Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Directions Over Suicides In Animal Enclosures, Says Authorities Already In Place

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the Union of India, expressed confusion over the nature of the relief sought through the petition.

“We are completely confused what to do with this,” the ASG submitted.

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and AG Masih questioned the premise of the plea and noted that statutory safeguards, regulatory principles and competent authorities were already in place to deal with issues concerning the safety of people and animals in zoos.

Justice Mehta also questioned how the relief sought by the petitioner through an interim order could actually be implemented.

The Bench also considered the legal position concerning attempts to commit suicide, with submissions referring to judicial decisions holding that, in view of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, a person attempting suicide is presumed to be under severe stress and is not to be tried and punished under Section 309 of the IPC, unless the statutory conditions are otherwise established.

The issue had earlier come up before the Supreme Court in the same proceedings. In an order dated September 11, 2020, the Court had noted the impact of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 on Section 309 IPC and had issued notice to the Attorney General for India on the issue. The Court had also appointed Senior Advocate A.N.S. Nadkarni as Amicus Curiae to assist it in the matter.

At the present hearing, the Bench made it clear that the matter concerned compliance with the existing statutory and regulatory framework and the role of the authorities in ensuring the safety of both humans and animals.

After hearing the submissions, including those of the learned ASG, the Court found no merit in the petition.

Justice Nath said, “Petition dismissed.”

Senior Advocate Atmaram NS Nadkarni appeared in the matter as Amicus Curiae, while AoR Salvador Santosh Rebello, also appeared for the petitioner.

The Supreme Court had earlier appointed A.N.S. Nadkarni as Amicus Curiae in the proceedings to assist the Court.

Petitioner's Allegations

The petition, arising from a challenge to a July 8, 2020 order of the Delhi High Court in Red Lynx Confederation v. Union of India & Ors., raised concerns over incidents involving people entering animal enclosures and alleged cruelty and inadequate protection of zoo animals.

The petitioner claimed that repeated incidents of people entering zoo enclosures had resulted in deaths and that animals were subsequently subjected to confinement or other measures on account of such incidents.

The plea alleged violations of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009, as amended in 2013. It also alleged that safety measures contemplated under the applicable regulatory framework were not being effectively implemented.

The petitioner sought directions concerning the protection and welfare of zoo animals as well as measures to prevent people from entering animal enclosures.

The plea described zoos as government premises and alleged that authorities had failed to prevent repeated incidents involving human deaths and attempts to enter animal enclosures.

Incidents cited in Petition

The petition referred to several incidents to contend that the issue required judicial intervention.

According to the petition's list of dates, on July 23, 2014, a man entered the enclosure of tiger Vijay at the National Zoological Park in Delhi and was mauled to death.

It also referred to a September 2019 incident involving a person entering a lion enclosure at the National Zoological Park.

Another incident cited in the petition concerned a man entering the enclosure of a tigress at a zoo in Ranchi in March 2020, resulting in his death after the animal allegedly attacked him.

The petitioner also relied on proceedings before the Delhi High Court concerning incidents at zoos and alleged failures in implementing statutory safeguards for animals.

The petition further raised concerns over the manner in which animals were allegedly treated following such incidents, arguing that responsibility for protecting both human lives and animals rested with the authorities.