Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 580 (MP)

Jadugar Anand v. State of M. P.

2002-06-25

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER is challenging the action of the respondents in not permitting him to stage magic shows which include a magic trick of converting bear into a lady. ( 2. ) PETITIONER submits that he is a citizen of India and is a permanent resident of Jabalpur and is a renowned magician. He has performed large number of magic shows in India as well as abroad. At the time of filing the petition, the magic show at Satna was being organized. ( 3. ) PETITIONER submits that while performing the magic shows petitioner brings certain animals at the stage of show. Petitioner owns a bear, aged about one year, which is duly registered with Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal as evidenced by certificate of ownership P-1. ( 4. ) FOR purposes of his profession of performing of magic shows, petitioner has to transport the bear from one place to another and certificate for this is issued under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act from time to time. A certificate P-2 has also been issued granting permission to the petitioner to transport the bear from Jabalpur to Satna. ( 5. ) THE Central Government by virtue of powers conferred by Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty on Animals Act, 1960 (for short the Act) has issued a notification P-3 dated 14th October, 1998, thereby placing ban on exhibition and training of performing animals which include bear ( 6. ) IN the petition it is averred that the sole object of issuing notification P-3 is to ensure that no cruelty takes place while training or performing the animal and while exhibiting a performing animal. ( 7. ) IT is averred that in the case of petitioner, performing animal, i. e. , bear is not subjected to any kind of training nor any training for purposes of exhibition is given. Bear is simply brought at the stage of show and thereafter disappears from the stage. No act or action is done by the performing animal at any point of time, therefore, the notification P-3 in the present case is not at all applicable. The said notification was subjected to judicial scrutiny and High Court of Kerala has upheld the validity of the same. No act or action is done by the performing animal at any point of time, therefore, the notification P-3 in the present case is not at all applicable. The said notification was subjected to judicial scrutiny and High Court of Kerala has upheld the validity of the same. The present notification though does not cover the case of petitioner is being made applicable to him and the authorities are not permitting the petitioner to include bear in his stage shows. ( 8. ) PETITIONER further submits that since the notification P-3 is not applicable in the case of petitioner, the restriction imposed by respondent authorities not to include bear in his stage show is violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents amounts to imposition of unreasonable and unjustified restriction infringing his fundamental right to carry on his profession of magician. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submits that the notification issued under Section 22 of the Act is proper and notification in question is attracted to magic show and the submission of the petitioner that no training is required to be imparted to bear is also not acceptable. ( 10. ) THE notification dated 14-10-1998 was issued by the Central Government in pursuance of the order of Honble High Court of Delhi. The Central Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife) to have a fresh look at the Notification G. S. R. No. 252, dated 2-3-1991 in the light of the additional material available with any authenticated agencies or such other agency/persons. The said Committee submitted its report to the Central Government and the Central Government has taken into consideration the report of the said Committee. Now, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forests G. S. R. No. 252, dated 2-3-1991 and G. S. R. No. 485 dated 7-8-1991, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government has specified that the following animals shall not be exhibited or trained as a performing animals, with effect from the date of publication of this notification, namely :-1. Bears, 2. Bears, 2. Monkeys, 3. Tigers, 4. Panthers, 5. Lions. ( 11. ) THE preamble of the Act makes it clear that the Legislature intended to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. Section 21 of the Act defines the words "exhibit" and "train" it reads as follows :-- "21. exhibit and train defined.--In this Chapter, exhibit means exhibit at any entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets, and train means train for the purpose of any such exhibition, and the expressions exhibitor and trainer have respectively the corresponding meanings. " A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that exhibit means exhibit at any entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets, and train means train for the purpose of any such exhibition. Applying the said definition to the instant case, magic show is held by the petitioner and in that the bear is used as an exhibit, magic is a form of entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets for the purpose of exhibition. Under Section 22 of the Act it is open to the Central Government to put restriction by the notification in the official gazette to restrict the exhibition of a performing animal. Under Section 22 (ii) the Central Government has issued a notification-P-3 on 14-10-1998 and total ban has been imposed on exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions. They cannot be exhibited or trained as a performing animal w. e. f. the date of publication of the notification. ( 12. ) THUS, the submission raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is magic show bear is not used as a performing animal, is not acceptable. When bear is used for conversion into a lady though not actually converted training has to be imparted to the bear for the part played by him and the bear is brought to the stage as an exhibit. Section 24 of the Act aims at preventing the unnecessary pain or suffering being caused to the animals. When bear is used for conversion into a lady though not actually converted training has to be imparted to the bear for the part played by him and the bear is brought to the stage as an exhibit. Section 24 of the Act aims at preventing the unnecessary pain or suffering being caused to the animals. Central Government has issued a notification under Section 22 and in exercise of power of judicial review this Court cannot over reach satisfaction of Government in issuing the notification, the Government cannot be said to have acted unreasonably when the notification is read with Section 21, the restriction is clearly just and reasonable and is within the parameter of the Act. ( 13. ) IN the context of exhibition in a circus, their Lordships of the Apex Court in N. R. Nair and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 2001 SC 2337 = (2001) 6 SCC 84 , held that" 10. It will be seen that according to Section 24 if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate on a complaint being filed that there is any training or exhibition of performing animals which is accompanied by unnecessary pain or suffering, then the Court has the jurisdiction to order the prohibition of the same. To our mind, keeping the Preamble of the Act and Section 24 in view, power under Section 22 (ii) can be exercised only when the Central Government is of the opinion that the training and exhibition of the animals in respect of which a notification is being issued is for the purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering being caused to the animals. 11. In the very nature of things when the animals are used for performance in a circus, it requires their training. It is for the Government to decide on the basis of the evidence on record and after taking into consideration other factors whether the training and exhibition of those animals would result in unnecessary pain or suffering being inflicted on them. It is pertinent to note that even with respect to the animals whose exhibition and training is prohibited the Act does not prevent the owner from keeping them as domestic pets. Of course, it is going to be difficult to expect someone to have a lion or tiger as a pet. It is pertinent to note that even with respect to the animals whose exhibition and training is prohibited the Act does not prevent the owner from keeping them as domestic pets. Of course, it is going to be difficult to expect someone to have a lion or tiger as a pet. That apart, it is the welfare of the animals which is of paramount consideration and it is only if the Government is satisfied on the basis of the materials on record that unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted on an animal during the course of training or at the time when it is exhibited that a notification under Section 22 (ii) is issued. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the appellants that the power contained in Section 22 is unguided. The reading of the Act as a whole clearly shows that implicit in Section 22 is the necessity for the Government to come to the conclusion that if a notification under the said section is not issued there would be unnecessary pain or suffering in the training or exhibition of the animals. The existence of the said fact is a precondition to the issuance of the notification. " ( 14. ) BY the notification in question dated 14-10-1998 scope of previous notification has been enlarged and prohibition has been carved out on the five categories of animals specified from being exhibited or trained as a performing animal and this notification has to be read in the context of definition exhibit and train as mentioned in Section 21. Thus, the same is applicable to the magic show also not confined to circus when considered in the context of the Act. ( 15. ) I find no merit in the writ petition. Same is dismissed. No order as to costs.