JUMBO CIRCUS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the powers conferred under sub-clause (ii) of Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 (for short the Act) the Government of India had issued a notification dated 2-3-1991 banning the training and exhibition of five animals viz, bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs. Subsequently a corrigendum dated 7-8-1991 was issued by which the ban on training and exhibition of dogs was withdrawn. The validity of the said notifications were challenged by the Indian Circus Federation (ICF). New Delhi by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 890/91 before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi by order dated 20-3-1991 stayed the operation of the notification dated 2-3-1991. Later, the High Court of Delhi after hearing the writ petitioner at length, by its order dated 21-8-1997 ordered that: The Government may take up the Notification dated 2-3-1991 for consideration afresh. It may take into consideration such materials as may be available with it or it may choose to collect through any of the authentic agencies or such other agency or committee of experts as it may choose to appoint. The petitioners and such other organisations, as may volunteer themselves, will be at liberty to place before the Government of India for its consideration such materials as they may deem relevant and having bearing on the issue involved.T Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court, the Govt. Of India constitutedT a committee consisting of:

(2.) We heard learned Senior Counsels Mr. Pathrose Mathai and Mr. S.K. Chathurvedi for the petitioners and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raj Panjwani for the respondent in extenso.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Govt. of India issued the impugned notification dated 14-10-1998 unsupported by adequate materials and the said notification was not preceded by a hearing to the petitioners and that it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as it is intended to ban exhibition and training of animals in Circus only without bringing the Zoos within its ken and that it offends the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on their occupation as guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and for the foregoing reasons the notification is liable to be struck down as illegal and unconstitutional. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raj Panjwani appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned notification is perfectly valid and well within the powers of the authority who issued the said notification and the same is not liable to be struck down for all or any of the grounds canvassed by the petitioners. It was also contended that the petitioners having approached this Court suppressing material facts which has a bearing on the case, they are liable to be non-suited at the threshold on that short ground. On an anxious consideration of the rival contentions, we are of opinion that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.