Holding

The 1998 notification is valid and within the parameters of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and courts cannot review the correctness of the Government’s decision to issue it.

Summary

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 Section 22 provided no guidelines for such a ban, and that the owners should be allowed to retain the animals. The Court examined the statutory scheme, noting that the power to issue a notification is conditioned on the Government’s satisfaction that the training or exhibition would cause unnecessary pain or suffering, a requirement implicit in Sections 22 and 24. It held that the notification was within the parameters of the Act and that the Government had acted on the basis of a High‑Power Committee report. The Court further ruled that neither it nor the High Court could review the correctness of the Government’s decision to issue the notification. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the petitioners were ordered to bear their own costs.

Issues considered

The validity of the 14 October 1998 notification under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Whether Section 22 confers an unguided or arbitrary power to the Central Government to prohibit exhibition and training of performing animals.
Whether courts can exercise judicial review to assess the correctness of the Government’s decision to issue the notification.
Whether owners of the prohibited animals can retain ownership under the Act, particularly in view of Section 29.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960s. 11, s. 21, s. 22, s. 24, s. 29

Subjects

animal welfarecruelty to animalscircusexhibitiontrainingnotificationjudicial reviewSection 22Section 24ownershiprescue homes

Judgment

... ,A
N.R. NAIR AND ORS .
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A

MAY 1, 2001

[B.N. KIRPAL, U.C. BANERJEE AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] E

Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960:

Ss. 22, 24 and 29-Cruelty to animals-Exhibition and training of
performing animals-Prohibition on-Notification dated 14. 10. 1998 issued c
by Government ofIndia prohibiting exhibition and training ofbears, monkeys,

- tigers, panthers and lions-Held, is within the parameters of the Act-Power
contained in S.22' to restrict exhibition and training of performing animals
resulting in unnecessary pain or suffering to them is not unguided-Since
circus owners keep animals only for exhibition and training, they cannot
retain the animals referred to in the notification-However, Central D
Government has set up rescue homes for such animals.
~
Constitution of In,,,ia, 1950:

Articles 32 and 226-Judicial review-Notification dated 14.10.1998
issued by Government of India under Section 22 of the prevention o/Cru'!lty E
to Animals Act, 1960 prohibiting exhibition and training of performing
animals-Challenged in writ petition before High Court-Held, it is for the
government of India to decided whether exhibition or training of the animals
would result in unnecessary pain or suffering being inflicted on them-
)
Neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court can go into correctness of F
decision of Government in issuing the Notification.

Intervener-Notification issued by Government of India prohibiting
exhibition and training ofperforming animals-Challenged by Circus owners
in writ petition before High Court-Notification upheld-In appeal before
Supreme Court, application for intervention filed by Indian Circus Federation G
allowed.

In a writ petition filed by the Indian Circus Federation, challenging a
). Notification issued by the Central Government prohibiting exhibition and
training of certain performing animals, the Delhi High Court directed the
353 H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A Government to reconsider the matter. Consequently a High Power Committee
was constituted and pursuant to its report a fresh Notification under Section
22 of the Prevention of Cruelty Animals Act, 1960 was issued on 14.10.1998
prohibiting exhibition and training of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and
lions. The said Notification was challenged in a writ petition before the Kerala
B High Court, which upheld the validity of the Notification. The High Court
also held that the Court would not exercise the power of judicial review to
examine the correctness of the decision of the Government in issuing the
Notification. Aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed the present appeals. During
the pend ency of the appeals, the Indian Circus Federation filed intervention
applications and the same were allowed.
c It was contended for the appellants that the Notification dated 14.10.1998
was arbitrary. It was submitted that Section 22 of the Act contained no
guidelines on the basis of which the Government of India could issue •
notification banning exhibition or training of any animal, nor did the Act
provide for rehabilitation of the animals covered under such Notification.
D
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Notification dated 14.10.1998 is within the parameters
of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. In the very nature of
E things when the animals are used for performance in circus, it requires
their training. It is welfare of the animals which is of paramount consideration
and it is only if the Government is satisfied on the basis of the materials on
record that unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted on an aoimal during
the course of training or at the time when it is exhibited that a notification
under Sectfon 22(ii) of the Act is issued. (358-D]
F
1.2. It cannot be said that the power contained in Section 22 of the Act
is unguided. A reading of the Act as a whole, particularly Section 24, clearly
shows that before issuing a notification under Section 22(ii), implicit in the
section is the necessity for the Government to come to the conclusion that
G there would be unnecessary pain or suffering in the exhibition or training
of the animals. The existence of the said fact is a precondition to the issuance
of the notification. (358-E]

