We decided that we will call upon Honorable Mr. Justice A.K. Jai Shankar Nabiar for a topic which, on the face of it, looks very interesting. After the topic was finalized, I never myself realized that the issues are on different aspects. One thought that it's simplicity only on protection. Eventually one realizes there are different acts, namely that is prevention of cruelty to the animals act. Then we have for the transportation of the animal protection act. Then we have wildlife protection act. These all acts and rules have their own facets and they protect the animals in a different way. As to whether what can be slaughtered, how the animals can be used and how the animals and the pets can be kept at their own place. There are all the issues which are the issues which can only be unraveled by Honorable Mr. Justice A.K. Jai Shankar Nabiar. Once we see on the Google or on the website of the Kerala High Court, we find his illustrious care here.  Both the issues regarding being a gold medalist speaks volumes for itself and studying and being an alumnus of the Oxford. It's another fascinating fact. As in Hindi, those who could understand, they say it's Sonebe Suhada or in the English we can say cherry on the top. Once it's a combination of both and having an insights on a different issue which invariably even as a student of law or as a professional, one feels there's not much except for the public interest litigation. Without taking much time on behalf of Beyond Law CLC, I request Honorable Mr. Justice A.K. Jai Shankar Nabiar. To give the insights, people are quite large number of people are sent on the WhatsApp. What could be the issues and large number of people are seen on the chat box. They in fact wanted to record this. To the participants, we will just like to highlight this entire session would be also on the Facebook number one and number two after the session is over. We will also upload the same on the website as well as on the YouTube channel of Beyond Law CLC. So all those who have missed it or all those who want to revisit the entire session and can do that. Thank you, sir. We are honored for the fact that you have accepted our invite and you will be giving insights which invariably are not known to a common person. Thank you, sir. Thank you because I first of all, I just want to confirm my audible. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Because you gave me a scare during the course of your introduction. I heard you at some point say that, you know, people were not very conversant about the rights of animals and most people were under the assumption that rights of animals are almost non-existent. I don't believe that many of that is the public perception. I'm sure there are many who think that animals have indeed rights. And I think the unanimous opinion today is that those rights are not sufficient. Let me begin by taking you all back in time just two weeks ago. There was this incident in Kerala which shook the conscience of the citizenry. People are aware of it. It was the news item that appeared in the dailies about an elephant, a pregnant elephant at that, a wild elephant, which met its tragic end because it consumed some pineapple that was laced with explosive substances. The other version has it that the pineapple with the explosive substance was offered to the elephant by some persons in the locality. And the other version, which came out subsequently, has it that this was actually some pineapple with explosive substance that was laid in a place by some agriculturalists who were not so happy with wild boar having come and attacked their crop and destroyed their crop. And therefore they had laid this as a trap to actually kill the wild boar. Not that that makes killing the wild boar a justifiable act. Because what I would like to bring to your focus in that news item is that while the end result of the entire episode is certainly a tragic one. And certainly unanimously denounced in society. When you look at the denouncement or the anger expressed at the perpetrator of the offense or the deed, you find that the level of anger is not the same in both the situations. In the first situation, the anger level is very high because you see this whole thing as a person having fed an elephant a positive act of feeding an elephant with a hazardous substance. In the second version, you see this as something that a person has done in order to protect his crop or agricultural produce from destruction by wild animals. And therefore the level of anger expressed against that perpetrator, that person seems to be a tag below what is expressed in the case of the other. Now I ask myself why that different approach or why is it that there is a different perspective when you express anger at something that is so blatantly cruel. And I find that it is largely an issue of perspective because we tend to, as human beings, we tend to see the rights of animals as subservient to the rights enjoyed by us as a species, human beings. Over the years, we seem to have managed to dominate life on earth and also aggregate to ourselves the ability to lay siege on the resources that are available on this planet. If you look back in time to the earliest days of life on planet earth and if you start off on the on the common ground of all species being equal in planet earth. Survival of the fittest food have been the natural law that determined your continued existence on this planet. Going by that yardstick and going by that principle, human beings would not, in my opinion, have survived the onslaught either of nature or of the other wild animals or species around us. For the simple reason that we are not as powerful as them when you look at it in terms of physical existence. However, humanity and a human kind, human beings as a species survived because of one innate quality of theirs and that is the ability to actually socialize in groups and in huge groups. This is the one feature that distinguishes a human being from the rest of the animal kingdom, the ability to socialize and not merely socialize because you find that there are other species like dogs and wolves or even lions for that matter who do socialize and move in packs. It's called the pack behavior in the animal kingdom. But the human species has the innate ability to socialize at a much, much larger level and therefore the huge grouping that we resort to is what has largely helped us survive and dominate, eventually dominate the planet itself. So why did we do this? We did this obviously for the reason that we could now protect ourselves from common enemies. We could use or pool our resources to actually fight the forces of nature to fight the common enemies to what of evil. And in that process we unknowingly came to create what is the first sort of government of ourselves. So this is the essence of our banding together. This is our essence of social existence. It is a coexistence, peaceful coexistence designed for common good of protecting our species from the onslaught from both nature as also other species. This banding together, this formation of a society and this level of governance obviously led to a situation where as an individual you would have to give up certain privileges. You would have to give up certain rights for the benefit of the common society. You can call it, there are various theories of jurisprudence. I'm not going into that but largely it's something like a social contract. So you basically agree with the rest of the persons in your flock that you would curtail your privileges, you would curtail or restrict your freedoms in such a way that it would benefit the rest of the community. Why I'm saying all this is that if you reflect on it, our approach to the animal rights issue is also on similar lines. You would see that our inactive laws and we essentially have just two of them. In India we have the prevention of cruelty to animals act, the PCA and the wildlife protection laws. Now both these work on the fundamental premise and this is important because we seem to have aggregated to ourselves the position of being the most superior species on earth. And both these legislations essentially work on the basic premise of superiority of the human species and everything else being subservient to the human species. In law or in general you would call this speciesism, just like you would say capitalism or communism, there is something called speciesism. And it's not merely a nomenclature, it is basically intended to convey the message that if animals do have rights, if animals do have some protection, it is because of the benevolence of the human species, it is because of the compassion that we have chosen to confer or to show to this species. Right. If that is the basic premise on which our laws are founded and a reading of the PCA Act or the Wildlife Protection Act would clearly reveal this to be the case. The question that we need to ask ourselves is, is that the right approach that we need to take? The answer is that you would get to that question of asking society today. If you'd asked this question about 20, 30 years ago, you would probably get the mixed responses, but I think today the answer would be an emphatic no from a majority of the society. You see, when it comes to conferring rights on another species which is admittedly inferior to you in society, on the planet, you have to consider that this evolution thus far and because of our deeds, we have now reached a position where we command enormous powers and our level of dominance in the planet is substantially high, that at this level, it would not do us any substantial harm to concede to the other species, certain rights which they can enjoy without causing any harm to us. And that I think is the principle that should inform our jurisprudence, at least our thought process when we talk about conferring rights on animals. If you were to draw a parallel from, you know, constitutions of the law, regulations governing humans itself, you would find that the success of any constitution, the world over in any jurisdiction, the success of any constitution lies in the extent of anti-majoritarianism that it practices. In other words, the success of any constitution as a legal document would stem from the extent of protection it offers to the minorities and not to the majority. So taking you from that principle, if you were to apply the same principle on a global level, on a planetary level, we would be living up to our position or our claim as a civilized body of people if and only if we recognize certain rights in those species which have not received the advantage of rights and have not been able to exploit the natural resources in the same way that we have been exploiting, when at the end of the day, they are also equally entitled as living creatures to the bounty that nature has to offer. So with that introduction, let's go a little bit in detail to what is the steps that we can actually take with regard to advancement of the animal welfare or animal rights. Now to talk about our constitution and our legal system, the constitution of course is the basic law in India. The constitution as you all know came in 1950, we adopted it in 1949, came into effect January 26, 1950. When the constitution was enacted and when the constitution came into force, there was a chapter in the constitution and it's still there, containing chapter four, which is the directive