LexNAIR AND ORS . versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
N.R. NAIR AND ORS . A .. v. ,A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 1, 2001 [B.N. KIRPAL, U.C. BANERJEE AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] E Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: Ss. 22, 24 and 29-Cruelty to animals-Exhibition and training of performing animals-Prohibition on-Notification dated 14. 10. 1998 issued c by Government of India prohibiting exhibition and training of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions-Held, is within the parameters of the Act-Power - contained in S.22' to restrict exhibition and training of performing animals resulting in unnecessary pain or suffering to them is not unguided-Since circus owners keep animals only for exhibition and training, they cannot D retain the animals referred to in the notification-However, Central Government has set up rescue homes for such animals. ~ Constitution of In,,,ia, 1950: Articles 32 and 226-Judicial review-Notification dated 14.10.1998 E issued by Government of India under Section 22 of the prevention o/Cru'!lty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibiting exhibition and training of performing animals-Challenged in writ petition before High Court-Held, it is for the government of India to decided whether exhibition or training of the animals would result in unnecessary pain or suffering being inflicted on them- ) Neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court can go into correctness of F decision of Government in issuing the Notification. Intervener-Notification issued by Government of India prohibiting exhibition and training of performing animals-Challenged by Circus owners in writ petition before High Court-Notification upheld-In appeal before Supreme Court, application for intervention filed by Indian Circus Federation G allowed. In a writ petition filed by the Indian Circus Federation, challenging a ). Notification issued by the Central Government prohibiting exhibition and training of certain performing animals, the Delhi High Court directed the H 353 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R. A Government to reconsider the matter. Consequently a High Power Committee was constituted and pursuant to its report a fresh Notification under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty Animals Act, 1960 was issued on 14.10.1998 prohibiting exhibition and training of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions. The said Notification was challenged in a writ petition before the Kerala B High Court, which upheld the validity of the Notification. The High Court also held that the Court would not exercise the power of judicial review to examine the correctness of the decision of the Government in issuing the Notification. Aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed the present appeals. During the pend ency of the appeals, the Indian Circus Federation filed intervention applications and the same were allowed. c D It was contended for the appellants that the Notification dated 14.10.1998 was arbitrary. It was submitted that Section 22 of the Act contained no guidelines on the basis of which the Government of India could issue notification banning exhibition or training of any animal, nor did the Act provide for rehabilitation of the animals covered under such Notification. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Notification dated 14.10.1998 is within the parameters of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. In the very nature of E things when the animals are used for performance in circus, it requires their training. It is welfare of the animals which is of paramount consideration and it is only if the Government is satisfied on the basis of the materials on record that unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted on an aoimal during the course of training or at the time when it is exhibited that a notification under Sectfon 22(ii) of the Act is issued. (358-D] F 1.2. It cannot be said that the power contained in Section 22 of the Act is unguided. A reading of the Act as a whole, particularly Section 24, clearly shows that before issuing a notification under Section 22(ii), implicit in the section is the necessity for the Government to come to the conclusion that G there would be unnecessary pain or suffering in the exhibition or training of the animals. The existence of the said fact is a precondition to the issuance of the notification. (358-E] 2. High Court was right in holding that in exercise of judicial review, neither the High Court nor this Court can go into the correctness of the H decision of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.