ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ /2019

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTERS OF:

MR. AJAY…………….………………………………..PETITIONER

v.

MINISTRY OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES AND ORS

………………………………………………RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 1

List of Abbreviations...................................................................................................................... 2

Index of Authorities....................................................................................................................... .3

Statement of Jurisdiction................................................................................................................. 4

Statement of Facts........................................................................................................................... 5

Statement of Issues ........................................................................................................................ 6

Summary of Arguments................................................................................................................. 7

Arguments Advanced.......................................................................................................................9

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation brought before this court by the Petitioner is Maintainable or
not?

II. Whether the Dog Fighting Events being conducted in various parts of the country including the States
of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are illegal or not?

III. Whether the Respondents, herein, Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries; Animal
Welfare Board of India; States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are responsible for
preventing such Dog Fighting Events or not?

Prayer ...........................................................................................................................................

Memorandum On Behalf Of the Petitioner 1

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sec Section

& And

AIR All India Report

Govt. Government

Art. Article

Hon’ble Honourable

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

NCT National Capital Territory

v. / vs. Versus

Pg. Page

U.O.I. Union of India

Ors. Others

Anr. Another

AWBI Animal Welfare Board of India

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 2

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Constitution of India, 1950

CASES

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others, 1984 SCR (2) 67

Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj [(2014) 7 SCC 547]

Narayan Dutt Bhatt vs Union Of India And Others, SCC OnLine Utt 645, decided on 04-07-2018

BOOKS

Animal Laws of India , Raj Panjwani, Ozair Hussain & Maneka Gandhi, Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2011.

TREATIES

OIE-World Organisation for Animal Health, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2019

LEGISLATIONS

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra

2. SCC Online

3. West Law

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 3

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits this Public Interest Litigation for a writ of Mandamus for the violation of
Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950 before this court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction in this matter under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.”

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 4

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Ajay, a retired bank officer from the State Bank of India, is a resident of Ludhiana, Punjab. On
his usual morning walk, he saw a poster inconspicuously pasted on a wall in a lane near his home.

2. The poster was titled “Dog Fight” and the entire text was written in Punjabi. Following are the details
mentioned in the poster :-
a) Entry fee of Rs. 500
b) The winner will win a cup
c) Timings for registration – 8 AM to 10 AM
d) Date – 20th November 2019
e) No drugs to be administered to the dogs
f) The fight will take place within the radius of 2-3 kms of the village “X”, near Ludhiana.

3. As a vigilant and alert citizen, aware of the brutality and illegality of such fights, he informed the local
police station and even the state Animal Husbandry Department. Unfortunately, he did not get any
satisfactory response from either and reached out to multiple local and national animal protection
organisations.

4. He learnt that in many parts of rural Punjab, Haryana, Gurgaon, Noida and Delhi, such fights are a
regular affair and dogs are specifically trained for fighting. Specific breeds like the “Bully Kutta” are
imported and bred for this purpose. Often the law enforcement authorities are hands in glove with the
fight organisers and the administration has failed to take a stern step against dog fights.

5. Moreover, the locals are ignorant of the existing laws and encourage the organisers by attending such
fights and betting on the participating dogs. Such fights have seen an increased participation of the
youth, either by bringing their dogs to participate or by attending and betting, to earn quick money.

6. Mr.Ajay has brought this public interest petition in the Supreme Court of India as a vigilant, alert and
public spirited individual against the casual approach of the government towards the issue of dog
fighting and their failure to prevent and to take action against the illegal dog fighting events. The
government has also failed to ensure welfare of the animals.

7. This is a case about the duty of the respondents to reasonably ensure the welfare of the animals and
unfortunately, they have failed to satisfy this obligation. . The petitioner is seeking, inter alia, the immediate
intervention of this Hon’ble Court to address the rising instances of barbaric animal cruelty and inhumane
practice of dog fighting.

8. The respondents in this case are – Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries; Animal
Welfare Board of India; States of Punjab, Haryana, U.P and Delhi NCT.

Based on these facts the case rests in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 5

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

Whether the Public Interest Litigation brought before this court by the Petitioner is Maintainable or not?

ISSUE II:

Whether the Dog Fighting Events being conducted in various parts of the country including the States of
Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are illegal or not?

ISSUE III:

Whether the Respondents, herein, Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries; Animal Welfare
Board of India; States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are responsible for preventing such
Dog Fighting Events or not?