principles of state policy. Now article 48a of the constitution, which is an article under the chapter of directive principles of state policy says or speaks about protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife. It's just one sentence in the constitution, but that is good because it's not very many constitutions the world over that actually recognize such a protection or even talk about animals. You would have a lot of mention of animals and protection of animals in the German constitution. You would find it in some other constitutions, but it's certainly not a uniform approach the world over. And to that extent at least, I think the initiatives that we have taken in our country is far better and far more progressive. Now the problem with the mention in the directive principles of state policy and I'm presuming that many of you are law students or at least I have something to do with law here. For those who don't, I can clarify that under the Indian law, directive principles of state policy although mentioned in the constitution are not directly enforceable in a court of law. So and that's not to say that it can be conveniently ignored. The law on the point is the directive principles of state policy, although not enforceable as a right in a court, you can, the legislature, the state has definitely to take note of the principles while they make laws, they enact laws. And certainly the judiciary when it's interpreting the various provisions of statutes have to keep in mind the directive principles and interpret it accordingly. So it's not as though it is to be ignored, it is there, it's a constitutional provision at the end of the day. But when you do interpret it, you need to keep this in the background, you cannot go directly to court saying, there is a directive principle, please enforce it. Now our constitution as I said came in 1950. It was not until 1977 that the constitution was amended to bring in a chapter for a on fundamental duties. So it took us 27 years to insert a chapter in the constitution talking about fundamental duties of citizens. And there in that chapter, for the first time you find there are two duties with which have some bearing on animal rights. And those are article 51 A G and article 51 A H. Now what do they say? Article 51 A G obliges every citizen to protect and improve natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife to protect and to have compassion for living creatures underscore. Compassion and to have compassion for living creatures, we'll come back to those words in a minute. Article 51 capital A H obliges us to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. The word to be noticed there underscore there is humanism. Now, as I said earlier, when I mentioned about the directive principles of state policy, like the directive principles, fundamental duties also you cannot go to court to enforce them. But like directive principles of state policy, you have to keep them in mind when the state makes laws, when the judiciary decides cases. So armed with these concepts which are inserted now and which have got a constitutional footing in our country. What do we do? How do we go forward? Now keep in mind the fact that it was in 1977 that we got the constitution amended to insert fundamental duties. And yet it was not until 2014 that that year is magic as far as animal rights is concerned. It was not until 2014 that we actually took concrete steps for advancing our animal rights jurisprudence. What did we do from 1977 when fundamental duties was inserted in the constitution till 2014, which I was talking about. Actually, we started interpreting the provisions of the PCA Act as well as the Wildlife Protection Act in a manner that was spelled out in the legislations itself. As I said earlier, the fundamental premise on which these legislations are based is the superiority of the human species. And the protection of rights of animals is seen as some kind of a charity or a compression that is shown by the human species to animals. So the protection of rights you would see in these two legislations is or the concern for animal welfare is addressed through control of human action. It is these legislations basically speak of duties that a citizen owes to animals. And therefore you have sections 3 of the PCA Act and section 11 which talk about various things that a human being should not do. What you would find there, however, is that there are exceptions carved out in situations where any activity is not seen cruel if it would aid in some human influence. So you're still talking about speciesism, you're still talking about the superior dominant role that we play on planet Earth. You're still talking about the subservience of all other species to the human species. And you're recognizing certain amount of rights provided that they don't offend your sense of entertainment, your sense of your privileges of religious practices etc. Now the question to be asked is once your constitution talks about compassion for living creatures and an element of humanism, how do you reconcile this with this approach that we have in our statutes of the protection of animals being dependent upon the benediction or the benevolence of the human species. There was an inconsistency and this was an inconsistency that needed to be addressed. Let's look at one of those cases that was decided in 2000. It's a famous case and it will give you an idea about how the courts have viewed the provisions of the prevention of cruelty to animals act. The case is N.R. Nair versus Union of India. For those of you who are into citations, they are 2001 Supreme Court 2337. That's AR 2001 Supreme Court 2337. Essentially it was a challenge by certain persons who were parading animals in connection with circuses. They were not so happy with a notification issued by the central government which said that they could not parade or even use these animals such as bears and lepers etc. for various antiques that you normally, you and I have seen in our younger days in circuses. Now their argument legally was that this was basically this restriction that was imposed on them. It was essentially a restriction, an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right and Article 191G for carrying on trade and business. What did the Supreme Court do or what did the High Court at first instance and the Supreme Court do? It was fairly simple. They said Article 19 grants no doubt guarantees you certain privileges and certain freedoms but those freedoms are not absolute. You have 19-2 to 6 which talk about restrictions, reasonable restrictions. 19-1 says that you can have a reasonable restriction in respect of public interest. When you have a chapter on fundamental duties in the Constitution which talks about compassion for living creatures and you have a provision under the PCA Act and a notification issued under the PCA Act which is designed to show compassion for living creatures by preventing certain activities which would otherwise be viewed as cruelty. Can you say that that condition is not a reasonable restriction? And the Supreme Court said it did amount to a reasonable restriction and therefore you could not say that your fundamental freedoms under 19-1G were infringed. So in that case we basically find that again the protection of the animal welfare or protection of animal rights is ensured through a curtailment of the rights of freedoms or fundamental freedoms of the individual or the human being. What happened after that? 2014 and this is the year which marks a year of celebration for most of the animal rights activists in our country. I certainly was most happy hearing this. We had the decision in Nagaraj, Animal Welfare Board of India versus Nagaraj. Now decision is 2014-7 SCC 547, 2014 volume 7 SCC 547. Nagaraj virtually changed the entire perspective on animal rights. Nagaraj shifted the focus from animal rights being nearly the product of a control on human action to recognizing rights in animals itself and using affirmative state action to protect those rights. For those of you who are students of constitutional law and who recall, we went through a similar process when it comes to us human beings and us citizens and non-citizens in India. When we were talking about our constitutional provisions under part 3, we went through a similar transformation, a shift in the perspective of interpretation of fundamental rights. On the days of Gopalan, AK Gopalan was the state of Madras, 1950 case. In fact, it was probably one of the first cases decided by the first landmark cases decided by the newly formed Supreme Court in 1950. In Gopalan, part 3 of our constitution which deals with fundamental rights, it was seen as a protection granted to the citizens. Which protection was ensured through a curtailment or a restriction of state action. So the focus was, if you got a protection of fundamental rights under part 3, it was because you could successfully control or restrict state action under the constitution. And therefore Article 21 was seen as a right to life and personal liberty subject to compliance by the state of a fair procedure established by law. So as long as the state had a procedure established by law, they could take away your life of personal liberty. So the only protection you had under the constitution according to the Gopalan bench was that your protection was only to the extent of limitation of state action or control of state action. And the Gopalan view started, it is famously called as the silos theory because it started seeing the fundamental rights as individual fundamental rights. The right and Article 19 was separate from the right and Article 14, which was also separate from the rights under Articles 20, 21, 22. It was called the silos theory because you have silos, individual compartments of these rights and the restrictions were those which were mentioned under those very articles. Now that view in Gopalan of seeing the guarantee of fundamental rights to citizens and non-citizens as resulting from a restriction of state action was departed from in a fairness case of RC Cooper, which is the bank nationalization case in the 1970. So it took about 20 years for us to have that shift in perspective. Now what did RC Cooper do? RC Cooper shifted the focus and said that the guarantee of fundamental rights is not achieved through restriction on state action. The guarantee of fundamental rights is through a recognition of the rights of an individual and affirmative state action to protect those rights of the individual. So you saw this shift for the human beings. I'm sorry to be using the word human beings because when you're talking in the context of animal rights, you need to treat citizens and non-citizens as human beings as against animals. So when the focus shifted, this was what happened in 1970s as far as we human beings are concerned. Our fundamental rights under part three came to be recognized as individual rights which required a guarantee through affirmative state action. It is that shift in perspective that is happening in the animal world today or in 2014. So you can easily draw a parallel between what happened in under part three when you're talking about the corresponding rights maturing to animals through the statutory prescriptions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act as also the Wildlife Protection Act. Now what did Nagraj