Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Balakrishnan v. Union of India

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Jui 6, 2000
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court of Kerala
Juge
Narayanakurup
Sankaranarayanan
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Santé des animaux Droit constitutionnel Protection des animaux
Résumé
The Central Government on the basis of a report of the Animal Welfare Board of India issued a notification specifying that the following animals shall not be exhibited or trained as a performing animal: Bears, monkeys, tigers, anthers and lions. The petitioners challenged the validity of the notification. They submitted that the Govt. of India had issued the impugned notification unsupported by adequate materials, that the said notification was not preceded by a hearing to the petitioners, that it was discriminatory and violative of the Constitution of India in so far as it was intended to ban exhibition and training of animals in circus only without bringing the zoos within its ken and that it offended the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on their occupation as guaranteed under the Constitution. The court was of the view that from the abundant material which was before the Government, it could not be said that it had abused or exceeded its powers or committed any error of law of committed breach of rules of natural justice. Secondly, the court decided that the petitioners did not have a right of hearing before the issuance of a statutory notification because it had not been specifically provided for in the Statute itself. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the comparison between zoos and circuses sought to be made out was unrealistic and inexpedient. Whereas the sole motto of circus was monetary gain for the owner of circus company in the name of entertainment, the zoos on the other hand were meant for conservation and education purpose. Among the two conservation techniques – exsitu and insitu, zoos were excellent places for captive breeding. Captive breeding helped animals to proliferate their species in protection, which was not the case in circus. Besides that, the words ’trade’ or ’business’ as used in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India did not permit carrying on of an activity if it resulted in infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on the specified animals. No person had any right to carry on a business which resulted in infliction of unnecessary pain nor a right to carry on a business which had been declared by law as an offence. In conclusion, the court was of the view that circus animals were being forced to perform unnatural tricks, were housed in cramped cages, subjected to fear, hunger, pain, not to mention the undignified way of life they had to live, and the impugned notification had been issued in conformity with the changing scenario, values of human life and philosophy of the Constitution to prevent the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals. Though not homosapiens, they were also beings entitled to dignified existence and humane treatment sans cruelty and torture. In many respects, they comported better than humans, they killed to eat and ate to live and not lived to eat as some humans did, they did not practice deception, fraud, or falsehood and malpractices as humans did, they cared for their little ones expecting nothing in return, they did not proliferate as we did depleting the already scarce resources of the earth, for they practiced sex restraint by seasonal mating, nor did they inhale the lethal smoke of tobacco polluting the atmosphere and inflicting harm on fellow beings. Many believed that the lives of humans and animals were equally valuable and that their interests should count equally. Their contribution to the health of humans was invaluable, once it was remembered that nearly every advance in health care and combating human diseases had been based on animal research. Therefore, it was not only a fundamental duty to show compassion to animals, but also to recognise and protect their rights. If humans were entitled to fundamental rights, why not animals? Legal rights should not be the exclusive preserve of the humans. The thick legal wall with humans all on one side and all non-human animals on the other side had to be dismantled. While the law currently protected wild life and endangered species from extinction, animals were denied rights, an anachronism which had to change. Thus, the impugned notification was upheld.
Texte intégral
text.asp