GOVT. ACT,LAWS & REGULATIONS RELATED TO A.H

ANIMAL EUTHANASIA AND LAWS IN INDIA

November 25, 2022

5435

ANIMAL EUTHANASIA AND LAWS IN INDIA

“You cannot humanely kill something that doesn’t want to die.”

Justin Van Kleek

The practice of euthanasia, or the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, is still a much-debated topic around the world, and its legal validity in case of humans has been the subject of litigations and judicial review for long, but while some countries like Australia, Netherlands and Belgium have legalised certain forms of assisted euthanasia, India is still a country which is largely reluctant to adopt the concept of euthanasia for humans wholly, and Indian courts have very sparingly approved cases of euthanasia for humans, with it legalising passive euthanasia only in March 2018 and that too only if the patients give their consent through a living will, and must be either terminally ill or in a vegetative state. Active euthanasia is still illegal in India. In a situation like this, the practice of euthanasia in the case of animals, especially stray dogs, has been around for a long time. Although subject to regulations, guidelines and directives today, it is still in practice. It was first adopted as a practice by the British in India to curb the menace of the rising population of stray dogs and the subsequent cases of rabies infections. This program was carried out even after Independence by the Indian government, through which an estimated 50,000 dogs were killed every year. However, it was soon realised and even reported by The Welfare of Stray Dogs (WSD) association that the practice of killing stray dogs has largely failed to curb the rising dog population and the increase in cases of rabies infections. Studies undertaken by the World Health Organisation and the Animal Welfare Board of India (Ministry of Environment & Forests) also showed that the practices for control of the dog population which are successful in developed countries are not necessarily successfully applicable to developing countries too, as the socio-economic and other conditions largely vary for both these categories of nations. With this understanding, it was majorly decided upon that the better alternative to the mass killing of stray dogs to control their population is to ensure the formulation of proper and systematic measures for control of the dog population, which would only approve of euthanasia in extreme conditions.

In this regard, the Guidelines for Dog Population Management were issued by the WHO and the World Society for the Protection of Animals in 1990, which called for, amongst other measures:

Registration and identification of all dogs.
Annual re-immunisation of a minimum of 85% of the total dog population
Low-cost/free neutering of owned dogs, especially in low-income group areas
Controlling markets, street food vendors and clearing up rubbish to control the carrying capacity of the environment of free-roaming dogs
Encouraging responsible pet ownership to reduce abandonment
Adoption of humane methods of euthanasia
Elimination of ownerless dogs with ‘elimination’ including measures such as adoption, re-homing and permanent sheltering.

In addition to this, the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 were also enacted, which directed the local authorities to provide for:

Establishment of a sufficient number of dogs pounds, including animal kennels/ shelters which may be managed by animal welfare organisations
The requisite number of dog vans with ramps for the capture and transportation of street dogs
One driver and two trained dog catchers to be provided for each dog van
An ambulance cum clinical van to be provided as a mobile centre for sterilisation and immunisation;
Incinerators are to be installed by the local authority for the disposal of animal carcasses.
Periodic repair of shelter or pound.

Apart from legal measures like these, which suggested alternatives to animal euthanasia in India, in cases where such a step becomes a necessity, like in the case of incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs, a proper procedure needs to be followed, such as a diagnosis by a qualified veterinarian, carrying out of the euthanasia process during specified hours, the same to be carried out in a humane manner by the administration of sodium pentathol for adult dogs and Thiopental Introperitoneal for puppies by a qualified veterinarian or euthanisation in any other humane manner approved by Animal Welfare Board of India. Also, no dog should be euthanised in the presence of another dog, and the person responsible for euthanising should make sure that the animal is dead before disposal.

In the case of humans in the Indian legal context, active euthanasia is still legally prohibited, and any act done in pursuance of that would qualify as an attempt at committing suicide, which might be punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to abetment of suicide. For passive euthanasia, which is the only allowed form in India, there is still a requirement for a living will having been made by the patient and strict medical and ethical considerations about the medical condition of the patient, his/her chances of survival and normalcy and the agony or pain being suffered by the patient by him/her remaining alive. While these are considerations that are made in the case of humans, these must be made in case of euthanasia for animals, too, for as laid down by a detailed circular of the Animal Welfare Board of India, there are stringent requirements which must be followed and complied with before carrying out euthanasia for an animal, relating to the process to be adopted, the factors to be considered and the qualifications of the person carrying out the process. While an animal is incapable of giving his express consent or expressing his wish through a living will and is also largely incapable of committing an act of active euthanasia, its health status and other parameters must be given due importance and under no circumstances should an act of euthanasia for animals be carried out in haste without following the due process and procedure.

