ISSUE I: WHETHER THE ORDER DATED 01/01/2021 NOTIFIED BY THE UNION

GOVERNMENT OF MARIO IS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY?

[A] RETROSPECTIVE APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO

ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT,2021 (PCAA)

1. The Union Government of Mario notified the National Green Tribunal Amendment
Act, 2021 will be in effect from January 1, 2021, by exercising powers under Section
34 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and Section 3 of the Mario Environment
Protection Act, 1986. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 was included
in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010 as Item No.8. The nature of
the NGT order is prospective. According to the union government, if a law
modification, regulation, or statute does not expressly specify that it is retrospective in
its application, it is merely prospective. The Union Government of Mario has not
stated if its amendment is retroactive. As a result, consequent amendments made by
the Union Government of Mario to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960
and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 are
interpreted to be prospective in their applicability.
2. In the case of L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise 1, the
Supreme Court ruled that “It is a settled proposition of law that all laws are deemed to
apply prospectively unless either expressly specified to apply retrospectively or
intended to have been done so by the legislature. The latter would be a case of
necessary implication and it cannot be inferred lightly.” It was ruled that for
subsequent action to be applied retroactively, it must be shown that the prior act had
any omissions or ambiguities, or that it was meant to explain an earlier act. In the case
of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/S. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.,2 the Supreme Court
of India held that the legislature cannot overturn a court judgment by making a
retrospective amendment to the relevant law, as this would confer excessive power in
the hands of one government organ while trying to suppress the other two. The courts
will not assign retrospectivity to proposed laws affecting rights unless the legislature
expressly stated or implied that this was the intent of the legislature. Within certain
bounds, the Parliament can entrust its legislative authority.3

1
[2008] 235 SC 0664
2
[2018] 3 SCC 253
3
Income-Tax Officer, Alleppey vs M.C. Ponnoose & Ors 1970 SCR (1) 678
 3. In National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India & Anr v Union
of India & Ors4, the Supreme Court held that retrospective amendments are
unconstitutional if the enactment provides insufficient clarity on the part of the
enactment that seeks to overturn previous court decisions or change existing law. In
Philips v. Eyre, an international5 case, it was ruled that a retrospective law is contrary
to the general principle that legislation regulating mankind's conduct should not
change the nature of past transactions carried out on the trust of the then-existing law
when it is introduced to deal with future acts. In Rohtas Bhankhar & Ors v. Union of
India & Anr6, the court stated when a retrospective change is to be made, it must be
ensured that the amendment does not harm the general public. In this instance,
applicants belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories received
a waiver for a competitive test, giving retrospective effect to existing legislation.
4. Acts that occurred before the law's enactment are changed or altered by retroactive
legislation. By creating or imposing a new responsibility for an act committed before
the passage of a law, a retroactive statute takes away or damages an existing right.
Penal provisions, on the other hand, are not subject to the retroactive application of
the law. Article 20 (1) of the Indian Constitution protects against retroactive
application of legislation, often known as ex post facto law, which alters the legal
implications of activities taken before the law's enactment. It is a well-established
legal principle that all laws are assumed to apply prospectively unless they are
specifically stated to apply retroactively or the legislature intends to do so. 7 It is
impossible to assume that the law was written to be applied retroactively. The rule's
premise is that current legislation should regulate current activity. A law enacted
today cannot be applied to events that occurred in the past.
5. Thus, legislation that modifies accrued rights, imposes obligations, imposes new
duties, or attaches a new disability must be treated as prospective unless the proposed
amendment is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect or the legislation is
enacted to fill an obvious omission in previous legislation or to explain previous
legislation. The Supreme Court has frequently stated that to provide retrospective
effect to an amendment, it must be explicitly stated in the legislation that the Act is
intended to have retrospective effect. Thus, interpreting the facts it is very evident that
4
[1981] 130 ITR 928
5
[1870] LR 6 QB 1
6
[2014] 8 SCC 872
7
 the Union Government of Mario notified the National Green Tribunal Amendment
Act, 2021 will be in effect from January 1, 2021, and has not particularly mentioned
the retrospective effect. Since it is not explicitly stated in the amendment it is
considered to only have a prospective effect.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY MR.

YOSHI IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HONOURABLE NATIONAL GREEN
TRIBUNAL?

[A] MAINTAINABILITY OF PIL BASED ON NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS AND TV

NEWS REPORTS

1. Mr. Yoshi filed a Public Interest Litigation on 02.04.2021 against Pacman Industries
Limited before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, alleging violation of the
provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2021 (PCAA)
and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001. Yoshi
provided newspaper clippings, TV news reports, and footage published to social
media sites in support of the PIL, which were taken in Pacman's farms and
slaughterhouses. These newspaper reports cannot be considered as a piece of valid
evidence because it lacks truthfulness and does not hold credible information. This
can only be considered secondary evidence but not primary evidence. We cannot
accept cognizance of facts expressed in a news article because they are inadmissible
secondary evidence unless they are proven by aliunde evidence. A newspaper report
is simply hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the materials listed in Section
78(2) of the Evidence Act of 1872 as being capable of proving a factual claim. The
presumption of authenticity attached to a newspaper article under Section 81 of the
Evidence Act cannot be taken as proof of the facts reported.8
2. Newspaper articles aren't considered acceptable evidence. It is impossible to sustain a
PIL solely on newspaper reports.9 A newspaper article with no additional verification
of what happened from witnesses is worthless. It is, at best, secondhand information.
Journalists are well-known for gathering material and passing it on to an editor, who
subsequently edits and publishes the news item. The truth may be distorted or
muddled as a result of this process. Such news articles cannot be claimed to prove