do apart from taking this shift in perspective? Nagraj interpreted the provisions of the PCA Act in the backdrop of the fundamental duties in the backdrop of the chapter on directive principles and said that you stop seeing these rights conferred under these acts on animals as merely the result of prevention or restriction of the actions of human beings. You see them as individual rights. Now they recognized these rights under sections three and section 11 as comprising of five freedoms which were inherent in all animals and these freedoms are important. It was a freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition. The first freedom. The second was the freedom from fear and distress. Third, the freedom from physical and thermal discomfort. Fourth, the freedom from pain, injury and disease. And five, this is important, freedom to express normal patterns of behavior and mind you, we are talking about these freedoms in animals. So if these five freedoms are recognized as forming an inherent part of sections three and eleven of the Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals Act, the PCA Act and they are to be protected as individual rights and the judgment goes on to elaborate that these are rights inherent in animals. Inherit means that they were always there. And it has to be protected by the state by invoking the principles of parents' patriot. Now parents' patriot is a doctrine which is used in any society where the governance is paternalistic. Parents' patriot simply means like your parents would do. So like a child would be taken care of by the parents for any laws would be interpreted in favor of the person that is thought to be protected. And therefore the obligation was left to the state to ensure that these rights which were declared to exist in animals would now be protected by the state action. This would mean that this would have, I would have thought, would require the state to now step in and make consequential changes in the legislations that we have because they are all of 1960 vintage. The shift had not happened till 2014 and there is a reason why you need affirmative state action because there are many things that happen through just a legislation being there because the law is clear for everybody to apply. And it also informs society in general that this is the law. There is no grey area. Not everybody in society goes to read judgments of the Supreme Court. But when there is a law, there is a presumption that you know the law and you know that the legislature has passed such a thing. Why would have expected the legislature, either the parliament or even subordinate legislation, to react or to respond to the call made by the Supreme Court in Nagraj and make amendments, either amendments to the statute or just replace the existing statute with the new one which would conform to the ideals and the ideals expressed by the Supreme Court in Nagraj. But I'm sorry to say that although there were two animal welfare bills both of 2011 and 2014, none of them have become acts. They have not been passed. But then as a country, as a republic, India has not been known for prom legislative action anyway. Timely legislation has never been our strong point. I say this with all conviction because for those law students again and lawyers, if you remember when it came to an issue that was faced in society, the issue of sexual harassment of women in workplaces, you all know the now famous Vishaka case where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines that were to be the law till such time as the legislature made a law to deal with the issue. The Vishaka guideline came in 2013. Now if it takes... The legislature... Is there something wrong with the voice? Because... Yeah, okay. So if it takes 17 years for the legislature to step in and make a law, then that's certainly not a desirable state of affairs because the legislature is supposed to act and respond to the... needs of the society at any given point in time. And Vishaka is not the only case. If you look at the food security laws, the decision in the People's Union for Civil Liberties came somewhere in 2000. The food security legislation came only in 2010. So 10 years again. And why? We have a case in point given today. 2014 is the Nagaraj decision. In 2020 we don't have any legislation yet or not even an amendment where it's mentioned. So this is a point for concern. This is something that has to be addressed when we are talking about the animal welfare legislation or animal rights issue. Now what's happening on the international front? There is a woeful gap in the legislation. There are not many international conventions worth mentioning which would actually go to the extent of providing rights to animals that could be enforceable the world over. There has been a toying with an idea of universal declaration of animal rights on the same lines as universal declaration of human rights but that has never actually matured into a reality. We have various organizations like the World Society for Protection of Animals which is now called the World Animal Protection since 2014 after the merger of two bodies together to form the new one. And the World Health Organization, the Animal Health OIE of which India is a member, the declarations by them are not actually instruments that can be universally enforced. So we have a situation today where the only law that actually enables a recognition of animal rights today is the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Supreme Court on how to interpret the provision of the PCA Act and the wildlife protection act. Now we could speculate on the way forward and there are mixed reactions as to how we should go. Certainly a legislation affirming the principles of positive state action would be desirable and it should come in the near future. And I'm not saying it should come because I have an expectation that it would come. I'm saying it should come because I expect civil society to respond and to take the initiative to actually cause legislation to come into force. And this can be achieved only through participation of civil society. And I'm emphasizing on this point because knowing how governance happens in our country, knowing how the laws are made and how laws are implemented. I believe that for a law to be effectively implemented in society, it requires a process of internalization by the society. I'm a firm believer that if a law is to be fully obeyed and respected by society, it must be a law that is internalized by society. In other words, the law must be accepted, must be acceptable to society. They must understand that this is required. Today, going back to the elephant incident which I mentioned at the outset, I believe going by the responses that we had when the incident was published was circulated in the social media as also the visual and print media. The reaction from the citizenry was very, very encouraging. I'm not saying that the incident was justified but the reaction of civil society gives a ray of hope that today there is enough voice in society that would catalyze a legislation to protect or to promote animal rights. Now let's see what the power of society is. If you look at the developments across the world where animal rights have been protected, animal rights have been recognized, you would notice that the opinion of the public, the opinion of the citizenry, wherever the location of the citizenry is paramount and plays a significant role in shaping of the laws that are then made by the respective legislatures of those countries. Let's look at some of the happenings in the World Trade Order, the World Trade Organization. There are two cases for those of you who are interested. One is called the US Tuna case and this is basically the fact that the citation is not important, the facts are this. The US Tuna case was basically dealing with the packaging of tuna fish. Now you see when tuna fish are captured or when the tuna fish is caught. The process that was employed was using nets and for those of you who watched Attenborough's Living Planet etc., you would remember that tuna fish as shoals of fish swim under dolphins. And there was a peculiar problem because when they were catching tuna fish, dolphins also come to feed on the fish. So wherever they spotted dolphins, they would know that there was a shoal of tuna underneath. And nets would be cast and the fish would be caught. But in that process, a lot of dolphins were harmed because they would get untangled in the nets, the fins would rupture etc. And this was a major concern for all the animal lovers, for those who showed compassion to animals and it created quite a spark and there was activists who raised a human cry with regard to these practices. With the result that they came about a requirement to actually put labels on cans of tuna that were produced, showing clearly that this was dolphin safe, that there was no dolphins harmed in the capture of tuna that was now inside the can. Mexico as a country raised certain concerns because they said that they could not comply with the procedural requirements that were required for getting a dolphin safe label for their tuna which they had caught. They therefore went to the World Trade Organization and said that this insistence on a label for tuna fish would mean that they were actually adversely discriminated in the matter of trade of tuna fish. The World Trade Organization rejected that contention because it was found that this was for a cause which was far more important. It was for the purposes of protecting the rights of protecting the dolphins as a species and therefore this was a reasonable restriction that was justified under the circumstances and while arriving at that conclusion they relied heavily on the public opinion of the time. A similar case which originated in Canada and Norway was the seal products case, the seals which were caught where the method of hunting of seals was seen as very cruel. And therefore the World Trade Organization again imposed certain restrictions on the seal products that were entering the European market from Canada and Norway. Obviously these countries raised a human drive with regard to these restrictions but the restrictions were eventually upheld and it was said that the public sentiments expressed against the cruel ways in which the seal was hunted was sufficient for them to justify these restrictions. So public opinion and public anguish expressed is certainly something that paves the way for new law to be made. And this is not surprising because as a law student would know there is a maximum in law which says Salis Populi Suprema Lex, Salis Populi Suprema Lex, Salis Populi is nothing but public opinion. So Suprema Lex is the supreme law, public opinion is the supreme law, public interest is the supreme law. So if there is an overwhelming public interest that is expressed by society in protection of animals and protection of animal rights, then surely there is no law which can override that requirement. And if the public opinion is expressed suitably, I see no reason why you would not have a legislation coming in. You would not force the legislature to act and bring about a suitable legislation which would protect and advance what was already laid out in Nagaraj. Now there is a difficulty when you're talking about legislation. You can have, you can mount all the public pressure that