Delhi Court Fines Animal Care Centre ₹2 Lakh Over Pet Dog Custody

The Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre (SGACC) was fined Rs 2 lakh by a Delhi court on Thursday for illegally taking custody of pet dogs, transferring some of them to unauthorised parties, and acting in a clear breach of its orders and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Extra Sessions Judge Surabhi Sharma Vats was considering a revision plea that the centre had filed in opposition to a previous court ruling that required it to return the canines to their owner, Vishal, who was named as an offender in a formal complaint filed 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.

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 utilised for National Livestock Mission," it added.

The centre "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 authorisation from any competent authority," according to the court, which also noted that the centre had obtained the dogs through a "proxy" complainant. The court ruled that Sections 34 (general authority of seizure) and 35 (treatment and care) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, were not followed in the seizure and subsequent custody of the animals.

It stated that no independent veterinarian examination was carried out and that a court order did not permit the animals' transfer 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.

The facility was fined Rs 5,000 by the court on January 22 for failing to comply with its order to release all ten canines.

The IO had told the court that the eight dogs had been delivered to their owners, while the two remaining dogs—one of the Maltese breed and the other of the poodle breed—remain in the hands of the animal care facility.

However, Vishal's attorney informed the court that two dogs—a Maltese and a Poodle—were not returned, and four of the eight returned pets seemed to be disfigured.