2. High Court was right in holding that in exercise of judicial review,
neither the High Court nor this Court can go into the correctness of the
H decision of the Government in issuing the Notification. It is for the
N.R. NAIR v. U.O.I. [KIRPAL, J.] 355
Government to decide whether exhibition or training of the animals would A
result in unnecessary pain or suffering being inflicted on them. It cannot
,._ be said that the Government acted irresponsibly or did not take into
consideratfon the relevant materials. A High Power Committee was constituted
under the directions of the High Court; that committee looked into all the
relevant evidence which shows the manner in which the animals are trained
or ill-trained; and it is pursuant to the report of the said committee that the B
notification dated 14.10.1998 was issued. [359-B]

3. Section 29 of the Act gives power to the Court to deprive a person
convicted under the Act of the ownership of the animals. Though the Act is
silent with regard to the ownership of the animals with respect to whom a
notification under Section 22 is issued, inasmuch as the circus owners keep
c
animals only for the purpose of exhibition and training, and since they are
prohibited from either exhibiting or training any of the five animals referred
to in the Notification, they cannot retain them. However, rescue homes for
such animals have been set up by the Central Government at several Zoological
Parks in different parts of the country. [358-F-GJ D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3609-
3620 of 2001.
~

... From the Judgment and Order dated 6.6.2000 of the Kerala High Court
in O.P. Nos. 155, 1066, 1141, 6378, 6148, 5616, 2636, 6229, 9483, 430, 6352 and
E
2460of1999.

Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar, K.K. Venugopal, Vipin
Nair, P.B. Suresh, Nikilesh R. Raj Panjwani, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Shreekant N.
Terdal, K.M.K. Nair, Ms. Geeta Mittal, A. Mariarputham, Anurag D. Mathur
, and Ms. Arona Mathur for the appearing parties. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL, J. Intervention applications on behalf of Indian Circus
Federation are allowed.

Special leave granted. G
The main challenge in these appeals by special leave from the judgment
of the Kerala High Court is to the validity of Section 22 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") and the Notification issued
under Section 22 to the effect that no person shall train or exhibit any animals
specified therein, namely, bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions. H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 3 S.C.R.

A Briefly stated the facts are that on 2nd March, 1991 a Notification under
Section 22 was issued banning training and exhibition of bears, monkeys,
tigers, panthers and dogs. This Notification was challenged by the Indian ..i.

Circus Federation before the High Court of Delhi. After the issuance of the
Notification, a corrigendum.was issued whereby dogs were excluded from the
B said Notification. Thereafter by an order dated 21st August, 1997, a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court required the Government of India to have a
fresh look into the Notification after taking into account materials placed
before it by the petitioners therein and other authorities.

A Committee was constituted by the Government of India consisting of ·"
C Additional Inspector General (Wildlife), Director, Wildlife Institute of India,
Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority, Additional IGF (Retd.) and Director,
Animal Welfare. The said Committee gave a detailed Report and in pursuance
thereto the impugned Notification dated 14th October, 1998 was issued under
Section 22 whereby exhibition and training of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers
and lions was prohibited.
D
The said Notification was challenged by filing a writ petition in the
Kerala High Court and by the impugned judgment dated 6th June, 2000, the
High Court has upheld the validity of the said Notification. It, inter a/ia, came
to the conclusion that in exercise of judicial review it was not possible for the
E court to examine the correctness of the decision of the Government in issuing
the said Notification especially when it had not been shown that any relevant
fact had been ignored or irrelevant fact taken into consideration. Hence, these
,appeals.

The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the
F appellants has been that apart from Section 22 the Notification itself is arbitrary. ,.,..
It has been contended that Section 22 contains no guidelines on the basis
of which the Central Government can issue a notification banning exhibition
and training of any animal. It is also the case of the appellants that the Act
does not· provide for the animals to be taken away by the Government once
G such a notification is issued.

The preamble of the Act states that it was enac~ed with a view "to
prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that
purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals".
-
Section 11 provides as to what amounts to cruelty to animals generally.
H Section 21 defines the words 'exhibit' and 'train' and reads as follows :
N.R. NAIR v. U.O.l. [KIRPAL, J.] 357
"21. "Exhibit" and "train" defined-In this Chapter, "exhibit" means A
exhibit at any entertainment to which the public are admitted through
sale of tickets, and "train" means train for the purpose of any such
exhibition, and the expression "exhibitor" and "trainer" have
respectively the corresponding meanings."