you want, you can raise the public opinion, you can bring all the lobbies to bear. But when it comes to legislation, we have our experience with legislation has been that after the Constitution of India, which document was drafted most meticulously and the kind of debates and deliberations that went into the making of the Constitution unparalleled anywhere else in the world. When it was actually enacted, it was the longest constitution in the modern era. And the Herculean efforts, I mean one has to only see the Constituent Assembly debates. If you read the Constituent Assembly debates, you will understand what was the time and effort. The Constituent Assembly spent about two years, 11 months just deliberating and discussing on each and every provision of the Constitution. Such an exercise in legislation and drafting has not been seen after 1950. You may have legislations which have undergone that process of debate deliberation in earlier parts immediately after the Constitution may be in the first one or two decades. But ever since, legislative drafting has been a shabby exercise. I'm sorry to say this, but you find this defect in most of the legislations that we deal with today. Now, legislation, whether it is plenary legislation or whether it is subordinate or delegated legislation. For our cause, for our purposes, it has to be something that is preceded by a discussion. By an intellectual discussion. By persons, experts in the field of animal rights. Persons who know animal behavior because you cannot make a law. You cannot make a law defining rights unless you know what those rights translate into for the animal itself. It is meaningless to be speaking of a law or rights of an animal if you don't know what the animal actually likes. If you look at the prevention of cruelty to animals, you find clauses there saying unnecessary pain and suffering. Unnecessary pain and suffering. Suppose somebody were to tell you that you have a right against unnecessary pain and suffering. The first question you would ask is unnecessary to whom? You cannot think of a pain and suffering which is unnecessary for the animal. Any pain and suffering is unnecessary. So, the unnecessary pain and suffering clause itself shows that it is unnecessary for the human being.  So, you need a body of experts to go into each aspect of animal welfare and then come out with a legislation. It can be either a clean-up legislation or even subordinate legislation like rules under the PCA Act. But there has to be a thought process going into it. If you do not have it and if you do not spend time on it and we've already spent time doing nothing. From 2014 to 2020, there's been nothing. Have a legislation coming in with all this thought process going in and then maybe we can hope for advancing the cause of animal welfare, for advancing animal rights jurisprudence in our country. Now, varied are the issues of animal rights that we will be dealing with. Particular problems which you find on a reading of the newspapers and social media itself are the stray dog population, parading of elephants, prevention of rabies and dogs, regulation of working animals like donkeys, horses, etc. All these things require a deliberation by expert bodies. It can't just be done through legislation alone because if you start giving these issues to the legislators, there's going to be absolutely no material with them and they're not experts in the field. So, they need to be advised to bringing about a legislation in a particular manner. Courts, and I must warn you about this, when it comes to advancing a law through courts, you must understand the limitations under which the courts operate. Litigation in our country is necessarily adversarial. You have two sides to a litigation. Alright, given that public interest litigation, which is what brings most of these laws into bear, public interest litigation will have more persons. But it is all fortuitous.  They need not be experts and ultimately the court decides based on what is available before the court. So, the material that is available before the court need not be the real material that would clinch the issue or decide the issue of animal rights. And there is a danger inherent in that. If you ask the court to decide on animal rights, they're not experts. We are not experts. And as a judge, I can tell you that although I'm a great lover of animals but that doesn't give me the right to decide on animal rights because I know precious little about how dogs think or how cats would behave in particular situations. So, what we can do in the judiciary is try and implement those laws which are laid down by the legislature, interpret those laws in a manner in conformity with the constitutional principles, readen or enforce the obligations of municipal authorities who are obliged to do certain things. For example, under our municipal laws today, you have various provisions which are designed for the welfare of animals. Take for example, the requirement under the municipal laws for creating dog pounds, maintaining dog shelters. How many municipalities have this facility? There is absolutely nothing in most of the municipalities. You find dogs roaming all around the streets. That's not a bad thing. You also require public awareness with regard to what the dogs, if it is dogs that you're talking about, stray dogs. What is the danger posed by stray dogs? How do dogs behave? Not every dog that is on the street is a dangerous animal that needs to be culled. So, these are aspects that need to engage the attention of expert bodies, which expert bodies will ultimately drop regulations and methodologies of proceeding and dealing and tackling with the issue and then make that into a law. Only then will we have something concrete which can be enforced through the courts if it is not already respected by the citizenry in general. Another point, another lacune which I would point out in our existing legislation is the appallingly low monetary penalties that are levied. Suppose you do something, I mean, there is a provision under section 11 of the PCA Act that if you do something offensive, you'll find 50 rupees. Okay, you're talking about 50,000 now by virtue of an amendment, but nobody's done, nobody's come out of that amendment yet. Now, in today's world, in today's society, the only thing that acts as a deterrent is a deprivation or an economic deprivation of the citizen. Nothing else.  He's not very concerned about it. Gone are the days when deprivation of personal liberty used to be seen as a major deterrent. Today, the jails have become very comfortable and it does not act as a deterrent to the hardest of criminals.  So, the deterrent today is through monetary penalty and that monetary penalty has to be significant for it to impact the perpetrator of an offense or a crime. So, these are little things that will go a long way in ensuring the protection of the rights of animals. And now that we've taken this step forward through Nagaraj, I feel that civil society must now come out and exert the pressure. The plea must be to the ballot. The pressure must be applied to the legislators and you have to bring in a law which will recognize and which will give a firm foundation to the animal rights that we hold so precious in our country. That brings me to the end of my talk. I do anticipate a lot of questions. I hope I'll be able to wield them. That's true. The way the questions were pouring somehow, that was on the other laptop. Can you please enlighten us about the provision that can bring justice to elephants used on religious occasions? As I said, because right at the beginning, we have virtually two legislations on which to bank upon. One is the Wildlife Protection Act and the other is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. So, we have to juggle with these two. Now, when it comes to recognizing any right, now after Nagaraj, obviously, we have those five freedoms which I mentioned. They have been put in the same pedestal as fundamental rights for human beings. So, when these five freedoms have been recognized as akin to part three of our constitution in its application to human beings, then this is the protection that they have. And if the state is to enforce this, if the state is obliged under the law, by invoking the doctrine of parents' patriotism to recognize these rights, then the state has obviously to step in and do some affirmative action to prevent it. So, that should be the answer to your question. That is the way forward. Sivam Kumar, how do you see that the slaughtering animals but treating that humanly during their life? Sorry? How do you feel that slaughtering of the animals is allowed but treating them humanly during their lives? Yeah, that is the legal conundrum that we are all stuck with because when you talk about slaughtering of animals, as I said earlier, the rights that we have conceded to the animals today is only limited and we have conceded to them only such rights as would not be offensive to human existence. The speciesism that I talked about is still very much there inherent in our animal rights laws. You may be justified in killing an animal. If that killing is going to be food for the human being, maybe desirable, maybe debatable, but that's the law today. The exceptions are carved out for necessity as they call it. Now, that itself is a controversial term. What is a human necessity? Of course, food is a human necessity, but is eating non-vegetarian food human necessity debatable? But it is there to stay. So the definition of necessity is what protects, justifies the killing of the animal for food. But at the same time, till such time as it is killed, it has a life. So cruel treatment, short of killing. So if you were to adopt a very cruel method for the killing, that would be offensive. That would still attract the punishment under the PCA Act. A lot of people are asking, so I can just request you to make a common answer to that. Can you please talk about Gealkattu case where initially the courts banned the tradition, but later on the legislature amended the prevention of cruelty to animals act to exclude buffalos. What is your take on that? Not legally, but otherwise? Sorry, can you just give me the facts of that? Sir, mainly people are wanting the insights on that Gealkattu where initially the courts had banned and thereafter the legislature had come. How do we look forward? On Jallikattu. Jallikattu was what was decided in the Nagraj case. People are mainly wanting more insights on that. Again, it comes back to the issue of necessity. What is the human necessity? Because the exception that you've carved out while you're recognizing rights in animals is only on the ground of human necessity. Now, necessity is a very nebulous term. It's a very ambiguous term. And it can mean many things at the same time. Now, when you're talking about necessity for food, yes, you can kill an animal if it is going to be food on your table. If it is necessity for religion, there you have an answer. If it is a necessity for cultural requirements, but certainly not... We are narrowing the definition of necessity. We have more or less now tried to see that a necessity will not justify maybe parading and using animals in circuses etc. But when it comes to cultural requirements or when it comes to religious reasons, you still have the sentiments of society to deal with. And therefore, the