines per day, statedly permitted by the administration on the Yatra route”.
Thus, the Court directed the State to ensure strict implementation of the Rule, that only registered Equines and handlers would be allowed on the Yatra route, and not others and the District Magistrate concerned should ensure that sufficient police force was deployed at the barrier to prevent forced unauthorized entry into the Yatra Route by unregistered handlers, along with their unregistered Equines. Any other routes, which were not barricaded, should be blocked to prevent unauthorized entry.
The Court further directed the District Magistrate, Rudraprayag, and the other District Magistrates concerned, to ensure that Equines were not deployed on the Yatra Treks of Kedarnath, Yamunotri and Hemkund Sahib, between sunset and sunrise, so that they could be rested before they were again deployed to render service on the next day.
The Court opined that mere fining of the handlers or filing cases against them for inflicting cruelty to the animals, was not sufficient to rein in and discipline the erring handlers/owners of Equines. The fines were nominal and criminal cases take years to get decided. There was no fear, in erring handlers/owners of Equines, of suffering any adverse consequences if they did not mend their conduct, and to stop subjecting their Equines to cruelty for commercial gain. The only effective way in which cruelty to the Equines could be curbed was by blacklisting such handlers/owners, who were found to be subjecting their Equines to cruelty and maltreatment.
The Court further opined that the State should have a system of screening the Equines, which were sought to be deployed on Yatra Routes by competent Veterinary Doctors and Veterinarians, and if the experts felt after physical examination of the Equine(s), that any particular Equine, or Equines, should be subjected to such Endurance Test, in respect of such Equine(s), Endurance Test should be conducted before the Equine was permitted to be deployed on the pilgrimage routes. The Court further directed the State to collect and collate the data about Equines deaths on the pilgrimage routes in the State and to analyze the reasons for such deaths.
The Court opined that the purpose of insuring Equines was to provide security to their handlers/owners against losses, which they might suffer on the death of their equine, which was the source of their earning but at the same time, the grant of insurance cover, in respect of the equines should not become a reason for their being subjected to cruelty and maltreatment, resulting in their death, particularly, after they were of no use to their handler due to their age, injuries etc. Thus, the Court directed the State to also look into their policy, regarding grant of insurance of the Equines, so as to exclude the possibility of claims, which arise from deaths of Equines caused due to excessive deployment, ill-treatment, malnutrition, and neglect of Equines. This would ensure that only genuine claims were made, and honored, where the death of the Equine takes place, for reasons not attributable to the handler.
The Court lastly opined that Stampede Prevention Mechanism was necessary, and should be implemented along the pilgrimage routes, to prevent any accident involving large number of people and it was for the State to examine the situation on the ground, and to come up with solutions in this regard, since it was the responsibility of the State to ensure the safety of the pilgrims and all others on the pilgrimage routes.
The matter would next be listed on 20-09-2023.
[Gauri Maulekhi v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Utt 888, Order dated 10-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Gauri Maulekhi, petitioner, party-in-person;
For the Respondents: C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel; Aditya Pratap Singh, Anil Kumar Bisht, Counsel.
