Animals and law

It was reported that a dog named Dolly was living under conditions, that are illegal under Indian law. This is how case was dealt with.  The "owner" was approached, he was requested to remedy the situation or surrender the animal. He refused to do so. He was reminded that his action was illegal and that he was leaving no course of action, but a police complaint against him. He said that he didn't care a damn about the police. The place where Dolly was tied was photographed and video was taken. It was observed that Dolly was tied on a very short leash, in filthy surroundings, information was obtained that suggested that she was not adequately exercised, considering that she was tied all the time. It also came to be known the water bowl and food bowl wasn't cleaned for days and that she was not regularly and properly fed, and provided with clean water.  The concerned police station was approached. The situation was verbally as written in (2) above was conveyed

In case of animal cruelty cases individuals have a locus standi. In the judgement,  Bal Gangadhar Tripathi Advocate, S/o Sri Kamla Prasad Tripathi And Others... Applicants; v. State of UP And Others... (Allahabad High Court, 19 Jan, 1996), para 5, it is said "The animals are national assets. They ... help maintain proper environment. ... Governmental machinery and efforts by themselves are not sufficient and therefore voluntary organisations have a definitely an important role to play in the matter. it is rare to find any private citizen approaching a Court of law for prevention of cruelty to animals. In fact, it is voluntary organisations and the persons having zeal and mission who come to Court and bring the matter to the notice of the Court or to the notice of the appropriate Governmental authorities. Thus, these matters are in the nature of public interest litigation although the case may be tried or concluded largely within the frame work of the Code of Crimina

This is about a  Nirbhaya  of another species. A lactating female canine was allegedly  raped with a rod and then killed  in front of her puppies. According to a news report, " a watchman... inserted a rod into a stray dog's ... vagina and gouged out her entrails while her seven puppies lay beside her",  the accused is out on a  bail of Rs. 3000 . What charges have been applied are not known. Has I PC 377  been applied? It seems that IPC 375 considers rape even when an  object  has been used to penetrate the reproductive or excretory organs of the victim. Punishment under IPC 377 could extend to a life term in jail, and for now make it more difficult to get bail. Section 377 of IPC has been the focus of a lot of pro & anti libtard drama , without any consideration to the fact that it protects animals against bestiality in India, unlike other jurisdictions where it is legal . (Video is representational and linked from YouTube, all rights with the upload

  Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar, 23 April, 1958  refers to a Supreme Court of India judgement delivered in the year 1958. It contains observations related to gaushalas, what it calls gosadans. It mentions that gosadans were concentration camps, where inmates were left " to a fate of slow death".  Interestingly the said judgement mentions recommendations of  The Cattle Preservation and Development Committee set up by the Government of India in 1948, that gosadans should provide two acres of land per inmate. Related to the subject is an undated report, titled Gau Gaatha, Tale of the Cow , based on, it is claimed, an investigation that has covered 179 gaushalas in 13 states and 2 union territories, has been shared by  FIAPO  through its email newsletter of 6 September, 2018. Though the report has made appropriate and playing to the anti-Hindu gallery noises, about Injun's enemy number 1: gau rakshaks, without using the g word, it