Proposed Amendment to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

The Ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC) is expected to amend section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in the upcoming monsoon session of the Parliament. The draft sent by the ministry already has got the approval of the Law and Justice ministry. This change comes in the backdrop of Supreme Court’s judgement to ban Jallikattu, a bull taming sport of Tamil Nadu. The amendments are expected to lift the ban on Jallikattu and allow such cultural practice.

About Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA), 1960

The PCA Act, 1960 is enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on animals. PCA Act deals with captive and domestic animals.

• Chapter IV of the act deals with the regulation of experimentation.
• Chapter V requires mandatory registration of performing animals.

It has also established Animal Welfare Board of India as a statutory body providing advice to the union government on matters relating to the promotion of animal welfare and animal welfare laws. The important functions of the board include:

• Recognition of animal welfare organizations
• Providing financial assistance to recognised animal welfare organizations (AWOs)
• The board prescribes changes to animal welfare laws and rules
• It works to raise awareness among the public.

As per PCA Act Section 3 and Section 11(1)(m), it is an offence against a person who incites any animal to fight with a view to provide entertainment. Section 22 of the PCA Act, 1960 deals with restrictions on exhibition and training of performing animals.

Proposed Changes

The MoEFCC wants to amend the key section 22 of the PCA Act, 1960. It proposes to add a new sub-section to section 22. Since, the subject matter of the issue falls under the concurrent list (entry 17), the union government can bring changes to the PCA Act, 1960. The following changes will be made:

• The amendment to section 22 will allow exhibition of performing animals at events in a manner prescribed by the religion or practiced traditionally as a part of the culture. This will indirectly allow events like Jallikattu of Tamil Nadu, bullock cart races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, Gujarat etc.
• The events will be allowed to happen with the prior approval of the concerned district authorities and shall be monitored by the state animal welfare boards. The welfare boards have to make sure that unnecessary pain and suffering is not inflicted or caused to the animal during the course of the event.
• The amendment also seeks to increase the fine for infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals to make it more deterrent.

Logic behind amendments

A 2011 order of the MoEFCC banned the exhibition or training of performing animals like bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers, lions and bulls. As a result, centuries old bull taming sport of Tamil Nadu, jallikattu was disallowed. This caused discontent among a section of people.

The Supreme Court has banned jallikattu twice and recently in January 2016. But the environment ministry soon issued notification to lift the ban. This made the Animal Welfare Board of India to approach Supreme Court, which again refused to lift the ban on Jallikattu.

Arguments supporting the amendments

Jallikattu organisers argue that the practice is centuries old. No harm or pain is caused to the animals. The bulls are specifically identified and are trained for the event. The event protects certain indigenous breeds of bulls. They argue that the event can be regulated but not banned. The Biodiversity Conservation Council of India (BiCCI) has argued that Jallikattu has a history of around 4,000 years and has requested removing bulls from the list of animals that could be used as performing animals.

The supporters of Jallikattu opine that merely amending section 22 will not be sufficient. They want to amend section 3 and section 11 of the PCA Act as the Supreme Court has categorically held that these provisions were violative. The supporters of the sport also disagree that they do not have any intention to harm their own bulls and accuse the activists for mistaking vermilion powder for chilli powder.

Criticisms put forward

Animal activists are fiercely opposing the decision to move amendments to the section 22 of the Act. According to them, the provision of enhanced fine is hardly a deterrent for the perpetrators of cruelty.

Animal welfare organisations The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) argue that the bulls are tortured physically and mentally for enjoyment. The tradition is violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960. PETA has documented how the bull tails are twisted and fractured; chemicals poured into their eyes, ears are mutilated, and sickles are used to poke the animals.

According to the activists, conduct of sports like Jallikattu violates Article 51A (g): compassion towards animal; Article 21 (Right to Life), which prohibits any disturbance to the environment, including animals as it is considered essential for human life.

Stand of Supreme Court on this issue

The Supreme Court has upheld that it stands for the right to a dignified life for all animals. It has ruled that bulls are not performing animals and are not anatomically designed for such performances. The court has asked the Parliament to elevate the rights of the animals similar to that of constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court has already banned Jallikattu twice on May 2014 and January 2016. Keeping in mind, the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, MoEFCC issued an order allowing Jallikattu in January 7, 2016. The Supreme Court again upheld its earlier order of banning Jallikattu when approached by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).

Conclusion

Culture cannot be a dignified excuse for cruelty. The government has to make sure that the animals are not mistreated and tortured. If it cannot guarantee it, it would be wise to refrain from making any amendments to the PCA Act. Decisions taken just to woo supporters and voters may not be always correct.