I'm a dog breeder. I would like to know about the current leagal status of ear cropping of dogs. My research tells me that, in 2013 Madras high court permitted ear cropping and also said that Ear cropping performed by a vet doesn't tantamount to cruelty. But on appeal by AWBI and PETA, the court again banned it. I'm not clear about the second last verdict. Please explain it to me. So my question is. 1) If the cropping is banned, will it attract ipc 429? Or is it just minor laws like prevention of Cruelty to animal 1960. ( I'm asking this because in the earlier verdict madrs high court said ' ear cropping done by vet doesn't tantamount to cruelty '.
1. IF the Vet certifies that he conducted Ear cropping procedures, due to "ANY" Medical reasons, THEN it is no offence of any kind. Anything contrary to this shall be liable for Criminal Prosecutions.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT: www.chshelpforum.com
Under provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and Marketing) Rules, 2017, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018, such commonly practised unnecessary mutilations are prohibited by law –
2) the Madras High Court confirmed a ban on cruel cosmetic procedures such as tail-docking and ear-cropping in puppies and dogs.
If it's prohibited by law. under what section of law is it punishable? And As far as i know 2017 law or per shop law doesn't prescribe any punishment. Will it attract 429? Please share that vedict.
The practice of non-therapeutic tail docking and ear cropping is seen in the light of mutilation, which amounts to cruelty to animals as per Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, and is, therefore , a punishable offence."
2)The violator can also be charged under section 428 of IPC that talks about maiming of animals," This section allows for a jail term of up to two years.
In a case before
The AWBI contended thus:
It is averred that ear cropping and tail docking of dogs tantamount to cruelty as defined under Section 11 of the Act and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. Ear cropping and tail docking cause pain, suffering and acute discomfort to the pups and thus, the same shall be prohibited. It is also averred that Medical Associations across the world have banned / frowned upon the practice of ear cropping and tail docking of dogs and these procedures are banned in several countries. It is further stated that if the details of the web sites that are given in the counter affidavit are viewed, one could see that the American Veterinary Medical Association banned the ear cropping and tail docking. It is also stated that in England, Scotland and Wales, tail docking was banned. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that what is not permitted by law and is tantamount to cruelty cannot be resorted to. Thus, the second respondent has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
The high court while allowing the petition held that It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. Thus the writ petition was allowed.
While hearing an appeal filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), in which PETA India filed an intervention application, the Madras High Court confirmed a ban on cruel cosmetic procedures such as tail-docking and ear-cropping in puppies and dogs. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties – who informed the court that, in view of the enactment of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and Marketing) Rules, 2017, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018, such commonly practised unnecessary mutilations are prohibited by law – the court disposed of the appeal, which had become infructuous in view of the enactment of these Rules.
Nevertheless, the Madras High Court overturned the ban in 2013. The AWBI filed an appeal against this order, which has now been disposed of by the court. Although these Rules have been challenged before the High Court of Delhi, the Madras High Court, and the Supreme Court of India because of the vested interests of breeders and pet shops, no interim stay has been granted to the petitioners, and the provisions of the Rules remain in force. In fact, the challenge to the 2017 Rules before the Rajasthan High Court was dismissed in May 2018.
performing these procedures is therefore a punishable offence. Maiming dogs also violates Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code.
It's prohibited under maiming ipc