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 6

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation brought before this court by the Petitioner is
Maintainable or not?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that present PIL is maintainable and court can issue the
judicial remedy of mandamus against the respondents, in light of the fact that the Ministry of Animal
Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, being a department of the Central Govt. of India, and the States of
Punjab, Haryana, U.P and Delhi NCT, being state legislatures have a public duty and the Animal
Welfare Board of India, being a statutory advisory body advising the Government of India's Ministry of
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries has a statutory duty and thus are included in the definition of
State mentioned in the Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

It is further submitted that since there has been gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, i.e., the
Right to Life of animals during the dog fighting events, the petitioner has a right to claim the
enforcement of such public duty. Hence, the PIL is maintainable, and on account of the same relief is
sought.

II. Whether the Dog Fighting Events being conducted in various parts of the country including
the States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are illegal or not?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that under Sections 3, 11(1)(m) and 11(1)(n) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, It shall be the duty of every person having the care of
charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the wellbeing of such animal and to
prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering. If any person solely with a
view to providing entertainment incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal, he shall be
punishable.
If any person organizes, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any place for animal fighting or for
the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the
admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; he shall be punishable.
Under section 428 of IPC, 1860, Mischief by killing or maiming animal is a criminal offence. Thus, the
dog fighting events are illegal.

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 7

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

III. Whether the Respondents, herein, Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries;
Animal Welfare Board of India; States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are
responsible for preventing such Dog Fighting Events or not?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that under section 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act 1960, the Animal Welfare Board of India, established by the Central Government has a
duty to keep the law in force in India for the prevention of cruelty to animals under constant study
and to co-operate with, and co-ordinate the work of, associations or bodies established for the
purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals or for the protection of animals and
birds.

Under Article 48(A) and 51(A)(g), the Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries and
States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT fall under the Directive Principle of State
Policy and have a Fundamental duty to endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country, wildlife doesn’t only mean the animals in the
forests but animals all over the country and the State. Thus, Respondents, mentioned earlier, are
responsible for preventing such Dog Fighting Events.

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 8

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation brought before this court by the petitioner is
Maintainable or not?

The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution1950, since,

(I.1) the Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries and the States of Punjab, Haryana,
U.P and Delhi NCT, have a public duty and the Animal Welfare Board of India has a statutory duty
and thus are included in the definition of State mentioned in the Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, 1950.

(II.2) the petitioner, Mr. Ajay, has a right to bring this petition before this Hon’ble Court since there
has been violation of Fundamental Right of Right to life of the animals under article 21 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.

I.1. Public Interest litigation can be filed against the Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying
and Fisheries; Animal Welfare Board of India; States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and
Delhi NCT

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that present PIL is maintainable and that a
writ of Mandamus can be issued against the respondents.

Mandamus (lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any
government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some
specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the
nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty.

This Hon’ble court can issue the judicial remedy of mandamus against the respondents, in light of
the fact that the Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, being a department of the
Central Govt. of India, and the States of Punjab, Haryana, U.P and Delhi NCT, being state
legislatures have a public duty and the Animal Welfare Board of India, being a statutory advisory
body advising the Government of India's Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries has
a statutory duty and thus are included in the definition of State mentioned in the Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.

Article12. Definition.-

In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of
India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within
the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 9

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

II.2. Fundamental Rights have been violated

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner, Mr, Ajay, has a right to bring
this petition before this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as a public spirited
individual which clearly states the right to move to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the fundamental
rights.

Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

Public Interest is something in which the public, the community at large has something pecuniary
interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean
anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interest of the particular localities, which may be
affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by the citizens generally in affair of local, State or
national government...”
It is to be noted that the locus standi of petition filed u/a 32 writ of Habeas Corpus necessarily be
proved, whereas the locus standi of the PIL does not necessarily be proved.

During the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others, this Hon’ble Court laid
down that whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right and the class whose fundamental
right is violated but who cannot have resort to the court, and in such a case, the court can and must
allow any member of the public acting bona fide to espouse the cause of such class.

In the present case concerning the Dog fighting events before this court, the Fundamental Right
infringed includes the Right to life under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 which clearly
states that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty.

21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.

This Hon’ble Court in the judgment of Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraj [(2014) 7 SCC
547]) expanded the scope of Article 21 and said that Article doesn’t only apply to humans but
applies to animals also. The court laid down:

“Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word
“life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which
includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the
meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution... Right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not
confined to human beings alone, but to animals as well.”

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 10

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Moreover, during the judgment of Narayan Dutt Bhatt vs Union of India and Others, The High
Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital held that-

“The entire animal kingdom, including avian and aquatic animals are hereby declared ‘Legal
entities’, having corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person”.

Thus, this Public Interest Litigation brought before this court by the petitioner is Maintainable
because the petitioner is a public spirited individual and and the dog fighting events clearly violate
the Fundamental Rights of the animals.

II. Whether the Dog Fighting Events being conducted in various parts of the country including the
States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are illegal or not?

