Friday, March 29, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

All Creatures Great and Small

Petitions have been filed in various courts regarding “harm” done to non-human objects, be they dogs, cows, trees or rivers. Should they be seen as frivolous pleas which waste the court’s time?

“No doubt, a dog/cat is treated as a child or as a family member by their owners, but basic biology tells us that they are not human beings.” The Bombay High Court made this observation while quashing an FIR under Sections 279, 337, 429 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 11(a)(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The accused/petitioner was 20-year-old final year student of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication. At the time of the incident, he was 18 and working as a delivery partner in Swiggy. The incident took place on April 11, 2020 at about 8.00 p.m. The complainant was then feeding stray dogs at Marine Drive and alleged that the accused person’s bike hit a street dog, injuring it. The bike, meanwhile, skid about 40m and the accused also fell and got injured. Following this, the complainant lodged an FIR against him.

So, what do the various Sections of the IPC deal with? Section 279 deals with rash driving. It says: “Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 

Section 337 says: “Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” 

Section 429 says: “Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.”

Meanwhile, Section 184 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 says that whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, (or which causes a sense of alarm or distress to the occupants of the vehicle, other road users, and persons near roads,)…shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term, (which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months or with fine which shall not be less than Rs 1,000 but may extend to Rs 5,000 or with both). And for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence there will be imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine (of Rs 10,000), or with both. This can include jumping a red light, violating a stop sign, use of handheld communication devices while driving, overtaking other vehicles in a manner contrary to law, driving against the authorised flow of traffic or driving in any manner that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

Section 11 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 says: “If any person—

(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animals to be so treated; or 

“( b) [employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease], infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be so employed.”

The Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan of the Bombay High Court noted that Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC pertain to acts endangering human life, or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. “The said sections do not recognize and make an offence any injury caused otherwise than to human being. Thus, insofar as the injury/death caused to the pet/animal is concerned, the same would not constitute offences under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code.”

As far as application of Section 429 is concerned, the same will also have no application, as the essential ingredients (i.e. causing loss and damage to a person or the property), warranting application of this Section, are amiss, the Court noted. In order to attract Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court said that neither the circumstances stipulated in the explanation nor the provisions were made out/disclosed in the facts. 

Lastly, Section 11(a)(b) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act would also not apply due to the manner in which the incident took place. There was no intent whatsoever of the accused to cause the death of the dog which intersected the road when he was on his bike on the way to deliver a food parcel, the Court held. “Nothing is shown by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was driving beyond the speed limit stipulated on the said road. The incident shows that the dog crossed the road, as a result of which, the petitioner’s bike due to sudden braking, skidded and as such the petitioner sustained injuries on his person in the said incident and the dog got injured and later succumbed to the same,” the order said.

There have been other instances in the past where non-human objects were the subject matter of petitions. On August 17, 2021, the Allahabad High Court referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement after getting elected from Varanasi parliamentary seat in May 2014 where he said that it was his destiny to serve Maa Ganga. 

The Court observed that every effort should be made to revive the holy river and make it pollution-free. It said: “According to Hindu Mythology, Bhagiratha, a legendary king of the Ikshvaku dynasty, brought the River Ganga to Earth from heavens because only she could bestow nirvana to Bhagiratha’s ancestors who were cursed by Sage Kapila. After years of great penance, River Ganga descended on Earth and Lord Shiva agreed to channelize her flow. Therefore, River Ganga flowed from Lord Shiva’s hair. The place where the sacred river originated is known as Gangotri in present times, and since the river originated from Lord Shiva’s Jata (hair) it is also called Jatashankari.”

The Court added: “River Ganga is called by several names, including Jahnavi, Shubhra, Sapteshwari, Nikita, Bhagirathi, Alaknanda, and Vishnupadi. It is believed that it flows from all the three worlds—Heaven/Swarga, Earth/Prithvi, and Hell/ Patala. In Hinduism, the holy River Ganga is personified and personalized as Goddess Ganga. People believe that bathing in the pious Ganga can help wash all sins. It is also believed that a mere touch of the river can help attain moksha (salvation) and so the ashes of the dead persons are immersed in the sacred river so that the dead attains moksha (gange tav darshanarth mukti). There is no match to the everlasting divinity of holy river Ganga,” the Division Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed.

And then on September 2021, the Allahabad High Court suggested that the cow be declared a national animal, keeping in view its Vedic, mythological and cultural importance, apart from social utility. A single-judge Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav made the above observation while rejecting a bail application of a person charged under Section 379 of the IPC (Punishment of Theft) and Sections 3, 5, 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. 

The Court said that the cow is considered a mother in India. It is a matter of faith for Hindus. Injury to the faith weakens the country. Eating beef is not a fundamental right of anyone. The Right to Life cannot be taken away for the taste of the tongue. The old sick cow is also useful for agriculture. It is not right to allow its killing. It is the backbone of Indian agriculture, it added.

And in December 2019, a PIL was filed in the top court seeking direction to recognise trees a Living Entities entitled to rights. The PIL was later withdrawn. 

Besides humans, it is obvious that non-human objects too are revered and their harm agonises people to such an extent that they file petitions in courts. 

—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau

spot_img

News Update