definition of necessity, if you ask me, is the one that has to be carefully thought about, even if you're going to bring about a new law with regard to animal rights protection. Because what is the extent of exceptions that you will carve out? And that has to be determined from the society in general. It is almost like you would have to hold a referendum to understand what is the common ground on which society operates. Because it's meaningless to be saying that there should be a law, if the majority of the society decides that this is not to be. Unless it is such a cruel practice that it shocks human conscience, it shocks the principle of protection of animal welfare. So these are things that we have to evolve on a case-to-case basis. Or even before that, if the legislature decides to step in and create a ban on all these activities, then that's it. So there's really no one-size-fits-all solution when you talk about necessity, which is recognized as an exception to animal welfare. Ashwinder Kaur, can you reconcile the killing of animals in the name of religious practice? Do you think that there has to be a legislation to curb, etc. What is the way forward? It's the same answer. If you're asking me personally, the answer is no. I don't justify killing of an animal. But personal opinions cannot come to bear. Personal opinions cannot have place in a democracy. Personal opinions will not in a civil society. So the only answer, the only solution can be legislation because that is what reflects the will of the people. So you need to actually come out with legislation and then we can work on it. The nuances of the legislation, the reading into the legislation of concepts which are evolving from time to time, we can do in cause. But the basic legislation defining the rights, the bare minimum of rights which animals have has to come through legislation. There's no other way around. Rest of the question I was taking from the chat, now another question I'm taking from the Facebook. I can read a question from the Facebook. It says which court approach to file the case under PCA and Wildlife Protection Act? You can go to any court depending on what action you propose. If you're planning to bring in an offense, you can go to the criminal courts. But first you will have to file a complaint or before the police authorities register it as a crime and then take it forward. If you're seeking, you can even come to the high courts with the public into the litigation. Invoking all these principles and pointing out specific instances of cruelty to animals. So it largely depends upon, I mean the particular court to which you would go would depend upon the action that you propose. Nishtha, do you think that the zoo culture in India affects the freedom of the wild animals as they are confined to a particular place or cages? Certainly. And the question is therefore, is it justifiable? Again, it will bring you back to necessity. What is the human interest that is sought to be preserved through holding an animal in captivity? If you say no animal should be held in captivity, then in one stroke delta blow to all the captive elephants, the captive wild animals that you keep either in zoos or in natural habitats, everything goes. But there you have to again draw the balance. So this is something that needs to engage the attention of society. You need to come out with clear guidelines as to what you need and what you don't. And that's an evolving concept. It depends upon the extent of civility that you've reached in civil society. Ultimately, this is all a reflection on how civilized we are, how concerned we are as a society. Now, 30 years ago, maybe all this, we treated animals like that, they were to be subservient to every interest of ours, whether it was entertainment, culture, religion, etc. But today, we have reached a level of maturity, reached a level of empathy in society, which forces us to abandon some of those old practices. Not everybody favors bullfighting, for example, the bird fighting. These are all practices which are slowly disappearing. And that will depend upon the extent of civility that we saw among the citizens. We will be unmuting each other because she has posed lots of questions. So I thought, let her put it across straight away to you. And so it will be your choice because the way the questions are being pouring in, I'm just feeling that it's just like an incest and rain in the Mumbai's. So you would have to take a call that when you have to go to the proper shelter, when we can call for the day. Because otherwise, I personally feel that people are actually enjoying because it's a subject which has literally not touched much. I'm sure it is, and I'm glad it is engaging the attention of so many. Because I'm also really concerned about the lack of response that we officially see from society. Because it's alright to have a passion for animal welfare, it's alright to have compassion. But all of that is wasted unless you actually take positive action to bring it to the notice of the powers that be. And who can influence and change the law in this country. They say that a point of trigger sometimes actually catalyzed the snowball in the right place. Unmuted itch. As they say, you can fulfill your itch by asking the questions of your choice. Though of course related to the protection of the animal life. Itch, the way I can read, every large number of public voices raised to change the legislation. Itch says she's unmuted. So my question is what are your opinions about police when an FIR is launched about animal cruelty? Itch, could you speak slightly louder so that the voices actually express to the public also? So can you hear me now? Yeah. So my question is actually what are your opinions about police when an FIR is launched about animal cruelty, especially in regards to India? Are you asking what my experience has been because I've not seen any case where come to me saying that the police have not registered a case. But I do believe from what I hear that probably on account of their lack of knowledge of the rights and the offenses under the act, they are a little hesitant to register crimes. But that's something that has to be addressed either through approach to courts or otherwise. I don't know. I suppose it varies from state to state. In Kerala certainly there are cases registered and police are registering cases where offenses are brought to their notice. I don't know. Does that answer your question? Itch, what is your response there? Sir, she has been somehow unmuted herself. We will unmute again. Because invariably there is so much buzzing, we just keep all the mics muted so that we can hear the questions properly. Sir, seeing the cases in Maharashtra, not even a person is actually put in prison for even a day. They bailed the second day. They bailed actually the same day for animal cruelty. Putting in prison is a separate issue. I thought your question was whether a case was registered or not. Because you see the police have to register the case first. When you go there and register an FIR, if that is not happening then the criminal process is not set in motion at all. Whether or not a person will go to jail is to be determined by the judicial process which comes after the registering of the crime. So I think you are confusing between the first two stages or maybe I got it wrong. I don't know. Sir, Tanya says what role do you think that the animal boards are doing and are they doing a positive role or there are certain changes which are actually required for them to do? No, I am sure the animal board, welfare board is aware of the rights that have been recognized in the animals through the decision in Nagra in 2014. And I am sure they mean well when they discharge the duties. But largely it is a problem with regard to implementation of those laws and practice. There are varied situations where you do not know what is the extent of the right that has been laid out in particular cases. So I have no reason to actually believe that the animal welfare board is non-sympathetic or epithetic to the cause of animals. I have not come across instances where they have been negligent in that regard. Sir, you had mentioned the involvement of experts in the field with regard to formation, implementation and enactment of law. Yes. How would one know who consulted the parties are in the terms of proposed notification or questions and notifications slash guidelines. It's self on those grounds where guidelines seems impracticable or unscientific or generally not well justified and have those modified or cost altogether. Yes, because you see when I talked about experts, I was talking about experts as a consultative body for the legislators to then act to form the legislation. Now how this works is you would have experts drawing up their conclusions on any particular issue that affects animal welfare and they would then submit their reports to the legislators. The legislature would then debate on the pros and cons of those recommendations and then come out with a draft. Now one of the methods of legislating which is more and more coming into prominence is where the parent, the legislation like the PCA would envisage a situation where it delegates, frames rules and those rules would then be put in the public domain at the draft stage and the public would be asked to comment upon that. And once the public opinion comes in, the draft would then be finalized taking into account those public views and then you can have the final rules which are again then laid before the legislature and then approved to become statutory rules. Now this procedure has a lot of benefits because if you are simultaneously involving experts, you are also leaving open the draft rules to public scrutiny. All the animal lovers, the lobbies, everybody can post their comments on it and those comments are then considered to evolve a procedure or a set of rules which would then regulate the field. So I think the process has to be one which is transparent, which is open and certainly can be done because it is becoming more and more popular as a methodology of rulemaking in our country. Sir, Purnima, are you able to hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. Yeah, Purnima, she has posted on the Facebook. What is happening with the elephants in Kerala recently isn't the only shocking news we have heard from India's most literate quite a while back. There were increased loyalty towards the stray dogs in Kerala. Video went viral on social media platform where people were seen torturing the poor animal. People hanging kittens to as an attempt to attain fame has given the glimpse of the rise of dark rate of personalities in the current form. How do you think that we should deal all such things? You see the straight answer to that is what the British would say one swallow does not a summer make. So it is not just one incident that paints the entire state of Kerala as a bunch of cruel people. I think it would be uncharitable to just say that one incident would paint the entire state of Kerala as comprising of citizens who are completely apathetic to the cause of animals. In fact, Kerala has got a lot of animal lovers and in fact, the Indian society generally, I mean, when you're talking about when you look at the history of Indian society right from ancient times, our concern for animals has been non-parallel. When you look