As usual, jobless morons beat up good citizens who take care of animals. Seems there is no dearth of frustrated people on this earth who think this world only belong to them and they also like to take out their anger on creatures that cant fight back. Legal notices sent to them by Mr. Amit Chaudhery and his group of animal loving friends.
1.Shri NK
RWA President
New Delhi 110 027
2.Shri P D
RWA General Secretary
New Delhi 110 027
3.Shri V K M
New Delhi 110 027
4.The SHO
P.S. Rajouri Garden
New Delhi 110 027
17.07.2018
Legal Notice | Without Prejudice
Under the brief and instructions of my clients and on their behalf this notice is served to you. We address you as under:
THAT our clients are animal activists. They are educated, law-abiding, tax paying and peaceful citizens who look after stray animals voluntarily and out of compassion. They feed, vaccinate and provide veterinary care. These include the community dogs who live in the locality of Subhash Nagar, specifically in your society. Our clients render this service from their own money and resources. THAT the dogs in question are all sterilized, vaccinated and are peaceful dogs. They do not pose any danger or nuisance to anyone.
THAT Receiver No. 1 and Receiver No 2 are president and general secretary of the Sukhsagar Welfare Association (RWA), Subhash Nagar. Per the knowledge and experience of our clients, in an unprovoked manner, you have made false charges against the dogs, have collected mobs. And have regularly been hitting, beating and dislocating resident dogs under the instigation of Receiver No. 3 who claims to be a retired Assistant Commissioner from Delhi Police. Receiver No. 3 has habitually installed unauthorized and illegal boards falsely impersonating as an authority with jurisdiction, to mislead, threaten and intimidate the public-at-large against feeding animals. THAT there is no law against feeding stray animals.
Receiver No.4 despite being obligated by his Service Rules, prescribed processes and procedures regularly refuses to take action and/or dilutes the offence of the offenders. Receiver No. 4 illegally threatens compassionate citizens and adopts objectionable actions, allegedly threatening to implicate our clients in false cases. In addition to disciplinary action including Vigilance Department mandates of the Delhi Police, separate laws, Receiver No. 4 is liable to prosecution under IPC 166, 217 (Public Servant Disobeying Direction of the Law). And IPC 211 (Falsely Charging anyone for having committed an offence without just or lawful grounds)
Recipients No. 1 to 4 are put to notice and required to take cognizance as under:
1.The Constitution of India Guarantees
i)THAT in serving stray, destitute animals our clients are fulfilling their Constitutional duty as prescribed by the Constitution of India, Article 51 –A (g) which states “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for all living creatures”.
Therefore anyone obstructing any citizen of India from tending to, helping, feeding, caring, protecting any animal will be violating the Fundamental Rights of the person. This is a punishable offence.
ii)Article 48 –A of the Constitution of India : “The state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” This implies that all Government servants, officers of the bureaucracy, legislature and the judiciary are bound by the Constitution to protect animals and their caregivers.
iii)Articles 25, 26, 27, 28 of the Constitution of India : provide religious freedom to all citizens. Feeding of animals like cows, dogs etc. is an element of religious obligation in many Indic religions and spiritual practices. Any prevention of this is a violation and therefore punishable.
2.Provisions of the Law
i)Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act : Section 11 mandates all animal cruelty a criminal offence.
ii)Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 428, 429, 511, 289 : Provide clear punishment including imprisonment of upto 3 years for anyone maiming and/or killing animals.
iii)Delhi Police Act (1978) Sections 73 to 79, and Section 99: Gives special powers to the police to take action when an animal related offence is committed. This includes arrest without a warrant.
iv)Stray Dog Management Rules 2001) & Animal Birth Control Rules (2001) Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change : It is illegal for an RWA, estate management or individual to remove or dislocate stray dogs. The dogs have to be sterilized, vaccinated and returned to the same area of their domicile. Municipal corporations cannot remove sterilized and healthy dogs.
