VINOD O. JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been framed in a way so as to seek a result, which, in our opinion, would be prima facie travelling into an arena of a veiled legislative act of redefining and recasting the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018, even though the petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of Rule 2(k) of the said Rules, and has urged that the fundamental defect of allowing birds to be kept as pets in cages or enclosures amounts to cruelty and, therefore, birds should be excluded from the definition of pets in the aforesaid Rule. For this, he has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Abdulkadar Mohamad Azam Sheikh v. State of Gujarat , 2011 SCC Online Gujarat 2603, where in paragraph 8.11 it has been observed as follows:

(2.) We may, at the outset, point out that such issues appear to have been raised before the Apex Court directly in W.P(C) No.286 of 2015, where the following order was passed on 5.10.2015:

(3.) It appears that a voluminous academic compilation has been relied on by the learned counsel to substantiate his submission in the shape of typed set of papers and interim reliefs have also been prayed for to ensure that bird shops in the city of Chennai, under the supervision of the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, be restrained from confining birds in cages during the pendency of these proceedings.