The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order directing the release of nine rescued dogs to a man accused of brutally assaulting and sexually abusing them, holding that the Magistrate’s decision reflected a grave failure of judicial sensitivity and was wholly inconsistent with the object of animal welfare laws.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed a petition filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India challenging an order of the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, which had granted interim custody of six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus to the accused during the pendency of investigation.
According to the Court, the FIR was registered after PETA received information alleging that the dogs were repeatedly beaten with sticks, pipes and whips, kept in deplorable conditions, subjected to neglect, and that the female dogs had also been sexually abused. The investigation was initiated for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The High Court noted that after the rescue operation, the accused had voluntarily executed relinquishment deeds in favour of PETA India, expressly admitting that he had beaten the dogs with sticks and pipes, caused them severe injuries and suffering, and was incapable of caring for them. He further surrendered all ownership rights over the animals and authorised PETA to rehabilitate and care for them.
Despite these admissions, the accused subsequently sought interim custody of the dogs before the Magistrate, who allowed the application subject to conditions including installation of CCTV cameras and periodic submission of footage. The High Court found the order ‘astonishing’, observing that a person who had admitted cruelty and voluntarily relinquished ownership was nevertheless restored custody of the same animals.
The Court held that returning the rescued dogs to a person facing allegations of physical assault and sexual abuse against the animals was wholly preposterous and contrary to the very purpose of laws enacted to protect animals from cruelty. The Court observed that such an order could not be permitted to survive even for a moment in the eye of law.
In a significant observation on animal rights, the Court remarked that animals, though unable to speak, are sentient beings capable of suffering and are entitled to dignity, compassion and protection. It emphasised that modern jurisprudence no longer treats animals as mere property and that protecting animal life is not an act of charity but an affirmation of constitutional morality. The Court added that the measure of a civilised society lies in how it treats its voiceless creatures, observing that every act of cruelty against an animal is a blemish on the collective human conscience.
