[ad_1]
VIJAYAWADA: In a first in Andhra Pradesh, a habeas corpus petition was filed before the Andhra Pradesh high court seeking directions to produce 195 bovines, including oxen and calves, before the court. The petitioners contended that police illegally held the animals captive and their whereabouts were not known.
A habeas corpus petition is filed before a high court or Supreme Court to produce a person before the court in cases of illegal detention or missing persons.
In this case, animal lovers Surabattula Gopala Rao and Thota Suresh Babu, both residents of Vijayawada, moved HC contending that police had unlawfully ‘detained’ the animals.
The petitioners alleged that they found a huge number of bovines on the outskirts of Vijayawada on June 16 and on further inquiry learnt that the animals were being transported for slaughtering on June 17. The animals were not fit for slaughtering as many of them were found to be below 10 years of age while some others were suffering from lumpy skin disease. The petitioners called the police and also approached the local veterinary officer for certification which is mandatory for slaughtering. Police and the veterinary officer concluded that the animals were not fit for slaughtering.
However, on the same day, about 300 persons came to the police station and two of them claimed that they were the rightful owners of the animals and had bought them for business. The petition alleged that the police, without following due procedure, shifted the animals to an undisclosed location.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, advocate JV Phanuduth told HC ‘right to life’ is not limited to humans but applies equally to animals. He mentioned the SC order in AWBI Vs Nagaraja & Others case, in which it was declared that “freedom from hunger, thirst, malnutrition, fear and distress, physical and thermal discomfort, pain, injury and disease and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour of animals will be protected by the state”. Phanuduth argued that the habeas corpus petition is maintainable even in case of animals in view of the legal proposition laid down by Supreme Court.
Arguing on behalf of police, the govt pleader said the animals have been handed over to the person who claimed their ownership. However, Phanuduth contended that police cannot hand over the animals to the claimant without verifying his antecedents and proper evidence of ownership.
The high court directed the police to submit all details related to the case.
A habeas corpus petition is filed before a high court or Supreme Court to produce a person before the court in cases of illegal detention or missing persons.
In this case, animal lovers Surabattula Gopala Rao and Thota Suresh Babu, both residents of Vijayawada, moved HC contending that police had unlawfully ‘detained’ the animals.
The petitioners alleged that they found a huge number of bovines on the outskirts of Vijayawada on June 16 and on further inquiry learnt that the animals were being transported for slaughtering on June 17. The animals were not fit for slaughtering as many of them were found to be below 10 years of age while some others were suffering from lumpy skin disease. The petitioners called the police and also approached the local veterinary officer for certification which is mandatory for slaughtering. Police and the veterinary officer concluded that the animals were not fit for slaughtering.
However, on the same day, about 300 persons came to the police station and two of them claimed that they were the rightful owners of the animals and had bought them for business. The petition alleged that the police, without following due procedure, shifted the animals to an undisclosed location.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, advocate JV Phanuduth told HC ‘right to life’ is not limited to humans but applies equally to animals. He mentioned the SC order in AWBI Vs Nagaraja & Others case, in which it was declared that “freedom from hunger, thirst, malnutrition, fear and distress, physical and thermal discomfort, pain, injury and disease and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour of animals will be protected by the state”. Phanuduth argued that the habeas corpus petition is maintainable even in case of animals in view of the legal proposition laid down by Supreme Court.
Arguing on behalf of police, the govt pleader said the animals have been handed over to the person who claimed their ownership. However, Phanuduth contended that police cannot hand over the animals to the claimant without verifying his antecedents and proper evidence of ownership.
The high court directed the police to submit all details related to the case.
[ad_2]
Source link