Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

12 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

MANAGER, PINJRAPOLE DEUDAR AND ANR.versusCHAKRAM MORAJI NAT AND ORS.

1998 INSC 32931 August 1998Dismissed

The Gujarat police seized sheep and goats belonging to C.M. Nat for alleged violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and related statutes. A Judicial Magistrate initially ordered that the animals be placed under the custody of the appellant Pinjrapole, but the Additional Sessions Judge later directe

SHRI CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI GAUSHALAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 104530 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

A truck transporting eighteen cattle was intercepted for lacking proper permits, leading to seizure of the animals and registration of FIRs under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act and related statutes. The private respondents, claiming ownership, applied under CrPC sections 451 and 457 for interim custody, which

IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” versus

2025 INSC 101822 August 2025Directions issued

The Supreme Court, acting suo moto, took cognizance of a news report of a child’s death from a stray dog bite in Delhi and issued directions to pick up, sterilise, deworm and vaccinate stray dogs across the National Capital Region, initially prohibiting their release back onto the streets. Several NGOs and individuals

THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR

2023 INSC 54818 May 2023

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka) Amendment Acts of 2017, which sought to legalise traditional bovine sports such as Jallikattu, Kambala and Bullock Cart Race by introducing specific rules and notifications. Petitioners

IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” versus

2025 INSC 97711 August 2025Directions issued

The Supreme Court, acting suo moto, examined a dramatic rise in dog bite incidents across India, especially in the National Capital Region, which disproportionately affected visually‑impaired persons, children, the elderly and the poor. Data presented showed a steep increase in reported bites and highlighted the public

KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2021 INSC 1608 March 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellants, Krishna Lal Chawla and others, challenged a private complaint filed in 2018 by their neighbour (Respondent No.2) under Section 200 CrPC, which alleged offences arising from a 2012 altercation. The complaint was filed six years after the incident, despite a charge‑sheet already being filed against the co

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIAversusA. NAGARAJA & ORS.

2014 INSC 3707 May 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the traditional events of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bull‑ock cart races in Maharashtra violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) and the Constitution’s fundamental duties. Relying on affidavits and reports from the Animal Welfare Board of India, the Court fou

BHARAT AMRATLAL KOTHARI AND ANOTHERversusDOSUKHAN SAMADKHAN SINDHI AND ORS.

2009 INSC 12134 November 2009Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by animal‑right activist Bharat Kothari against a Gujarat High Court order that quashed an FIR alleging cruelty to nearly 2,000 goats and sheep and simultaneously convicted six livestock owners (respondents) under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, despite them not bein

ABDUL VAHABversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 2634 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant’s truck carrying 17 cow progeny was seized and the driver and others were arrested under the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding no evidence of intent to slaughter, but the District Magistr

NAIR AND ORS .versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2391 May 2001Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by circus owners challenging a 1998 notification issued under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 that prohibited the exhibition and training of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions. The petitioners argued that the notification was arbitrary, that Sect

MULTANI HANIFBHAI KALUBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2013 INSC 691 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant’s Eicher truck was seized by police for transporting 28 buffalo calves, and the appellant sought its release under Section 451 of the CrPC. The lower courts rejected the application, invoking Section 68(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011, which bars release of a seized vehicle for

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search