07.02.2012/S.D.

Draft
DRAFT DATED 07.02.2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______ OF 2012
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
BETWEEN
1

Karuna Society for Animals and Nature, a society

registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and
having its address at 2/138C, Behind S. C. Quarters,
Enumulapalli, Puttaparthi 515 134, Andhra Pradesh.

2.

Visakha Society for Protection and Care of Animals, a

society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 and having its address at #26-15-200, Main Road,
Visakhapatnam 530 001, Andhra Pradesh

3.

Clementien Pauws having her address at 2/138C, Behind

S. C. Quarters, Enumulapalli, Puttaparthi 515 134,
Andhra Pradesh

4.

Rukmini Sekhar, New Delhi Indian Inhabitant, having

her address at R-32, South Extension, Part II, New
Delhi 110 049

5.

Pradeep Kumar Nath, having his address at #26-15-200,

Main Road, Visakhapatnam 530 001, Andhra Pradesh
Versus

1.

Union of India through the Animal Welfare Division in

the Ministry of Environment and Forests having its
address at Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi 110 003

2.

The State of Andhra Pradesh through the Directorate of

Animal Husbandry, Shantinagar, Hyderabad-500 028

3.

The State of Assam through its Animal Husbandry and

Veterinary Department having its address at Chenikuthi,
Veterinary complex, M.C.Road, Uzan Bazar, Guwahati781 003

Petitioners

4.

The State of Bihar through Animals and Fisheries

Resources Department, having its address at Vikas
Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna-800 001.

5.

The State of Punjab through the Animal Husbandry,

Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, having its
address at 17, Bays Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh-160
017

6.

The State of Maharashtra through the Environment

Department having its address at Mantralaya, Madame
Cama Road, Mumbai 400 032.

The State of Rajasthan through the Department of

Animal Husbandry having its address at Mantralaya
Bhawan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur-302 005.

The State of Kerala through the Directorate of Animal

Husbandry, Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram-695033.

The State of Karnataka through the Animal Husbandry

and Fisheries Department having its address at
Vishweshwariah Mini Tower, 2nd Floor, Dr.
B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bangalore-500 001.

10 The State of Tamil Nadu through the Animal Husbandry

Dairy and Fisheries Department having its address at
Central Office buildings, Block 11, DHS Complex,
Chennai-600 006.
11 The State of Orissa through the Animal Resources
Development Department having its address at
Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary
Services, Mangalabag, Cuttack-753 001.
12 The State of Gujarat through the Animal Husbandry
Department having its address at Sachivalaya,
Gandhinagar-382 010.
13 The State of Madhya Pradesh through the Animal
Husbandry Department having its address at Director,
Veterinary Services, Vaishali Nagar, Katra,
Bhopal-462 003

14 The State of Uttar Pradesh through the Animal

Husbandry Department having its address at Gokaran
Nath Road, Badshahbagh, Lucknow-226 007.
15 The State of Jharkhand through the Animal Husbandry
and Fisheries Department having its address at Shri
Satyanand Jha, Nepal House Dorandai, Ranchi-834 002.
16 The State of Goa through the Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services Department having its address at
Parshusamvaidhan Bhavan, Patto, Panaji 403 001.
17 The State of West Bengal through the Animal Resources
Development Department having its address at Writer
buildings, Kolkata 700 001.
18 The State of Haryana through the Animal Husbandry and
Dairy Department having its address at Pashudhan
Bhawan, Bays o.9-12, Panchkula-134 151 (Haryana).
19 The Animal Welfare Board of India having its address at
13/1, 3rd Sea Ward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmyur,
Chennai 600 041.
20 Anantpur Municipal Corporation, a statutory corporation
through its Commissioner having its address at
Neelkanta Reddy, Commisioner.
21 Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a statutory corporation
constituted under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 having its address at Town Hall,
Chandani Chowk, Delhi -110006.
22 New Delhi Municipal Council, a body corporate
constituted under the provisions of New Delhi Municipal
Council Act, 1994 having its address at Palika Kendra
Building, Opposite Jantar Mantar, Parliament Street,
New Delhi -110001
23 The Central Pollution Control Board, a statutory board
having its address at Parivesh Bhawan, CBD-cum Office
Complex, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi 110032
Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

TO
THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS OTHER
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HONBLE THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

