Single judge bench of Justice GA Sanap said that since animals cannot speak, they cannot demand their rights.

“Animals have emotions, feelings and senses similar to a human being. The only difference is that the animals cannot speak and therefore, though their rights are recognized under the law, they cannot assert the same. The rights of the animals, welfare of the animals and protection of the animals has to be taken care of by the concerned in accordance with law. It is to be noted that while considering the case of cruelty, to the animals in any form, the case has to be approached and decided with great sensitivity”, the judge observed. 

The observations were made while hearing the plea by certain persons who applied for custody of 39 bovines claiming they had license for sale and purchase of those animals. 

The animals had been intercepted and seized under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act when they were being transported in trucks illegally in an inhuman manner.

The petitioners, though not accused of the crimes, applied for custody of the animals claiming they had license for sale and purchase of the animals. 

The Magistrate at Nagpur rejected the plea and this was upheld by the Sessions Court prompting the petitioners to move the High Court.

The petitioners argued that since final adjudication on the matter may take time, the animals could be handed back to them in the interim so that petitioners could also enjoy the income from the milching the buffaloes.

The cCurt noted that the number of animals being transported was beyond the capacity of the vehicles and the prescribed limit under the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978. 

There was also no arrangement of fodder and water in the trucks as stipulated in the Rules. 

“The milching buffaloes were transported in a very cruel condition. It is seen on perusal of the record that the owners, who had played important role in these cases, have not been made the accused,” the Court observed.

Justice Sanap relied upon a Supreme Court order which had said that in cases involving allegations of cruelty to the animals, it was not proper to handover custody to owners of the animal. 

Accordingly, the High Court refused to grant custody to the animals to the petitioners. 

It directed Maa Foundation, the registered gaushala, to take over custody of the animal till final adjudication of the matter

The Court also directed the concerned police station officer with a to visit the Gaushala with a veterinary officer twice a month, and submit reports of the such visits to the concerned Magistrate. 

Advocate Laique Hussain appeared for petitioners. 

Additional public prosecutor HD Dubey appeared for State.

Advocates DR Galande and Raju Gupta appeared for the Gaushala.