1. The challenge through the bunch of writ petitions, which are the subject matter of consideration, is to the validity of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Regulation of Live Stocks, Markets) Rules, 2017, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017. Both the above Rules, we are informed, were challenged before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which has stayed the operation of the said Rules. Mr.P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General, informs this Court, that the Union of India is not seeking modification of the aforestated interim order. We accordingly record the statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General. We understand the position to be that the interim order shall apply across the whole country.
2. It is also the contention of the Union of India, that a large number of representations depicting the allegedly unworkable and unacceptable provisions of the Rules have been received, and a number of writ petitions have been filed in different High Courts, besides those which have been filed before this Court. It is pointed out, that the issues of challenge raised in the representations and writ petitions are the subject matter of a fresh consideration by the Government of India. It is pointed out, that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, is presently seized of the matter, and after an appropriate determination, changes if any, as may be considered appropriate will be introduced after which the amended Rules, shall be re-notified. We record the above statement made to this Court on behalf of the Government of India.
3. We are of the view and accordingly direct that as and when the amended Rules are notified, sufficient time be granted to all stake holders before they are implemented, so that they have a sufficient opportunity, if aggrieved, to assail them in consonance with law.
4. In the above view of the matter, as of now, we find no justification to retain these writ petitions on our board. The same are accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
All India Jamiatul Quresh Action Committee Through Its President Mohammed Abdul Faheem Advocate v. Union Of India
All India Jamiatul Quresh Action Committee Through Its President Mohammed Abdul Faheem Advocate v. Union Of India
(Supreme Court Of India)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 422 Of 2017, 000419 Of 2017, 499 Of 2017, 497 Of 2017 | 11-07-2017
Advocate List
- For the Appearing Parties Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advocate, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Sanobar Ali Qureshi, Rajnish Jha, Gaurav Yadava, Lubna Naaz, Kunika, Pulkit Tare, Tehsina Hussain, Vahid Mansoor Mirza, Md.Abdul Faheem Qureshi, Kapil Sibal, Sr.Advocate, Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Sanobar Ali, Shoeb Alam, Abdul Faheem, Tejasvi Goel, V.K. Biju, Deepak Prakash, P.S. Narsimha, ASG, A.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Nishesh Sharma, Saroopma Chaturvedi, Vikramjeet Banerjee, A. Thanvi, Alankrita Sinha, M.K. Maroria, Mukul Singh, Gurmeet Singh Makkar, Venkatramani, Sr.Advocate, Aditya Singh, Supriya Juneja, Chander Uday Singh, Sr.Advocate, P.V.Surendra Nath, Sr.Advocate, P.V. Dinesh, Subhash Chandran K.R., Resmitha R.Chandran, Deepak Prakash, Biju P. Raman, Aparna Bhat, Mayank Sapra, Asad Alvi, Saba Atri, Faiz Rizvi, Satya Mitra, Kuriakose Verghese, V. Shyamohan, Surya Prakash, Puneet Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Pratibha Jain, Advocates.
Bench
- HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
- HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
Eq Citations
- 2017 (3) PLJR 239
- 2017 (3) J.L.J.R. 179
- 2018 (5) SCJ 545
- 2017 (3) RCR (CIVIL) 845
- LQ/SC/2017/942
Head Note
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Live Stocks, Markets) Rules, 2017 — Challenge to — Stay of operation of Rules by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court — Union of India not seeking modification of said interim order — Interim order to apply across the whole country — As and when amended Rules are notified, sufficient time to be granted to all stake holders before they are implemented, so that they have a sufficient opportunity, if aggrieved, to assail them in consonance with law — No justification to retain writ petitions on Supreme Court's board — Disposal of