Dog fighting is a type of blood sport with two game dogs against one another in a ring or a pit for
the entertainment of the spectators. They are unleashed on each other and made to fight till one of
them dies, sustaining many injuries in the process.

The practice of pitting dogs against each other continued through medieval times in England to the
18th century, and has now made its way into suburban India. Dogs are smuggled from Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Australia into India.

Under provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, this practice of dog fighting stands
illegal-

“Section 3. Duties of persons having charge of animals. – It shall be the duty of every person having
the care of charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the wellbeing of such
animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.”.

“Section 11(1)(m) -If any person solely with a view to providing entertainment incites any animal to
fight or bait any other animal, he shall be punishable.”

“Section 11(1)(n) -If any person organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any place for
animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used
or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such
purposes; he shall be punishable.”

Moreover, section 428 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), states that -

“428. Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the value of ten rupees.—Whoever commits mischief
by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees
or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Memorandum On Behalf Of the Petitioner 11

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja [(2014) 7 SCC 547], this Hon’ble court held that such
animal sports as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and also violate sections 3, 11(1)(a) and
11(1)(m) of the PCA Act .

Moreover, World Health Organization of Animal Health (OIE), of which India is a member, acts as
the international reference organisation for animal health and animal welfare. On animal welfare,
OIE says that an animal is in good state of welfare if (as indicated by Scientific evidence) it is
healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and if it is not suffering
from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress.

Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of OIE, recognizes five internationally recognized freedoms for
animals, such as:

i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;

ii) freedom from fear and distress;
iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;
iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and
v) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

The counsel believes that the dog fighting events violate the freedom from pain, injury and disease;
and India being a signatory, member of OIE needs to do away with this practice.

On the basis of precedence and authority cited, the counsel humbly submits that Dog Fighting
Events being conducted in various parts of the country including the States of Punjab, Haryana,
Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are illegal and should be stopped under various provisions of law
stated earlier.

III. Whether the Respondents, herein, Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries;
Animal Welfare Board of India; States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are
responsible for preventing such Dog Fighting Events or not?

The respondents are responsible under provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and
various provisions of the Constitution of India, 1950, respectively.

III.1 Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries; Animal Welfare Board of India
and States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT, are responsible.

The Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 48A of the Constitution of India enjoins the
State to take steps to protect the wildlife of the country,
where wildlife doesn’t only mean the animals in the forests but animals all over the country and the
State, as earlier mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution includes Ministry of Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries being a department of the central government and States of Punjab, Haryana,
Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCT being state legislatures.

Memorandum On Behalf Of the Petitioner 12

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

48A Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.-

The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wild life of the country.

Article12 Definition.-

In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and
Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or
other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Moreover, under article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950, it is the Fundamental Duty of the
State to protect and improve the natural environment including wildlife, where wildlife include all
animals including dogs.

51A. Fundamental duties.-

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and
to have compassion for living creatures;

III.2 Animal Welfare Board of India is responsible.

The Animal Welfare Board (AWBI) was established in 1962 under Section 4 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Board ensures implementation of the animal welfare laws in the
country in a very diligent manner and provides grants to Animal Welfare Organizations and advice
the Centre, States and UTs on animal welfare issues.

Section 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 clearly lays down the functions of the
Animal Welfare Board of India, established by the Central Government.

9. Functions of the Board.―The functions of the Board shall be― (a) to keep the law in force in
India for the prevention of cruelty to animals under constant study and advise the Government on
the amendments to be undertaken in any such law from time to time;

(h) to co-operate with, and co-ordinate the work of, associations or bodies established for the
purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals or for the protection of animals and
birds;

Thus, as clearly laid down under the various provisions of the law of the land, it is humbly submitted
that the Respondents, mentioned earlier, are responsible for preventing such Dog Fighting Events.

Memorandum On Behalf Of the Petitioner 13

 ANIMAL LAW CELL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel
humbly requests that the Hon’ble Court find in favor of the petitioner and declare:

 This petition brought before the court is maintainable and declare a complete ban on the dog
fighting events being conducted in the country
 Declare that the rights guaranteed to the dogs under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with
Article 21 and article 48(A) cannot be taken away or curtailed
 Direct the AWBI and Governments to take appropriate steps to see that the persons-in-charge
or care of animals, take reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of animals.
 declare that the five freedoms of animals, laid in the guidelines of OIC, be protected and
safeguarded by the States, Central Government, Union Territories and AWBI
 direct the AWBI to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii) scrupulously followed,
meaning thereby, that the person-in-charge or care of the animal shall not incite any animal
to fight against a human being or another animal.

AND/OR

pass any such order or any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Place:

Date:

Memorandum On Behalf Of The Petitioner 14