A. PARTIES
The Petitioners
1(a). The 1st Petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. The 1st Petitioner was registered in
September, 2000 and is recognized by the Animal Welfare Board of India
(Respondent No.19 herein). The 1st Petitioner runs a hospital and shelter
for small animals which have been injured, or ill, or have been
abandoned. The animals rescued and treated at the 1st Petitioners shelter
include, dogs, cats, monkeys and a variety of birds. It also has a hospital
for large animals such as cattle, buffaloes, donkeys, horses and a camel.
The 1st Petitioner also runs a wild life rescue centre which at present is
home to animals such as sloth bears, black buck, sambar deer and spotted
deer. In the course of its work the 1st Petitioner has received awards and
recognition with regard to its work in the field of animal welfare.

1(b) One of the significant contributing factors to the ill health among many
species, including cows and bulls, is the gastro-intestinal injuries caused

by ingestion of plastic in the form of plastic carrying bags. These bags

which have been used to carry food or food-waste may contain food
remnants and smell like food to animals. Animals cannot necessarily
differentiate between the food and the plastic and so ingest the plastic in
their quest for life-sustaining food. On 10.10.2011, with regard to the
nationwide problem of cruelty and distress to animals caused by the
ingestion of plastic and consequent health impacts on humans, the Board
of the 1st Petitioner has resolved to file the present petition as a public
interest litigation before this Honble Court. A copy of the 1st Petitioners
certificate of registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and
the recognition issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India are hereto
annexed and marked as Annexure P-1 & P-1A. A detailed account of the
1st Petitioners activities is set out in Annexure P-2 hereto. A copy of the
resolution passed by the Board of the 1st Petitioner dated 10.10.2011 is
hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-3.

1(c). The 2nd Petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. It works to stop the illegal trade in
internationally protected sea turtles; rescues cows and buffaloes that have
been neglected by their owners; provides a sanctuary to dogs, cats, birds,
monkeys, horses, rabbits and several other rescued animals. The activities
of the 2nd Petitioner extend beyond sea turtle protection to the protection
of migratory birds and protection of wild life generally. In the course of
its activities, the 2nd Petitioner has received international recognition and
has won awards. A copy of the 2nd Petitioners certificate of registration
is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-4. A summary of the 2nd
Petitioners activities and awards are set out at Annexure P-5 hereto.
Having regard to the distress caused to animals (domestic and wild) by
the ingestion of plastic bags and the consequent impact on human health,
the 2nd Petitioner has resolved to approach this Honble Court by way of

this public interest litigation. A copy of the resolution passed by the

Board of the 2nd Petitioner dated _____ is hereto annexed and marked as
Annexure P-6.
1(d). The 3rd Petitioner is the President of the 1st Petitioner and has been
personally involved in animal welfare issues for more than 15 years. She
resides at Puttaparthi in Andhra Pradesh since 1995.

1(e) The 4th Petitioner is a citizen of India and is writer and animal rights
activist. A resum of her activities and background is summarized in a
statement appended as Annexure P-7.

1(f)

The 5th Petitioner is a citizen of India and is the President of the 2nd
Petitioner society. He has been engaged in animal welfare activity for
more than 16 years.

The Respondents /
2(a). The 1st Respondent is the Union of India through the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Animal Welfare Division. The 1st Respondent
is responsible for framing and enforcing suitable regulations to prevent
cruelty to animals and to ensure that human health is not compromised by
the indiscriminate ingestion of plastic by cows and other animals.

2(b). The 2nd Respondent 18th Respondent are State governments through
their respective Animal Husbandry Departments which are responsible
for protecting and advancing animal welfare. All the States of the Union
have not been joined as party Respondents at this stage and the
Petitioners reserve their right to implead other States and Union
Territories, when considered necessary.

2(c). The 19th Respondent is the Animal Welfare Board of India, a statutory
board established under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960. The functions of the Board include imparting
education in relation to humane treatment of animals, encouraging the
formation of public opinion against the infliction of unnecessary pain or
suffering on animals and promoting animal welfare. The Boards
functions also extend to advising the government in matters connected
with animal welfare and the prevention of infliction of unnecessary pain
or suffering on animals. The Board is empowered to make regulations,
inter alia, for carrying out its functions.

