The Karnataka High Court quashed an order returning nine dogs to an owner accused of cruelty, stressing that animals are not mere chattels under law. The Court directed six golden retrievers and three shih tzu dogs to remain in an NGO’s custody pending investigation into the animal cruelty allegations.
The High Court has set aside an order of the Magistrate’s Court that had directed the return of nine rescued dogs six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus to their original owner, KE Ramesh, who is facing allegations of animal cruelty, repeated beatings, and sexual abuse of the animals.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the order on Wednesday while allowing a petition filed by PETA that challenged the Magistrate’s Court order dated April 25, 2026, which had been made in favour of the owner.
The Peenya police had registered a case against Ramesh in March this year.
The judge noted,
“The measure of a civilised society is reflected not only in how it treats fellow humans, but also in how it extends mercy and justice to voiceless creatures,”
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the Magistrate’s order was deeply disturbing and shocks the conscience of the court.
He stated that materials placed before the Magistrate such as videos and photographs appeared to show Ramesh repeatedly beating the dogs and treating them like chattels that he can deal with as and how he wants.
The court further questioned how the lower court could have ordered the dogs to be returned despite such evidence being on record.
The judge also pointed out that the investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse of the dogs is still ongoing.
The judge said,
“In such circumstances, the order directing the return of the dogs is, to say the least, preposterous,” ,
Adding the Magistrate’s ordered,
“Cannot sustain even for a minute and therefore deserved to be quashed.”
Allowing PETA’s petition, Justice Nagaprasanna emphasised both the legal and moral responsibility to shield animals from cruelty.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Case| Not All Dogs Must Be Removed from Streets: Supreme Court Clarifies
He noted that animals are sentient beings that can experience pain and suffering, and that the law no longer regards them as mere property meant solely for human use. Instead, they must be recognised as living beings entitled to dignity, compassion, and protection.
He further remarked that cruelty to animals is not only harmful to a sentient creature, but also a blemish upon the collective human conscience.
Stating that animal protection is not an act of charity, the judge said it reflects constitutional morality and reinforces that the arc of justice must extend even to those who cannot knock at the doors of this court by themselves.