Sections 22 and 24 with which we are concerned read as follows : B
"22. Restriction on exhibition and training of performing animals-
No person shall exhibit or train-

(i) any performing animal unless he is registered in accordance with
the provisions of this Chapter; C
(ii) as a performing animal, any animal which the Central Government,
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify as an animal
which shall not be exhibited or trained as a performing animal."

"24. Power of court to prohibit or restrict exhibition and training D
of performing animals-(1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of
any Magistrate on a complaint made by a police officer or any officer
authorised in writing by the prescribed authority referred to in section
23, that the training or exhibition of any performing animal has been
accompanied by unnecessary pain or suffering and should be
prohibited or allowed only subject to conditions, the court may make E
an order against the person in respect of whom the complaint is made,
prohibiting the training or exhibition or imposing such conditions in
relation thereto, as may be specified by the order.

(2) Any court by which an order is made under this section, shall
cause a copy of the order to be sent, as soon as may be after the order F
is made, to the prescribed authority by which the person against
whom the order is made is registered, and shall cause the particulars
of the order to be endorsed upon the certificate held by that person,
and that person shall produce his certificate on being so required by
the court for the purpose of endorsement, and the prescribed authority G
to which a copy of an order is sent under this section shall enter the
particulars of the order in that register."

It will be seen that according to Section 24 if it is proved to the
satisfaction of the Magistrate on a complaint being filed that there is any
training or exhibition of performing animals which is accompanied by H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A unnecessary pain or suffering, then the court has the jurisdiction to order the
prohibition of the same. To our mind, keeping the preamble of the Act and
Section 24 in view, power under Section 22 (ii) can be exercised only when
the Central Government is of the opinion that the training and exhibition of
the animals in respect of which a notification is being issued is for the
B purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering being caused to the
animals.

In the very nature of things when the animals are used for performance
in circus, it requires training. It is for the Government to decide on the basis
of the evidence on record and after takirig into consideration other factors
C whether the training and exhibition of those animals would result in unnecessary
pain or suffering being inflicted on them. It is pertinent to note that even with
respect to the animals whose exhibition & training is prohibited the Act does
not prevent the owner from keeping them as domestic pets. Of course, it is
going to be difficult to expect someone to have a lion or tiger as a pet. That
apart, it is the welfare of the animals which is of paramount consideration and
D it is only ifthe Government is satisfied on the basis of the materials on record
that unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted on an animal during the course
of training or at the time when it is exhibited that a notification under Section
22(ii) is issued. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel
for the appellants that the power contained in Section 22 is unguided. The
E reading of the Act as a whole clearly shows that ii:nplicit in Section 22 is the
necessity for the Government to come to the conclusion that if a notification
under said Section is issued there would be unnecessary pain or suffering in
the training or exhibition of the animals. The existence of the said fact is a
pre-condition to the issuance of the Notification.

F Section 29 of the Act gives power to t_he court to deprive a person
convicted under the Act of the ownership of animals. It is true that the Act
is silent with regard to the ownership of the animals with respect to whom
a notification under Section 22 is issued, but inasmuch as the circus owners
keep the animals only for the purpose of training and exhibition then it must
(j follow that they cannot retain them for that purpose. We are informed by the
learned Solicitor General that Rescue Homes have been set up by the Central
Government which are at Zoological Parks at Tirupati, Visakhapatnam,
Bangalore, Jaipur and Chennai.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no direction
H can be issued depriving the appellants of the ownership of the animals. We
N.R. NAIR v. U.O.I. [KIRPAL, J.] 359
need not go into this question, but one thing is certain and that is that the A
appellants, namely, the circus owners are prohibited from either training or
exhibiting any of the five ammals referred to in the impugned Notification. ·
What is done to the animals is not within the domain of these proceedings
and we refrain from passing any order in respect thereto.

We agree with the decision of the High Court that in exercise of judicial B
review neither the High Court nor this Court can go into the correctness of
the decision of the Government in issuing the impugned Notification. We are
not satisfied that the Government acted irresponsibly or did not take into
consideration the relevant materials which were available to it. A High Powered
Committee had been constituted under the directions of the High Court, that C
Committee looked into all the evidence which was placed before it and the
High Court has referred to extracts thereof which shows the manner in which
the animals are trained or ill-trained. We need not make any further
observations in respect thereof except to hold that we are satisfied that the
impugned Notification is within the parameters of the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act, 1960. D
For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are dismissed. Parties to bear
their own costs.

RP. Appeals dismissed.

,...