at the treatment of animals in any other country because it is compassion for animals is something that is infused in our very culture. Whether you look at, you know, in any religion or even even in your local culture, you would find a lot of respect for animals through the ages. And it is not something that I mean, it's certainly something we have to be proud of and it's not something that we acquired recently. It has always been a part of our culture. So one question which invariably just comes in the mind of everyone is like there are stray dogs whenever we go. And some people feel that the stray dogs actually are some people feel that it's a nuisance. So they should be shot down or they should be taken to some place. Some people feel that the only way out is that they should be sterilized so that they are no further dogs. So what is the your insights to on this particular subject? How to tackle with this stray dogs because a person who is going for a walk or going for a cycling or a scooter, sometimes it becomes difficult for him to move around. What is the way ahead for that? Because you're talking to a person who goes on a morning job with stray dogs running with him. So I mean, anybody who sees me running in the morning in the island where I go for a run will see me running with about six stray dogs. Some of them mutilated because they've been hit by cars, etc. They're all running with me. And I think it's a matter of perception because it's basically a matter of perception and lack of awareness. Just as you would when you see an animal for the first time, you do not know what the animal is or what triggers the animal. Because you simply don't know. So it's completely ignorance that prompts the fear. For those who have animals like us, work on the principle of trust because the animal is also going to be equally shocked seeing you. I'm very fond of dogs and I go around when I go for my run and I see a new stray dog. Even if I were to go near it, it's going to be very reluctant to come near me. So over a period of time, the bonding increases and the trust increases and that's when they befriend you like any other animal. So it's largely a question of the perception is largely one that is influenced by awareness. Now coming to your point of what is the successful way of dealing with stray dogs and the proliferation of stray dogs. One of the biggest mistakes that we find happening when it comes to management of stray dogs is that people lift up stray dogs from locations. Say there's location A and they lift a stray dog from location A. They take the dog to the veterinary hospital. There's some birth control measure that is deployed.  Now this you must understand is critical or can be detrimental or can be a danger when you're talking about an animal that functions on territory. An animal which is comfortable only in its own territory. It's territorial animal. So when you take a dog from place A, it may be a stick. That dog knows where it can get food, where it can get water and it's comfortable in its territory. In fact, it wads off other dogs from the same territory. And this is something that you find among all dogs which have the herd mentality or all animals which have herd mentality or pack behavior as they call it. So the mistakes that we are committing are largely because of our ignorance of the behavior of these animals. Experts would guide you on how to go about it. And you will find that an effective way of controlling stray dogs is to not touch or tamper with their territory. You can protect the citizenry by simply vaccinating these dogs wherever they are. Or else you would have to step up those measures which are contemplated in our municipal laws like creating dog bonds, shelters, etc. And relocating these dogs to the safer places like shelters. Maybe there are aggressive dogs which need to be put in a shelter. You do not know the trauma which they have faced which makes them aggressive. So all this requires the consideration by experts like animal psychologists, animal behavior specialists. We simply don't understand this because for us there are human beings and there is this other species. And they are just left to fend for themselves. And you draw your own conclusions about their behavior just simply by observing them. Not knowing what your behavior does to that animal. So it's a very tricky situation. Now that you actually recognize rights in them, I think now the step should be to understand them more, understand them better. So that you understand what these rights translate into as far as the animal is concerned. And this I think is important. And that is why you need experts and that is why you need experts advising the legislators and a legislation and an informed legislation coming into the picture. So though questions are pouring, we will take three questions so that we are able to wrap up. But if you intend then we can go further because I thought too many questions are coming. So why doesn't the higher judiciary, this is by Anushree Shah, of our nation's human issue guidelines keeping in view the need for animal welfare and how the public at large should abide by it like it happened in the Vishakhaka case? It's not as though we cannot issue and this is again a repetition of what I said earlier. It is not as though the High Court cannot issue or the Supreme Court cannot issue SOA motor guidelines. But the difficulty with SOA motor guidelines as I said is that we do not have the entire information and therefore we are just going by guesswork. And that is dangerous in itself because if you're talking about dealing with a particular social issue or in this particular case if you're talking about issues concerning animal welfare, we are limited in these SOA motor proceedings or in this public interest litigation with the material that we have with us to take our opinions. If we do not have the correct material, we could well end up giving directions which are completely at odds or variance with the interests of the animal itself. So that is something that we have to guard ourselves against. Of course there is a lot of publicity given to these guidelines which may filter down to society. So implementation may not be a problem but we have to be very careful when we prescribe those guidelines because God forbid we do something and prescribe a guideline which is against the interests of the animal. Then that becomes the law from tomorrow and then people are just going to use it to the detriment of the animal. Devika Raj, what is your opinion on granting the animal certain fundamental rights to avoid incidents like those that have been occurring recently? Germany granted the right to dignity to the animals back in the year 2002 and the constitution was amended by 23rd majority. In your opinion, should I repeat it from the starting? I got it, in your opinion you were saying. In your opinion, if this is adopted by India, will it be accepted by the citizens or not? I don't think you need to be concerned there because we have already adopted it and it is well part of our law. Nagraj actually recognizes that these freedoms, the fundamental freedoms which are the five fundamental freedoms are actually akin or similar to the fundamental rights that are granted to humans under part 3 of the constitution. So these freedoms, which I enumerated, that is the freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition, freedom from fear and distress, freedom from physical, thermal discomfort, freedom from pain, injury and disease and freedom to express normal patterns of behavior of the animal. These are all freedoms that have already been placed at par with fundamental rights for humans and they are fundamental freedoms as declared as inherent in animals. Subject, of course, only to the limitation that there can be exceptions. Just as the fundamental freedoms in our constitution for human beings are restricted by reasonable restrictions, so too the fundamental freedoms recognized in animals are subject to the exception that where a necessity of human necessity is found, they must give way. And that seems to be the deal breaker because we interpret the human necessity as different things in different times and that has, to a large extent, deprived the full flourishing of these freedoms for the animals. So we have enumerated S. Anand. He wanted to ask, he had posed two, three questions. Mr. Anand, you can put to your question straight. Very good, my dear Lordship. Good evening. Lordship, one short question. Is veganism the final solution for all this stuff? Sorry? Is veganism, implementing veganism across religion? Will that be the solution? It can't be the solution. Veganism must be a matter of personal opinion and personal choice. It's a matter of your privacy but it can't be, the minute you start prescribing it as a universal solution then you're simultaneously invading the privacy of others. So which incidentally has been recognized as a fundamental right for us human beings? The second question being, my Lord, thank you. In the pretext of development, we tend to, we as a people tend to, as a government, whatever it is, tend to invade the privacy of animals. I would say like, the elephant-card corridors are being vanished just like that. Tigers, sanctuaries, prevention of those locality, whatever it is, you know. What is the ultimate solution, my Lord? The ultimate and most desirable solution, if you ask me, as far as animal rights is concerned would be recognizing fundamental rights in animals as the other lady mentioned, without any restrictions. Absolute fundamental rights. But I don't think that's going to be a possibility, that's going to be a reality because even fundamental rights for humans are not absolute. So much less are they going to recognize absolute fundamental rights for animals. Besides, the minute you recognize absolute fundamental rights in animals, you're going to have to prevent a slaughtering of animals altogether and which would not go down well with a huge population which thrives on non-vegetarian food for their living. So it's a conflict of fundamental rights between, if you recognize it as a fundamental right of animals, you have to qualify it with restrictions. Those restrictions as of today apply when it comes to necessity of human beings. What my personal feeling is that I may be 100% wrong. The law of the land is not very conducive towards animals. You're right. The law of the land is always developing. It is never perfect at any given point in time. And therefore, whenever we see changes in society, whenever we see changes in societal attitudes, we need to make those corresponding changes in the law as well. And that's the way forward. The extent of liberalism in our law will be reflective of the extent of civility in our society. At the end, some of the endangered species will become extinct. That's the danger that we've lived with throughout civilization. That's also an aspect of the survival of the fittest theory of Darwin. So extinction need not be only because of a lack of laws. It can also happen through natural causes. Thank you very much, Maya. Before we take the next question, we are unmuting Nandini. As my law was saying, I will just appraise two persons. There's one Anurag Chopra, a young lawyer in the High Court. During this lockdown, he had adopted a large number of stray animals because he felt that nobody is going to feed them. So everybody acknowledged that fact. And second, we have a legal correspondent in one of the leading newspapers that is a tribune. And we always find him that at his place, you'll find a large number of stray animals. Maybe it's cat, maybe it's dog. So there are persons, as I say, it's not necessary that you're a human being, but it's also important that being human is very important. So I have unmuted Nandini. I just wanted to give them insights that whatever way of society you're living, you will find both one who hates the animals, not only the stray dogs, even the pets don't like. But there are certain people who actually look forward how they can help.  