It has been held by even the Supreme Court that only “irretrievably ill” and “mortally wounded” dogs can be euthanised, and that too in a humane manner, and euthanising a healthy dog can attract legal action under section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and section 429 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh held that “… Life is the glorious gift of nature and the compassion for animals and human lives should harmoniously co-exist” and that “removal/destruction” of a particular kind of stray bovines must be done under the guidelines and according to the process laid down in The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act. Several private organisations working for the welfare of animals and their rights, like Friendicoes SECA and statutory bodies like the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), an advisory body on animal laws that promotes animal welfare in the country, have constantly emphasized the fact that the solution to problems related to overpopulation of dogs and spread of infections is not to indiscriminately and outrightly kill them and the option of euthanasia should only be chosen in the most extreme of conditions, such as when the dogs in question are suffering from any incurable diseases, or are paralytic and can’t move at all or are suffering from rabies and pose a risk of spreading infection, as notified by the ‘Module for Dog Population Management Rabies Eradication Reducing Man – Dog Conflict in India’ submitted by the AWBI to the Supreme Court in July 2016.

In conclusion, it can be said that it is the law of nature that all living species must coexist in harmony with each other and while the practice of passive euthanasia is in itself legal in the case of animals in the Indian legal system and has been in practice too, the same must be done and brought about in a proper and systematic manner by following all the relevant directives and guidelines being laid down by the Supreme Court and bodies like the AWBI. It has been constitutionally provided in India under Article 51A (g) that it is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment and have compassion for all living creatures, and in recent years, there has also been the enactment of a number of legislations to further the legal safeguards for animals and to protect their rights such as The Wildlife Protection Act and the most notable Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. So, the jurisprudence in India also advocates for striking a balance between animal rights and basic human rights and through sound judicial precedents and effective legislation, the basic rights of animals can also be upheld, and it can be ensured that no animal in India is harmed or killed without any proper justification and with the perpetrator going scot free without any repercussions, for the animal welfare measures in India and elsewhere must be always be guided by the words of Mahatma Gandhi,

“ The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

Atri Chattopadhyay

SOURCE- https://animallawcentre.nalsar.

The Central Government notified the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2020, which proposes to mandate using painkillers prior to castration, replacing archaic and painful practices such as hot branding with radio frequency identification, breeding hornless cattle instead of dehorning or disbudding, and applying behavioural principles of animal handling and restraint – such as the use of face halters, blindfolds, treats (like molasses, groundnut cake, or green grass), and verbal and physical cues like calmly talking to and gently stroking animals instead of roughly throwing them to the ground and tying their legs with ropes. The rules also require that euthanasia be carried out only under the supervision of a registered veterinary practitioner, as per the procedure set forth by the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals.

The decision of the government to define the “prescribed manner” for painful animal husbandry procedures for cattle under The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, follows advisories issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India and the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, appeals made by PETA India, and public interest litigation that we filed in the High Court of Delhi.

Section 11 of the PCA Act, 1960, defines the acts which amount to treating animals cruelly – however, Sub-Section 3 offers an exception and consequentially deems certain animal husbandry procedures, including the dehorning of cattle and the castration, branding, and nose roping of any animal, not to be cruel, provided that they’re done in a “prescribed manner”.

The new rules prescribe euthanasia – “a good death” – for situations in which it’s cruel to keep an animal alive, as mandated by the PCA Act, 1960, or in which a massive number of animals are to be killed for the purpose of disease control, as mandated by The Prevention and Control of Infectious and Contagious Diseases in Animals Act, 2009, and they call for animals to be unconscious without pain or suffering prior to the cessation of vital signs. Current crude methods include injecting chemicals that painfully stop the functioning of the heart and lungs while animals are still conscious, suffocating them to death in plastic bags, and burying or burning them alive, as was reportedly done in a few states during the recent avian flu outbreak.

SOURCE-PETA