whatsapp x

WhatsApp Number

8750970582

Message
phone x
8750970582
email x
info@lawminds.co.in

Cruelty to animals: New Bill proposes increase in fine from Rs. 50to Rs. 1 lakh

NEW DELHI: Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale recently announced on his social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) that he has introduced a Bill in Parliament to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The proposed amendment aims to substantially increase the fine for acts of cruelty towards animals from Rs. 50 to Rs. 1,00,000.

The existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 defines ‘cruelty’ as ‘any unnecessary pain and suffering’ to animals. Despite significant changes in the man-animal relationship over the past few decades globally and in India, this nearly 65-year-old law, which is the primary legislation addressing animal welfare, remains unaltered.

Section 11 of the Act outlines various acts and omissions that constitute ‘unnecessary pain or suffering,’ including overloading, over-riding, starving, abandoning, and beating an animal. The Act holds owners accountable for prosecution if any Section 11 provisions are violated, imposing fines ranging from ten rupees to fifty rupees for a first offense and up to one hundred rupees or imprisonment for a term of up to three months, or both, for subsequent offenses within three years.

While the fines were substantial when the law was introduced 64 years ago, they have become outdated in today’s context, prompting calls from various organizations for an increase in penalties for cruelty against animals.

Gokhale’s Bill responds to these widespread demands for changes in the law. The global shift in recent years towards greater awareness of animal welfare rights has prompted legislative bodies worldwide to enact or amend laws to better protect animals. The proposed increase in fines under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, reflects a growing acknowledgment of the need to safeguard the rights and dignity of animals.

The original Act was a landmark legislation in India, covering the protection of animals and regulations regarding their treatment, transportation, and use in various activities. However, due to the lack of an update in the fine amounts, the law has been deemed ineffective.

By proposing higher penalties, lawmakers like Gokhale aim to discourage inhumane practices and foster a culture of compassion and respect towards animals. Additionally, the increased fines seek to align Indian legislation with international standards of animal welfare, showcasing India’s commitment to upholding universal principles and contributing to global efforts to enhance the well-being of animals.

Delhi HC refuses to quash summons to CM Kejriwal forretweeting Dhruv Rathee’s video against BJP

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has declined to dismiss the summonses issued against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a criminal defamation case related to his retweet of an allegedly defamatory video titled “BJP IT Cell Part II,” posted by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in 2018.

In a significant ruling on defamation, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, sitting as a single judge, held that retweeting defamatory content constitutes an offense under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized that the act of ‘retweeting’ on the former social media platform ‘Twitter’ (now ‘X’) involves resharing a ‘tweet’ without any edits, and it attracts the provisions of defamation.

While acknowledging the evolution of social media features like ‘quote tweet,’ allowing users to repost content with their comments, the court upheld the summonses issued by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court’s decision in Kejriwal’s subsequent revision plea. The bench emphasized the importance of responsibility when retweeting content on social media, especially content about which the person may lack knowledge.

The court ruled that since reputational harm is caused by defaming a person, individuals who engage in retweeting without a disclaimer may face penal, civil, or tort action. The decision, however, leaves some ambiguity regarding whether a general disclaimer on the person’s timeline, such as “retweets do not amount to endorsements,” would suffice or if specific endorsements must accompany each retweet.

Highlighting the added responsibility of public figures in disseminating content, the court noted that defamatory statements echoed in the cyber domain can have far-reaching consequences. For public figures like Kejriwal, with a substantial following, the court reasoned that the audience becomes a citizenry at large, and the impact on society is substantial.

The defamation complaint against Kejriwal was filed by Vikas Sanskrityayan, the founder of the social media page “I support Narendra Modi.” Sanskrityayan alleged that the YouTube video, circulated by influencer Dhruv Rathee, contained false and defamatory claims, and Kejriwal’s retweet without verification had tarnished his reputation both within India and internationally.

The trial court had accepted the complainant’s assertion that the video was defamatory and that Kejriwal’s retweet had caused reputational damage. The case is titled “Arvind Kejriwal v. State & Anr.”