3.Statutory Orders by Government Authorities | Departments
i)The Registrar of Societies is advised by the Animal Wwelfare Board of India (AWBI), a statutory body under the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Government of India to dissolve any RWA or society which violates the above laws.
ii)Receiver No. 3 and Receiver No. 4 as former and serving government servants are additionally liable under Penalties under violation of Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, memorandum entitled ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – Guidelines” dated May 26, 2006 (F. No. 30/9/2006-WELFARE).
iii) Circular (No. 652-68 dated 07/02/2014) to all SHOs by the Special Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Police HQ New Delhi regarding animal crimes
4.Contempt of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
Contempt of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated August 12th 2009 regarding feeding of stray dogs.
5.Contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court rulings dated January 24, 2009 (Animal Welfare Board of India Vs People For the Elimination of Stray Dogs, Record of Proceedings 265025).
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.691/2009 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19/12/2008 in ASWP No. 6257/2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay. Reference to the Hon’ble Supreme Court orders dated November 18, 2015 and March 09 2016 for SLP(C) No 691/2009.
The Hon’ble judges have reiterated that the existing laws related to stray dogs be upheld and implemented accurately. In the same regard the order dated March 09, 2016 directs against impounding of stray dogs, bans killing, upholds Animal Birth Control (ABC) and mandates release of the dogs in the same area after neutering and vaccination. The Hon’ble Court has also directed that any group, body or individual disrupting this is to be penalized.
In 2009 the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) had, in detail, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India deficiencies of the Municipal Acts all across the country. AWBI detailed how these municipalities violate central acts and constitutional rights of animals and humans. Following the initial arguments the hon’ble judge stayed the implementation of contestable aspects of the municipal acts all across the country, that deal with dogs. Since the municipal and other acts don’t distinguish between pets, strays, semi adopted (no classification) dogs, the stay applies to all rules associated with dogs, in this particular case. Hence, this case is sub-judice in the apex court.
You may further note that the hon’ble bench vide a series of interim orders between 2015 and 2016 reiterated this stay order so that no confusion remains and has thus categorically restricted all municipal corporations from implementing whole or parts of municipal and state acts that concern dogs (strays as well as pets) until the hon’ble court announces final judgment on grave conflict matters related to constitutionality of the central and municipal acts. The same bench has restricted all States via their Chief Secretaries, to refrain the state from taking any measures that conflict with rights of dogs as well as violate central acts and provisions of the constitution. Even the Hon’ble High Courts of every state have been restricted to entertain any PIL related to dogs.
6.India’s Sovereign Obligations Under the OIE Treaty : Chapter 7.1.2 lists five internationally recognized freedoms of animals (freedom from hunger, thirst, malnutrition. Freedom from fear and distress, Freedom from physical and thermal discomfort. Freedom from pain, injury, disease. Freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour) These are upheld vide Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014 & SLP 11686 of 2007, via the final judgment, has detailed out the five rights of animals that cannot be violated by any by-law, rule of the municipal or state acts. That order also mentions how municipal acts/ laws that violate any of these rights should be considered annulled and cannot cause subjugation of rights of animals and animal owners/lovers/caregivers.
Our clients have tried very hard and for a very long period of time with Receivers 1 to 3 to craft a lawful, fair, mutually negotiated solution and have requested you several times not to demonstrate unprovoked cruelty towards stray dogs. None of this has borne any result. On the contrary you have indulged in assault and criminal intimidation, defamation, creating mobs etc.
In view of this notice served on you, our clients reserve the right to prosecute you for the above and to levy damages as they deem fit. Your failure to take cognizance of this notice or persistence in your illegal, objectionable activities, will compel us to initiate contempt proceeding against you in addition to prescribed action per law. You are further informed that this notice is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the animal lovers/activists to take separate appropriate action against you in the appropriate court/courts of law and you will personally be liable for cost and consequences there upon.
Tarun Kaushik
(Advocate)