I have unmuted Nandini. Nandini can ask the question directly. Hi, can you hear me? So after the incident with the elephant in Kerala, it came out that the pineapple that had been stuffed with firecrackers was originally left for the wild boar, which are considered pests there. Like they are listed as pests. So aren't there more humane ways to prevent them from eating crops instead of firecrackers? And why isn't the government implementing methods that are more humane? Certainly. In fact, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act itself prescribes that you cannot have these dangerous cruel ways of killing animals. Even if it was to trap wild boars, wild boars would come under the Wildlife Protection Act. But there too you have rules which say that you cannot use such methodologies for trapping animals because that would amount to cruelty. But on the question of whether it can be enforced, of course, and if I'm not mistaken, I think the investigation is still ongoing in the elephant case where the police as well as the forest department are collecting material before they can formally charge the perpetrators. I think one or two have already been apprehended. So it's not as though we will not do anything once we come across this. But I think the larger question here is what legislation, what law do we have in place to deal with or to prevent such action in future? And because we don't need incidents like this to spark off a debate like this. I mean, this should have actually preceded it so that we could have avoided this issue altogether. The deterrence in our laws is not effective. It's not sufficient, I would say. Because for a person who is threatened with a penalty of 50 rupees or 100 rupees if he does something like this, it's not going to operate as a deterrent. But if he finds that a larger cost on him, maybe 50,000 or any amount higher coupled with a threat of imprisonment for a longer period. Maybe that would work as a deterrent. But that again is a question that has to be answered after looking into the possibilities or looking into the effect that a penal provision would have on the citizenry. Okay. One question is by, this is the last question we will be taking, from Bangalore, resident welfare associations, can they ban stray animals? Would it be legal or illegal? No, when you say ban on stray animals, what exactly do you mean?  They're stray because they don't have a place to go. So how do you ban stray animals? I mean, they're not going to understand the language of ban. I can unmute so that she can dipty. So meanwhile, when dipty is being unmuted, one fact after this entire, you can ask the question directly. Dipty, you're not audible. Dipty, you're very barely audible. Dipty, you have to roll like a lion. So she's not been able to. Instead, we can take. Do you believe that, just like, what is your take on companion animals, besides dog, for which some legislation seems to exist? Would that overlap with the human freedoms mentioned? I don't think so, because again, after Nagraj recognized those freedoms, quite recently in Kerala High Court, division bench of which I was heading, we passed an order in favor of an owner of cats, which enabled him to get some cat food for his cats during the lockdown period. But my companion judge who wrote the judgment of his own went to the extent of saying that the desire of a person to keep a pet of his choice is also a part of the human beings fundamental right. And it also conforms or gels with the freedoms recognized in the animal itself. Basically, a fear of freedom from physical thermal discomfort, freedom from hunger, thirst, malnutrition. All these are actually realized through the adoption by the owner of the pet. So when this becomes an integral aspect of his choice, because right now, after Putasami's case, the fundamental right to privacy has been recognized, although not absolute. But once you recognize the fundamental right of privacy, one of the aspects of privacy is your right to choice. And if you choose to keep a pet, unless the pet is so, you know, a pet is a wild animal, in which case it would not be a pet in the first place. If he chooses to keep any other animal as a pet, then that itself is a fundamental right of choice as far as the individual is concerned. And therefore these two rights basically complement each other. One recognizes the right of the human being. And it simultaneously, it also recognizes the freedom or realizes the freedom of the animal. So we have taken a lot of questions. And I, on behalf of Beyond Law CLC, thank you initially. No, she has said that she couldn't get herself unmuted because there was already a problem. Her question is, many RWAs have banned pets and strays in the community. That question continues to remain same. She says whether this passing of law is legal or not, that you had answered that how can the animals be sensitized as to whether there is a ban or not. But the fact that the present session has been liked by one and all, I've just received somebody sending me a message that he's doing research on the animal protection law in Pace University. So it shows the volume that we have seen from Bangalore, Chandigarh, Kerala, Mumbai. That one fact during all this long term and otherwise is that social media is such that at the first instance when we started these all webinars, we never thought that we could get the participants not only in India, but we had just thought that it was a trigger point. It started from our office, then Chandigarh, then Beyond and Beyond. And some people actually say that we have actually gone beyond law to discuss all these issues. And the insights on having animal protection law, as I candidly said, that initially when the topic was done, I thought it is only on wildlife protection, then it was transportation. As they say that you don't understand the light until unless you actually see that. So once I was also examining what could be the scope, etc. Then I realized, no, the scope is too much. Then I would be very candid about that. Then I thought that the scope is so much. How could you assimilate all these facts to bring in an art session that it could be done. But again, when you put all the facts and when we initially said that being a gold medallist and then an elements from Oxford, shows that what is the difference between an ordinary and an extraordinary. That extra effort to understand the things is the effort. Before we part, we would also like, since they are students and law. As a student of law, this is not a topic with the animal's law. What is your take that while drafting or while preparing, how could one create, I am taking this question after a lot of webinars, because initially we all always used to take. What is your take that how one should assimilate the facts, research the law and create a mark where every, they say at the bottom, it's always heavy and you are only on the top. So how to create that niche to actually reach on the top that people understand that, like you have shown that animal law is a law which is not referred much in the courts, not many lawyers know it, not many students know it, not many people in the public and large know what is the law as such and what is the way forward to it. So what is your take on that for a lawyer, what should he do or student or since we have seen that they are large number of animal lovers who have also participated. So be that as whatever situation you are, one will always try to create a niche so that he's separate. What is your take on that? Are you referring to a specialization in animal protection? I'm just saying that how to actually assimilate the facts, how to research the law, how to create a niche within the society. The short answer to that as far as the student of law is concerned, he or she wants to make it to the top as a lawyer. The only thing that will drive him is passion, a passion for the subject. If you have the passion for the subject, everything else is incidental. I believe that if you have a passion for the law and right from the initial stages, your passion for the subject will guide you into the best methodology which you find for being as persuasive, at your persuasive best before the person who is hearing your case. So it is always a preparation of a case for the person before whom you are going to present the case. So there is no one size fits all formula. When a lawyer argues a case, he has to keep in mind the facts of the case. He must do a research in the law but more importantly, if he's practicing, if he's a litigating lawyer, he needs to know where his case is coming. He needs to know the judge before whom it is coming and he needs to understand the views of the judge. And today, all this is possible with software that is available at the disposal of the law student. The minute you have all this equipment, your passion sees it through. You will draft the petition in a way, assimilating the facts etc. because you would be the master of facts. If you have a passion to know more about your case, you would go into the details, you would get all the facts relevant for your case. You would put that in order and then you would shape your draft because as I said, there's no one size fits all. Each judge comes with his own idiosyncrasies etc. So when you draft it, you need to find that one spot which will appeal to him or her. And you need to draft your entire petition in a manner that will catch his eye. And that is the hallmark of a successful litigating lawyer. I keep telling students whenever I meet them and I meet a lot of them because I go to lecture with the universities and the colleges. I always tell them that do not be swayed by what you do in your moot courts etc. In moot courts, you are being judged for your performance as a lawyer. In other words, what is being judged is you as a person. When you come before a court, what is being judged is a cause, not the person.  