Introduction:

In a significant case concerning animal welfare, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken up a plea challenging the illegal detention of 195 bovine animals. The plea, filed by concerned citizens and animal activists, sought the production of these animals allegedly detained unlawfully by police officials. The Division Bench of Justice U Durga Prasad and Justice Sumathi Jagadam heard objections regarding the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The petitioners, represented by counsel J. V. Phanlduth, argued that the cows were being transported to slaughterhouses despite being unfit for slaughter due to age and health conditions. They cited instances of underweight cattle and animals suffering from lumpy skin disease, emphasizing that such conditions rendered them unfit for sacrifice under the law. The petitioners highlighted that they had lodged a complaint with the police, leading to the seizure of the cattle. However, they contended that the police relocated the animals to an undisclosed location without proper verification or legal procedure. The petitioners criticized the actions of the police, labeling them illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the AP Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animals Preservation Act, 1977.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The respondents, represented by AGP Suman, maintained that the animals were not handed over to the claimants and assured that they would follow due process. They argued that the relocation of the animals was a precautionary measure to prevent any potential escalation of tensions. The respondents emphasized their commitment to adhering to legal procedures and stated that they would produce the animals before the concerned magistrate as required by law. They contended that the actions taken were within the legal framework to ensure the welfare of the animals and maintain public order.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench, while addressing the objections regarding the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition, observed that technicalities should not hinder the court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction when animal welfare is at stake. The court recognized the urgency and importance of the issue, noting that the welfare of the detained animals was paramount. The Bench directed its Registry to list the plea for a detailed hearing, emphasizing that the legal procedures for handling such cases must be followed meticulously.

The court acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns about the illegal detention and potential mistreatment of the animals. It underscored the necessity for the police and other relevant authorities to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the AP Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animals Preservation Act. The court mandated that the seized animals be produced before the appropriate judicial authority for further proceedings, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.