SHILLONG, Nov 5: The Meghalaya High Court on Friday asked the state government to set up a memorandum of procedure for effective implementation of the rules and more ethical treatment of animals.

“The State would do well to look into the various suggestions to set up a memorandum of procedure so that there can be effective implementation of the rules and more ethical treatment of animals, whatever may be the end use thereof,” the Division Bench said in its order while hearing a PIL filed by the Gau Gyan Foundation.

The court said the petitioner suggested that appropriate rules or a memorandum of procedure be drawn up for meetings to be convened at regular intervals and for the animal welfare organisation representatives to have a forum to hear their grievances in the event that their suggestions are not adhered to or respected by the superior officials on the relevant committees.

It said again, the petitioner is perfectly justified in pointing out such aspect of the matter. Oftentimes, committees are constituted that never meet. Even if such committees meet once in a blue moon, very little comes out of such meetings.

The PIL pertains to the treatment of animals in the state in course of transportation or even culling thereof.

Several aspects of the ill-treatment of animals have been highlighted in the petition and in course of the proceedings.

The court said the petitioner said that the State has taken several key measures to deal with the matter and to ensure that animals are treated with more kindness and dignity than had been accorded to them previously.

Notwithstanding the steps taken by the State, there are several other measures which need to be taken, both in respect of the treatment of animals and to ensure better hygiene, it said.

Referring to its earlier orders which has repeatedly referred to the brazen display of animal meat on the roadside open to the dust and grime, the court said, “Even in and around the capital city of Shillong the practice continues.”

“Apart from the distressing sight of severed body parts of animals being put on display, the meat allowed to remain in such state may not be ideal to consume,” it added.

The court said there is also the other matter of how chickens are transported. More often than not a large number of chickens are tied by their legs and hung from bicycle handles or other forms of vehicles, mostly carried upside down.

“While the animals have, no doubt, been raised to ultimately be culled for food, there is an element of decency that must be maintained. The practice now is one of extreme cruelty,” it said.

The petitioner had also made four further points – the first pertains to a notification of July 12, 2019 by which instructions for regulating of transportation of cattle within the State have been issued.

The second aspect emphasised on pertains to paragraph 20(V) of the affidavit filed by the State on June 13, 2022. The third and fourth aspects are similar in that they refer to the constitution of the district-level or market-level animal welfare committees and the monitoring committees with representatives of animal welfare organisations.

As to the transportation of cattle, the petitioner said that there are Central rules that provide for the transportation of various animals in different forms and the State should adhere to the same.

It is also the petitioner’s grievance that the instructions of July 12, 2019 regulate the entry of cattle but do not adequately provide for the transportation thereof within the State.

This is a point of some importance and the State will surely look into such aspect and, if so advised, issue fresh instructions to provide for means of transport and the conditions therefor.

As to the seized animals, the State’s affidavit says that they would be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.

The petitioner points out that under the Rules of 2017, seized animals are required to be preserved in various places and conditions therefor have been indicated in the said Rules of 2017.

The petitioner lamented that the State’s affidavit does not indicate appropriate infrastructure for preserving the animals during the pendency of the cases.

The next hearing will be held on December 16.