8
 Lakmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1988] 3 SCC 319
9
Anindya Sundar Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors [2018] 105 WB 274
 anything by themselves, but they can be used in conjunction with other evidence if the
other evidence is compelled.10
3. No public interest litigation may be maintained based on newspaper reports except if
the PIL petitioner has done the necessary groundwork before seeking the court. The
PIL will be dismissed.11 It's also worth noting that the petition is based on press claims
that haven't been independently verified. Newspaper reports do not serve as evidence,
as numerous respected high courts have stated in different situations. A petition based
on unverified news reporting that has not been verified should not typically be
considered. As previously stated, such petitions provide no grounds for confirming
the accuracy of the assertions made or facts provided in the petition. 12 It is far too
simplistic to assign legitimacy or credibility to any piece of information or fact simply
because it appeared in a newspaper, journal, magazine, or another medium of
communication as if it were absolute truth. Newspaper articles are not legally
admissible evidence in and of themselves.13
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that before approaching the High Court with a PIL, a
party must conduct adequate research and submit relevant materials to the Court in
support of the grievance raised in the writ petition. The current writ petition is not
backed up by any substantially credible evidence. The petitioner hasn't gone to the
bother of conducting any study. The writ petition was brought solely based on press
reports.14 They operate in the guise of Pro Bono Publico, even if they have no public
or even personal interest to safeguard.15
5. Given the abovementioned statements, there seems to be no doubt that this PIL, which
is solely based on newspaper reports and videos on social media, should be dismissed.
As previously claimed, Mr. Yoshi made no effort to ask about and acquire essential
data/material concerning the occurrences, and they also did not attempt to verify the
facts. The above-mentioned legal stance has been completely disregarded. Newspaper
reports with no supporting evidence are unreliable. The information in the report is
based solely on conjecture. It is not one of the documents mentioned in Section 78(2)
of the Evidence Act as a means of proving an accusation. Thus, owing to the lack of
10
Samant N.Balkrishna and another Vs.George Fernandez [1969] 3 SCC 238
11
M. V.Arun vs. The District Collector and Ors [2020] 11 KER 311
12
 Holicow Picture (Private) Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors [2007] 14 SCC 281
13
Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors [2004] 3 SCC 363
14
Ibid 274.
15
Ibid 281
 credible information, and considering the second-hand information of the news
reports, this PIL filed by Mr. Yoshi is not maintainable under the law.

[B] CAUSE OF ACT UNDER NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

1. Thus, the time limit for filing a complaint under clause 3 of section 14 of the NGT act
is 60 days from the date of the act. According to Section 14 of the NGT Act, the
Tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil matters involving a serious question of
environmental law about the aforesaid legislation, as long as the cause of action arose
within six months of the filing of such an application with the Tribunal. The National
Green Tribunal Act, Section 14(3), explicitly states that conflicts falling within the
scope of the National Green Tribunal's Ambit would be limited to six months.
2. The petition was submitted outside of the time frame required in Section 14(3) of the
2010 Act and its proviso, and the cause of action occurred outside of the NGT's
geographical borders, thus the principal bench of New Delhi held that the NGT lacks
jurisdiction to hear it.16 There is no set formula for determining when a cause of action
originated on the facts of a specific dispute, and the cause of action must be evaluated
in light of the entire facts and circumstances. Mr. Yoshi filed a Public Interest
Litigation on 02.04.2021 against Pacman Industries Limited before the Hon'ble
National Green Tribunal. The facts of the case do not mention the “first cause of
action”, hence there arises a reasonable doubt whether the PIL is maintainable under
section 14(3) of NGT. Mr. Yoshi presented the evidence before the Hon'ble National
Green Tribunal on various dates between 01.01.2020 and 31.03.2021. since the date
of “first cause of action” is not mentioned, the evidence produced by Mr. Yoshi from
01.01.2020 to 31.03.2021 cannot be considered.

[B] PUNISHMENTS ARE ARBITRARY

1. The Hon'ble NGT, in an order dated 01.06.2021, ordered Pacman's total shutdown
and barred it from engaging in any animal agricultural activity for a term of ten
years, as well as a fine of Rupees Rs.40 lakhs each month from 01.01.2020 to
01.06.2021. The provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment
Act, 2021 (PCAA) regarding punishments are arbitrary and severe. The facts of
the case do not mention the economic status of Pacman Industries. The fine of
Rupees Rs.40 lakhs each month from 01.01.2020 to 01.06.2021 is completely
State of Telangana through its Chief Secretary, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana & Anrr v. Md. Hayath
16

Uddin & Ors [2017] 11 SCC 481

arbitrary. Since the amendment of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of
1960 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 are
considered to be prospective and not retrospective, imposing the fine from
01.01.2020 is unlawful. The National Green Tribunal Amendment Act, 2021,
came into effect on 01.01.2021, but the amendments to section 11 of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 were notified only on 01.04.2021.
Since the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act,
2021 (PCAA) came into effect on 01.04.2021, the fine should be imposed from
this day onwards only. From 01.01.2021 to 31.03.2021 the fine was only from Rs.
10 to Rs.50. Thus, the order given by the Hon'ble NGT is arbitrary and unlawful
with flaws.