Source : indialegallive.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a unique judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has \ndeclared that the entire animal kingdom, including avian and aquatic, \nare legal entities<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If you are the owner of a tonga anywhere in Haryana and use it to \ntransport office-goers to work or children to school and back, make sure\n there are no more than four persons, excluding the driver and children \nbelow six years of age, riding it at any given time. Similarly, if you \nown a bullock, camel or horse cart, don\u2019t forget to put fluorescent \nreflectors at the front and back of the cart and ensure that the animals\n are covered with fluorescent reflector stripes for visibility. Or, if \nyou use animals for drawing vehicles, make sure you do so only when the \ntemperature does not exceed 37\u00b0C between 11 am and 4 pm in summer or \ndoes not go below 5\u00b0C between 5 am and 7 am and between 10 pm and 5 am \nin winter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This set of dos and don\u2019ts have come not from the Society for \nPrevention of Cruelty to Animals but from the Punjab and Haryana High \nCourt where Justice Rajiv Sharma ruled that all living creatures are \nlegal entities with distinct persona and, like living persons, enjoy \nrights and have duties and liabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Sharma gave the order while upholding the sentence given to a\n petitioner by a judicial magistrate in Karnal under the Punjab \nProhibition of Cow Slaughter Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case was related to an incident in which a man was caught \ntransporting cows from Haryana to Uttar Pradesh, for which he was duly \ncharged under the Haryana rules. The judicial magistrate of Karnal found\n him guilty and sentenced him to two years\u2019 imprisonment. On appeal, the\n sessions court, too, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to \nsix months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was submitted before the court that cow slaughter had been banned \nin Haryana and permission was needed from the competent authority even \nto transport cows and this was also subject to certain rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Sharma pointed out that since the petitioner had already \nserved the required sentence in jail, an order against the additional \nsession judge\u2019s verdict would be ineffective. However, taking a broad \nview on animal protection and rights, the judge referred to various \npieces of legislation framed by state governments and the centre in \nsupport of animal rights in his judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n His order had several directives that ensure animal rights. These included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The list is long and in summing up, the Court noted: \u201cAll animals \nhave honour and dignity\u2026. Have an inherent right to live and is required\n to be protected by law. The rights and privacy of animals are to be \nrespected and protected from unlawful attacks.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interestingly, Justice Sharma has been espousing the cause and rights of not just animals through his judgments but even rivers. While in July 2018, he passed a similar judgment in the Uttarakhand High Court declaring the animal kingdom a legal entity, a year earlier he had declared that even rivers like the Ganga and Yamuna as well as their tributaries have the status of legal entities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n