The Supreme Court of India has sought the Centre’s response on a plea challenging the validity of a rule that allows authorities to confiscate animals during ongoing legal proceedings. The petition argues that the rule violates constitutional rights and goes beyond the powers granted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sought responses from the Union government and other concerned parties on a petition challenging the validity of a rule related to the custody of animals during the pendency of court proceedings.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta agreed to examine the matter and issued notices to the Centre and other respondents, asking them to file their replies on the issue.
The petition questions the legality of Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017. According to the plea, this rule goes beyond the powers granted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, particularly the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Act.
The petitioner has argued that Rule 3 allows authorities to confiscate animals or livestock even before a person is convicted in a case related to animal cruelty. The plea contends that such a provision effectively results in permanent removal of ownership from the person accused, even though the case may still be under trial.
Section 29 of the 1960 Act deals with the powers of a court after a person has been convicted of offences related to animal cruelty. It allows the court to disqualify a convicted person from owning animals in the future. However, the petition claims that the 2017 Rules go further by permitting confiscation or long-term custody of animals even before any conviction has taken place.
The plea therefore asks the Court to declare Rule 3 unconstitutional and strike it down. It argues that the rule is inconsistent with the parent legislation and exceeds the powers granted under the Act.
The petitioner has also raised constitutional concerns, stating that the rule violates fundamental legal protections. According to the plea, allowing confiscation of animals before conviction undermines the principle of equality before the law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
In addition, the petition argues that such action may amount to unlawful deprivation of property. Article 300A of the Constitution states that no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law. The plea claims that Rule 3 effectively allows authorities to take away ownership rights without a final judicial determination of guilt.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court took note of the submissions made in the petition and decided to tag the matter with a previously pending case raising similar legal questions. The Bench issued notice to the Union government and other parties and sought their responses on the constitutional validity of the rule.
The case will now be taken up after the respondents file their replies, following which the Court is expected to examine whether Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules is consistent with the provisions of the 1960 Act and the constitutional protections guaranteed to individuals.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Animal Custody
