State must permit interstate transit of rescued cattle for welfare notwithstanding expired administrative agreements.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the expiration of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) debars the State Government from issuing transit permits for shifting cattle between Goushalas for their welfare

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and answered the issues in favor of the petitioner, holding that animal welfare and protection from slaughter supersede technicalities like an expired MoA

It also directed

The Court directed the State of Tripura to issue transit permits for the rescued cattle and ordered the authorities in Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya, West Bengal, and Bihar to cooperate and facilitate safe, unobstructed passage to the petitioner’s Goushala in Jharkhand, subject to compliance with the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978

01Facts

The petitioner, Dhyan Foundation, is an NGO operating 44 animal welfare centers across India, dedicated to rescuing cattle from illegal slaughter and trafficking

p. 3

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Tripura to issue transit permits for the transportation of approximately 1,953 rescued cattle from Tripura to the petitioner’s Goushala in Jharkhand

p. 3

The petitioner contended that fodder in Tripura is significantly more expensive (Rs. 25/kg) than in Jharkhand (Rs. 1/kg) and that the cattle face threats from smuggling mafias near the international border

p. 4

The State respondents opposed the petition, arguing that a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between the parties had expired on February 24, 2024, and that without a renewal, the petitioner had no right to obtain permits

pp. 4-5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the expiration of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) debars the State Government from issuing transit permits for shifting cattle between Goushalas for their welfare

pp. 5-6

ii.2. Whether the Court, under the doctrine of parens patriae, should direct the facilitation of interstate cattle transportation to ensure protection from cruelty and smuggling

pp. 10-11

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, specifically Section 2 (definitions of animals and ownership) and Section 11, which defines various forms of cruelty, including starvation, overcrowding, and failure to provide shelter

pp. 6-8

The Court relied on Sub-rule 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, regarding the guardianship and rehabilitation of animals

pp. 9-10

The Court applied the precedent set in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547, which mandates that welfare legislation be construed liberally and establishes the Court’s duty to protect the rights of animals who cannot protect themselves

p. 10

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the expiration of an MoA does not legally preclude the State from granting transit permits, especially when the welfare of animals is at stake

pp. 5-6

The Court noted that overcrowding, lack of fodder, or inadequate medication constitutes "cruelty" under the 1960 Act

p. 8

The Court observed that Tripura's geography makes rescued cattle vulnerable to being smuggled into Bangladesh for slaughter, and moving them to Jharkhand provides a safer environment

p. 6

The Court highlighted that the petitioner provides these services gratuitously without burdening the government exchequer

p. 8, 10

By applying the A. Nagaraja doctrine, the Court determined it must act as parens patriae to ensure the safety and nurture of the rescued cattle, concluding that the petitioner has a legitimate right to transport the animals to its own facilities for their protection

pp. 10-11

05Holding

The Court allowed the writ petition and answered the issues in favor of the petitioner, holding that animal welfare and protection from slaughter supersede technicalities like an expired MoA

p. 11

LawLens.Tripura High Court

Original Court PDF