Magistrate's order to return dogs to perpetrator of crime shocks the conscience of the court: Karnataka HC

The judge observed that visual evidence shows that the owner has treated the dogs poorly and that the order directing that the dogs be returned to the perpetrator of the crime is, "to say the least, preposterous."
Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka High Court.(File Photo | Express)
Updated on: 
2 min read

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed an order passed by a magistrate to return the nine dogs to their owner, despite allegations of assault and sexual abuse against the owner, noting that it 'shocks the conscience of the court'.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the dogs, six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzu, are currently in the custody of an animal welfare organisation following allegations against the dogs' owner Ramesh K E.

Passing the order while allowing the petition filed by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) questioning the magistrate's order dated April 25, the court noted that the magistrate appears to have lost sight of the fact that the ethical treatment of animals is imperative.

The judge observed that visual evidence shows that the owner has treated the dogs poorly and that the order directing that the dogs be returned to the perpetrator of the crime is, "to say the least, preposterous."

The judge further said that before reversing this order, it would not be inept to refer that animals, though bereft of human speech, are not bereft of sentience, suffering or the capacity to experience pain.

The law in its civilisational wisdom has long ceased to view animals as mere chattels existing solely for human utility; they are not. The law now recognises animals also to be living beings entitled to dignity, compassion, and protection from cruelty.

The measure of a civilised society is often reflected not merely as to how it treats its fellow humans but as to how it extends mercy and justice to the voiceless creatures that inhabit its shared world.

Therefore, every act of cruelty against an animal is not merely an injury to a sentient being, but a blemish upon the collective human conscience. Protection of animal life, therefore, is not an act of charity; it is an affirmation of constitutional morality and recognition that the arc of justice must extend even to those who cannot knock at the doors of this court by themselves, he said.

Refuting the allegations of PETA, Ramesh, through his counsel, contended that he lives alone and reared nine dogs, and there is no warrant for the interference of the order passed by the magistrate, as the dogs are hale and healthy with him and all the other allegations are a figment of imagination of PETA.

After receiving information that the dogs in the possession of Ramesh are indiscriminately beaten, assaulted, and also sexually abused and that illegal breeding is taking place at his residence, a complaint was registered before the Peenya police on February 15. Later, the dogs were rescued and kept in an animal welfare organisation.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com