Animal Cruelty — Cockfighting — Betting — Public interest
Cockfighting involving betting constitutes an unlawful activity attracting the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and allied statutes, warranting intervention by State authorities.
(Paras 3, 5)
Writ jurisdiction — Batch matters — Identical relief
Where multiple writ petitions seek the same relief, they may be heard together and disposed of by a common order.
(Para 1)
Inaction of authorities — Mandamus
Failure of authorities to act on representations seeking prevention of cockfights justifies issuance of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(Paras 3–5)
Binding precedent — Division Bench directions
Directions issued by a Division Bench in earlier proceedings concerning prevention of cockfights are binding and can be reiterated and enforced in subsequent writ petitions.
(Paras 3, 5)
Implementation of statutory duties — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
District Collectors, Commissioners of Police and Superintendents of Police are under a statutory obligation to ensure effective implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder.
(Para 5, Guidelines 1, 5, 6)
Constitution of SPCA — Mandatory duty
State Government is obligated to constitute State and District Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals strictly in accordance with the 2001 Rules.
(Para 5, Guideline 1)
Preventive policing — Section 144 Cr.P.C.
District authorities are empowered to invoke Section 144 Cr.P.C. to prevent cockfighting events and allied unlawful activities.
(Para 5, Guideline 3)
Seizure — Instruments and betting money
Authorities are entitled to seize instruments used for cockfights and money collected towards betting.
(Para 5, Guideline 4)
Administrative accountability — Personal responsibility
District Collectors, Commissioners of Police and Superintendents of Police can be held personally responsible for lapses in enforcement of animal cruelty laws.
(Para 5, Guideline 5)
Disciplinary action — Dereliction of duty
Failure of Tahsildars and Police Officers to enforce animal welfare laws can attract disciplinary action.
(Para 5, Guideline 7)
Supreme Court precedents — Animal welfare
Directions issued are in consonance with binding decisions of the Supreme Court recognising animal welfare as a constitutional and statutory obligation.
(Para 5, Guidelines 1 & 7)
ANALYSIS
The batch of writ petitions was filed seeking a common relief, namely, directions to the State and its authorities to prevent cockfights, particularly during festive seasons, on the ground that such activities involve betting, cruelty to animals, social degradation, addiction among youth and loss of property (Paras 1, 3).
The petitioners complained of administrative inaction despite representations. They relied on earlier Division Bench directions in W.P.(PIL) No.177 of 2016, wherein detailed preventive and enforcement measures had already been laid down (Paras 3, 5).
The learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the police were taking steps to educate the public and left the matter to the discretion of the Court (Para 4).
The Court, instead of issuing fresh directions, reiterated and enforced the existing binding guidelines, emphasising that they continue to govern the field. The Court reproduced and applied detailed operational directions relating to constitution of SPCAs, joint inspection teams, preventive measures under Cr.P.C., seizure powers, awareness programmes and administrative accountability (Para 5).
Significantly, the Court underscored personal responsibility of District Collectors, Commissioners of Police and Superintendents of Police for effective enforcement, and recognised the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against erring officials, aligning with Supreme Court jurisprudence on animal welfare (Para 5, Guideline 7).
All writ petitions were accordingly disposed of, preserving liberty to police authorities to take action in case of violation of the guidelines (Para 5, concluding portion).
RATIO DECIDENDI
Cockfighting involving betting constitutes an unlawful activity attracting the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and allied laws. When authorities fail to act on representations seeking prevention of such activities, the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, can enforce and reiterate binding Division Bench and Supreme Court directions. District Collectors and Police authorities bear statutory and personal responsibility to prevent cockfights, invoke preventive powers under Cr.P.C., seize instruments and betting money, and ensure effective enforcement of animal welfare laws, including by initiating disciplinary action against erring officials.
