Delhi court slaps Rs 2 lakh cost on animal shelter, flags illegal custody, transfer of dogs

A Delhi court on Thursday imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on the Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre (SGACC), saying that the organisation had illegally assumed custody of pet dogs, transferred some of them to third parties without authority and acted in blatant disregard of its orders and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Additional Sessions Judge Surabhi Sharma Vats was hearing a revision petition filed by the centre against an earlier court order directing it to release the dogs to their owner, Vishal, who was named as an accused in an FIR registered at the Jagat Puri police station.

The court directed that the amount be deposited within three days in a government animal welfare fund to be utilised for the National Livestock Mission, terming the conduct of the centre “vexatious” and warranting exemplary costs as a deterrent.

Also Read: AI smart glasses, 30,000 personnel to secure Delhi on Republic Day

In an order dated January 23, the court said, “It becomes pellucid from the totality of foregoing facts and discussion that the revisionist (animal centre) has resorted to the weaponisation of laws, exploiting the legal process for strategic advantage rather than for legitimate legal recourse.”

“Accordingly, a cost of Rs 2 Lakh is imposed upon the revisionist SGACC to be deposited in a Government Animal Welfare Fund to be utilized for National Livestock Mission,” it added.

The court noted that the centre had seized the dogs through a ‘proxy’ complainant and noted that it “orchestrates and engineers the complaints through its own agents, thereby manufacturing artificial legal disputes and creating circumstances that enabled it to unlawfully take custody of the animals without any order or authorization from any competent authority.”

The court said that the seizure and subsequent custody of the animals were not in compliance with Sections 34 (general power of seizure) and 35 (treatment and care) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

It noted that no independent veterinary examination was conducted and no judicial order authorised the handing over of the animals to the centre.

“It is observed and held that the entire action of the revisionist and custody of the animals in question, is vitiated by procedural illegality, bias, conflict of interest, and colourable exercise of power, with the tacit or active assistance of the police authorities,” the judge said.

It said that the calculated silence on the part of the animal centre paralysed the proceedings and caused inordinate delay.

“This alleged ‘Animal Care Facility’ has consciously withheld the report because its disclosure would have the potential t o expose serious irregularities, illegalities, and gross negligence in the manner in which the animals were handled while under its custody,” the court said.

Mayank Sharma, the counsel representing the dog owner, argued in court that the dogs were subjected to unauthorised medical procedures. He submitted that some of the dogs were sold without the consent of his client.

“Upon receiving them, he (dog owner) was horrified to discover that four female dogs had undergone surgical procedures, wherein their ovaries had been removed (sterilisation) by the centre without his permission, consent, or knowledge and without authorisation from any competent authority,” he said.

Earlier, on January 22, the court imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the centre over non-compliance with its order to release all 10 dogs.

The IO had informed the court that the eight dogs have been delivered to the owner of the dogs, and the remaining two dogs, one of poodle breed and another of the Maltese breed, are still under the custody of the animal care centre.

However, Vishal’s lawyer told the court that out of eight returned dogs, four appeared mutilated and two dogs, a Maltese and a Poodle, weren’t returned.

Read More: Soldiers march with wet uniforms, boots as Republic Day rehearsal held amid rain