We want only the facts, the law and what it is. We need to understand the issue, we need to find the solution. And when we are talking about the volumes of cases that are caught in India handles we simply don't have the luxury to sit and appreciate your rhetoric. So that may sound rude in a sense but that is reality. The law students that come out today from all the universities and law colleges they are certainly endowed with a lot more of talent and wisdom and knowledge than the lawyers and law students of yesterday's. Because they have had the advantage of superior system of education in law which you find available in most of the law colleges today. So the standards are definitely going up and we find a lot of research going into the presenting of cases. And I think that's a welcome sign and I have great hope for the profession. And I am a big admirer of the present generation of lawyers especially the ones who are coming out of law schools these days. Because they seem to be very focused in their approach and I think that's a trait to be found in that generation itself. They are more focused than what their previous generation. That's my take on it. It goes without saying. Actually there is a different, the assimilation of the facts, the research is different. Another take would be that they all know that one has to be more industrious but the finding of the research what was around 20, 25 years ago the method of with Google and artificial intelligence that you just put in the keywords, the research is different. The issues are different where you can find. But be that as it may one cannot take the shine or the sheen in that aspect to state therein that they are not working hard. The bench is growing in the knowledge and values. The questions still are continuing even though we said but be that as it may. Thank you on behalf of Beyond Law CLC and to the effect that you have given the insights to a subject which is not invariably covered anywhere in the courts, the schools, etc. So we are all thankful to you, not only on the participants who participated straight life but also to the participants who are participating on the Facebook to have an insights to a topic which would, the way you have presented would always be kept engaging in their minds. They have got insights and they will have during that lockdown period that the issues which have been dealt on the points they could ponder upon, they can look upon it.  Everyone stay blessed and stay healthy during these lockdown times. But since we are taking sessions day to day, tomorrow we have a session of criminal justice and the rule of law in India. And it would be addressed by none else than Justice Jai Chamleshwar, former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Along with him is Dr. Argosin Gupta, Research Director of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policies. So stay connected, tomorrow same time 5pm and a different and engaging session from our side. We put all our efforts so that people can get the different insights. Thank you everyone, stay blessed, stay healthy. Thank you sir.


States. Thank you all very much and I want to welcome all of you members of the American Legion Auxiliary today and I see you've got some guests here among you. On the occasion of your awareness assembly and as I'm sure you know I had the opportunity to address the Legion Convention the day before yesterday and it's good to be with folks like you and the members of the of the Legion. I know we all share the same strong feelings about our our great country and believe me I appreciate what you're doing. We owe you a great debt of gratitude for your continuing service. I'm aware of your strong support for America's veterans. One of the ways that we Americans express our gratitude to those who serve our country in the military is by providing the care that they deserve. They obligated themselves to defend our country and our country has an obligation to keep its promises to them. This we will do. I note that the theme of your meeting is a call to action and that your commitment to our country is expressed in many ways in addition to your support for our veterans. Yours is the only veterans organization which has volunteers in every VA medical center in this country and I thank you for that. Volunteerism is something that's very close to my heart. We've had a task force working for a year on that very subject and most successfully. Americans freely giving to their neighbors in need is one of the qualities which has set us apart from most of the rest of the world. It's a unique part of our American personality. I also know how you feel about a resolution calling for an immediate nuclear freeze. I told somebody just this morning I said that Nancy and I were very happy living here with the 100MX's under in the basement but you're as concerned as I am about keeping the peace. But you and I also know that such an immediate freeze on nuclear arms at the present level would leave the United States in a very vulnerable position. So I'm happy to know that you are actively working against that resolution. The Soviet Union in recent years has built up its arms at such an accelerated pace that a freeze at the present levels would leave us very far behind. More I think than most people in America realize. You know weakened bargaining position also with them with regard to reducing such weapons. We're trying to halt their ongoing build up and I've initiated with the Soviets in Geneva the start negotiations. That's the strategic arms reduction talks to not only stop the build up but to actually reduce the number of nuclear weapons. And I think it's apparent that ours is a non aggressive nation. It's difficult for us sometimes to realize that all nations of the world don't share our views. We're not interested in ruling others or acquiring more real estate but the truth is there are nations in the world who are interested in doing those things. I don't believe anyone can experience quite as deeply as a mother the feelings of concern for the future of our country and for their children are going to be the people in this country and their children's children in the years ahead. The greatest inheritance we can bestow on them is peace and the security of a free nation. We must do all that we can to safeguard the future of our children and our children's children and I'm committed to that and grateful that you share in that commitment. I know you're concerned about the defense posture and there's a drumbeat as I said the other day in my speech of propaganda concerning our attempt to refurbish our defenses which had been allowed to deteriorate so badly. I know also though that you particularly must be concerned when you hear the attacks that defense spending is causing us to reduce what we should do for those people who must have help from the rest of us. Well I just like to share a few figures with you. I think a great many people don't know and need to know and you can be messengers about this. They've been confused by this drumbeat of propaganda. 1942 or 43 this year the aid for the poor in our budget is $46.9 billion or monument I'm sorry I got that backward it's 55.8 billion dollars 55.8 and I've given away the punchline in 1980 only two years ago it was 46.9 billion dollars. The whole budget for health and human services in 1980 was 195.1 billion dollars in this year of 1983 it is 274.2 billion dollars. As a percentage of the budget that is the highest percentage we have ever known in our history 36.2 percent of the entire budget for that one agency that runs the programs administers the programs that help our people. In 1980 it was only 33.8 but defense spending that is being so criticized and which was once normally half our budget or thereabouts is only 26.7 percent of our 1983 budget. Now what are we getting though for the buildup that we have started in these few years I'm so proud of what we've accomplished and what has happened only a couple of years ago they were telling us that the volunteer military wouldn't work that we would have to resort to the peacetime draft again. Well just between 1980 and 1982 the figures are better now but I don't have them compiled yet. Those enlisting in our armed services who are above the average in intelligence mental capability 1980 only 27 percent were in that group today it's 53 percent 1980 only 54 percent of the military were high school graduates today 80 percent the highest figure we've ever had and 1980 39 percent first termers reenlisted now 58 percent reenlist. Now I'm going to quit talking about the military though except to tell you that I hear from some of our service people every once in a while and their pride in the uniform their pride in doing what they're doing so shines through that I grow a little bit taller every time I read one of those letters but I just can't help the fact that we're gathered in here alone and not covered with a press today I just wanted I just want to I know they've got me booked for something else but I just want to say something on another issue that seems to have kicked up a firestorm and I want to say it to you because your wives and mothers you have heard I'm sure a great deal about the squeal regulation or rule this is the program in which you know that the government legislation that was passed is supposed to provide advice contraceptive advice and prescriptions and so forth to teenage underage girls who come there and they've been doing this and keeping any information from the families that their underage daughters are coming in for this these prescriptions or this advice the legislation that Congress passed has a clause that says that in administering this program they will maximize family participation and so not only to do that but because I happen to feel very strongly that in a time when we need the family unit more than we've ever needed it before and when it is deteriorated to a greater extent than ever before what business is that government have injecting itself in a conspiracy or collusion with our daughters and saying we will help you do this which I think has a definite moral connotation but and we'll do it and keep its away from your parents knowing we have decided that a regulation and this is what they're calling the squeal rule if you haven't heard about it will require that when an underage girl comes in for that kind of help and counsel her parents will be notified by the agency that's that's why I told you that I wanted I was curious as to what you would be for the life of me the American Civil Liberties Union and others I'm sure well-intentioned but worrying about illegitimate births and so forth defend this and say that we are interfering in the privacy of these young people well I don't think that is nearly so bad as interfering as I say in a family relationship and I spoke of letters before I have one letter that I have treasured from my days as governor and this had to do with the government doing the same thing with regard to abortions and keeping the information from the parents and this mother and forgive my language I'm going to quote as accurately as I can her words from the letter don't have it here with me but this mother wrote me a letter and she said who the hell do they think they are she said I have the right to carry my child for nine months to give birth then to carrier sometimes back and forth across the bedroom floor when she's ill and crying worried sick I have the right to love her when she's a tiny little girl to the place that I could squeeze her to death and she said then they tell me that one day a 15 year old young lady can stand before me in terrible trouble and I'm not supposed to be able to know she said I repeat who the hell do they think they are well next time you hear that I'm interfering with the privacy of the people and government is imposing on the people again with a squeal rule you tell them that it's more than a squeal rule it's a scream rule and I'm screaming because they're trying to do away with it well God bless you all for being here and thank you very much thank you you know of course that the orchestra out there playing so beautifully as a marine orchestra