Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Girish Kathpalia*, JJ., and opined that the present petition was filed purely on the apprehension that some injury or ill-treatment might be caused to the animals during the events scheduled on 01-03-2024 to 03-03-2024, and such sort of petition could not be entertained simply on the basis of apprehension. Further, since a High-Powered Committee (‘HPC’) had already been constituted after the directions passed in Sudipa Nath v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 691, therefore the said Committee was at liberty to be present and oversee the aforesaid event and to take all cautions permissible under law, if any, to ensure that no inhumane behaviour was caused to the animals.
Background
The petitioner claimed to be a practicing advocate, animal lover and a wildlife enthusiast. The petitioner stated that he had filed the present petition to advocate and fight for the fundamental rights of animals guaranteed by the Constitution. On 13-01-2021, a news report was published regarding the wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant, and as per the report the dates of the pre-wedding and wedding festivities were 01-03-2024 to 03-03-2024, and the venue was Reliance Greens, Gujarat. The petitioner claimed that since the wedding was of the son of the Chairman of Reliance Industries, thus, they had indirect control over Greens Zoological, Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (‘Respondent 3’) and Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (‘Respondent 4’), as these were situated on their property.
The petitioner submitted that he had a right under Section 200 of the CrPC to file a complaint and the said right was being curtailed by Section 23 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (‘PCA’). Therefore, Section 23 of the PCA was arbitrary, unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional. Further, in case due to paucity of time, the constitutional validity of Section 23 of PCA could not be decided, therefore, considering that the prima facie case was made out by the petitioner against Respondents 3 and 4, petitioner prayed that Animal Welfare Board of India (‘Respondent 2’) to be directed to file a complaint under Section 23 of the PCA against Respondents 3 and 4, because if no one took action against them, they would go scot-free and the animals would suffer inhumane treatment and cruelty. However, if Respondent 4 was not able to file the complaint and stop the events, then interim relief to be granted, in directing Respondents 3 and 4 to not hold the events by displaying or exhibiting the animals in their possession in any manner.
However, the respondents submitted that Reliance Complex, Jamnagar was a private property and was not open to public for events. Further, a one-time private, personal and non-commercial event was being held at various locations in the complex and there was no provision contained in any law, including the Wildlife Act, 1972 or the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992 that prohibited Respondents 3 and 4 from inviting guests to view their facilities, especially for non-commercial purposes.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the present petition was filed purely on the apprehension that some injury or ill-treatment might be caused to the animals during the events scheduled on 01-03-2024 to 03-03-2024, and such sort of petition could not be entertained simply on the basis of apprehension. The Court further opined that since the HPC had already been constituted after the directions passed in Sudipa Nath v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 691, therefore the said Committee was at liberty to be present and oversee the aforesaid event and to take all cautions permissible under law, if any, to ensure that no inhumane behaviour was caused to the animals.
The Court further clarified that either HPC might depute any of its member to oversee the event scheduled from 01-03-2024 to 03-02-2024 or HPC might go itself to oversee the aforesaid event and accordingly, disposed of the present petition.
[Rahul Narula v. Union of India, W.P.(CRL) 485 of 2024, decided on 12-02-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Pritam Biswas, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Shardul Singh, Devika Mohan, Ahish Shahpurkar and Anjali Tiwari, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
