NEW DELHI (Tuesday, March 10, 2026) — The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Central Government on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017. The plea argues that the current rules allow for the “permanent deprivation” of livestock and pets before a person is even convicted of a crime, which violates fundamental property rights.
The Legal Conflict: Rules vs. Parent Act
The petition argues that the 2017 Rules exceed the mandate provided by the original Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.
- Rule 3 (The Challenged Provision): Currently, when an animal is seized on suspicion of cruelty (e.g., during transport for slaughter or due to neglect), Rule 3 allows the Magistrate to hand over the animal’s custody to an infirmary, pinjrapole, or SPCA. It often requires the owner to execute a bond to cover the cost of care. If the owner cannot pay, they may lose the animal permanently before the trial ends.
- Section 29 of the PCA Act (The Parent Law): This section specifically states that a person can be deprived of animal ownership only upon conviction for an offense under the Act.
- The “Ultra Vires” Argument: The petitioner contends that a “Rule” (subordinate legislation) cannot override the “Act” (primary legislation). By allowing pre-conviction forfeiture, Rule 3 is being challenged as ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the 1960 Act.
Constitutional Grounds for the Plea
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta tagged this plea with an existing petition to examine if the rules violate the following:
| Article | Context of the Challenge |
| Article 14 | Right to Equality: Argues that the rule creates an arbitrary and unfair burden on livestock owners compared to other property owners. |
| Article 300A | Right to Property: Asserts that no person shall be deprived of their property (including livestock) save by the “authority of law.” |
| Livelihood Rights | For many farmers and transporters, livestock is a primary source of income; losing them without a trial constitutes a violation of the right to earn a living. |
Significance of the Case
This case addresses a long-standing tension between animal welfare activists and livestock owners/transporters.
- Animal Welfare View: Immediate seizure is necessary to prevent further suffering and ensure the animal is treated while the case is pending.
- Owner’s View: Seizure is often used as a tool for harassment, and requiring high “maintenance bonds” essentially forces the poor to forfeit their animals before they can prove their innocence.
The Supreme Court has previously observed that “animals cannot be treated as mere property,” but this specific challenge seeks to ensure that due process is followed before ownership is permanently severed.
Sources
- Press Trust of India (PTI): “SC seeks Centre’s response on plea challenging validity of rule on custody of animals” (March 10, 2026)
- Deccan Chronicle: “SC Seeks Centre’s View on Validity of Animal Custody Rules” (March 10, 2026)
- The Tribune: “Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on plea challenging validity of rule on custody of animals” (March 10, 2026)
- Gazette of India: “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017” (Notification Reference)
Leave a Reply