AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Though the State insists that the applicable rules pertaining to transportation, culling, movement and sale of animals or animal carcasses are in place, the petitioner complains of the cruel and generally unethical treatment suffered by almost all animals which are culled for human consumption. The petitioner also reminds the Court of the inhumane manner in which flesh and carcasses are displayed even in roadside stalls and heads of pigs shown almost as trophies.
It must be appreciated that the object of the present proceedings is not to discourage the eating of meat or non-vegetarian food. The purpose is to ensure that the animals are dealt with in a dignified and humane manner. The other aspect pointed out on behalf of the petitioner is that though laws are in place for members of animal welfare organisations to be inducted into committees to oversee the treatment of animals in the market-places within districts, there is no memorandum of procedure or standard operating procedure as to who would be the representatives, what would be the extent of their say and how the State ought to take cognizance of their objections or demands.
The State says that writ petitioner may give a list of do’s and don’ts for the State to consider the same.
However, the petitioner maintains that there is very little participation of animal welfare orgainisations and the voices of the representatives of such organisations go, by and large, unheard.
Let the matter appear three weeks hence for both the State and the petitioner to report on the progress, if any, including the setting up of an SOP for the purpose. It is heartening to record that the State has invited reasonable suggestions from the petitioner which can be implemented in the matter of better and ethical treatment of animals that are culled for human consumption.
List on February 14, 2023.