Factual Background 

In the case of Gauri Maulekhi v. State of Uttarakhand an Animal Welfare Activist named Gauri Maulekhi filed a public interest lawsuit over the extremely significant problem of terrible mistreatment of horses used in the Kedarnath, Yamunotri, Gangotri, Gaumukh, and Hemkhud Sahib pilgrimage routes to transport passengers as well as products.

Argument Advance 

According to the petitioner, hundreds of horses perish every year as a result of handlers’ lack of compassion and apathy and the Administration’s ignorance of their pain. They contended that these routes lacked the infrastructure, regulation, and oversight to provide sufficient care and medical attention. The petitioner claimed that the State should enforce the Standard Operating Procedure of the Animal Welfare Board of India because their SOP was weak and not being put into practice. The petitioner also referred to a message from her organisation dated June 25, 2022, which emphasised the necessity for the State to take immediate action to ensure the wellbeing of horses.

According to the respondent’s attorney’s argument, the Secretary, the head of animal husbandry, and the board chairperson may not be required to present in person.

Analysis of Court order 

The Secretary of Animal Husbandry, the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Animal Welfare Board, and the District Magistrates concerned were ordered by the Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court to appear before the court during the subsequent hearing to convey the court’s concern to them and to hear from them regarding the actions taken in relation to the petitioner’s issue. The bench was composed of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal.

The Secretary of Animal Husbandry, the Chair of the Executive Committee of the State Animal Welfare Board, and the pertinent District Magistrates were all ordered by the court to appear present for the next hearing date. The District Magistrates may participate electronically in the proceedings, but the two officers must physically remain in the courtroom to assist the judge. According to the Court, the current proceedings were not adversarial, and the purpose for requesting their appearance was so that the Court could express its concern to them and hear from them regarding the actions they had taken in response to the petitioner’s concerns. On 10/8/2023, the matter would be listed again.

CASE NAME – Gauri Maulekhi v. State of Uttarakhand, WPPIL No. 79 of 2022.