2(d). Respondent No. 20 is the Anantpur Municipal Corporation, a statutory

corporation discharging municipal functions in respect of the city of
Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh. The Anantpur Municipal Corporation has
adopted numerous steps to prevent the inter face between animals
(particularly cows) and plastic waste (particularly plastic bags). These
measures deserve to be replicated across India to prevent cruelty to
animals and the consequential harm to humans. The 21st and 22nd
Respondents are statutory corporations discharging municipal functions
in New Delhi. There two Respondents are also guilty of having failed and
neglected to discharge their statutory obligations regarding the proper
collection and disposal of plastic waste which has resulted in animals
ingesting plastic.
2(e) The 23rd Respondent (CPCB) is a statutory board exercising jurisdiction,
inter alia, under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. The CPCB discharges
responsibilities under the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and

handling) Rules, 2000 and is responsible for coordinating the

implementation of these rules.

3.

The Respondents are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Honble

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. All the Respondents
are the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India.

B. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE

Fundamental Rights Violated
4(a). The grievance of the Petitioners is that governmental inaction and neglect
are causing a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. The right to life includes a right to healthful
living. Having regard to Indias cultural traditions and values, particularly
the Constitutional values contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India
containing the Directive Principles of State Policy; the State is under an
obligation to prevent extreme cruelty and pain caused to animals by
governmental inaction. Due to government neglect across the country
and her maritime boundaries or coastline, animals particularly cows and
bulls, are ingesting plastic from garbage dumps and plastic bags littered
across the landscape and oceans. The ingestion of plastic from plastic
bags chokes the stomach of cows and as detailed below, in the
Petitioners experience, cows are filled with plastic waste at times over 50
kilos in weight. What appears to be a healthy cow, is in fact a plasticchoked cow or a cow full of plastic. Apart from the plastic completely
choking the digestive system of the cow and causing excruciating pain to
the animal, the plastic residues enter the human food chain through dairy
and animal products. Since the health of human beings is directly
impacted by animal products such as milk and meat which are
contaminated by plastic residue, the issues raised in this petition directly

impact the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

4(b). Despite the enactment of rules for the disposal of municipal solid wastes
and the management and handling of plastic waste, the Respondent States
have failed and neglected to implement these rules. The rules require that
stray animals shall not be allowed to move around near waste storage
facilities. The rules also require that the Respondents and municipal
authorities within the territories of the Respondent States must ensure the
safe collection, storage and disposal of plastic waste. The inaction, failure
and neglect of the Respondents in implementing these rules is arbitrary
and amounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Public Interest Litigation

5.

This petition is a public interest litigation. The Petitioners have

approached this Honble Court bona fide to espouse a public cause.
Petitioners seek to discharge fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of
the Constitution of India which requires every citizen of India to have
compassion for living creatures. The Petitioners seek to draw the
attention of this Honble Court to an extremely unfortunate and painful
state of affairs which is resulting in extreme cruelty and pain to animals.
The consequence of the neglect on the part of the Respondents is that
there is no proper segregation of plastic waste resulting in a continuous
interface between animals and plastic bags that have been discarded. It is
respectfully submitted that the regulatory regime is inadequate and where
statutory provisions exist, the Respondent authorities are not enforcing
the rules. The Petitioners do not stand to gain personally from the relief
sought in this case and are approaching this Honble Court in the larger
interest of society.

10

Core Issue
6.

Across India there has been a tremendous increase in the use of plastics
generally, particularly plastic bags. Plastic bags are being swallowed /
ingested by animals both domestic and wild. By and large, across the
country in villages, towns, cities and in the metros, garbage is disposed in
open dumps. Municipalities across the country do not effectively enforce
municipal solid waste disposal laws. Citizens leave their kitchen waste
including edible items in plastic bags which are left outside their homes
for collection and/or carried to an open garbage bin and left at the
garbage receptacle. Animals live in close communion with people in rural
areas as well as in towns and cities in India. Domestic animals generally,
and cows and bulls in particular, roam the streets looking for food and
these animals know that edible waste is discarded in plastic bags. As a
consequence, in order to reach what is in the bags, cows and bulls chew
and swallow the plastic bags.

7.

The cow and bull have a complex digestive system. After chewing the
food, the food collects in the first of the cows stomachs known as the
rumen. Here, the swallowed food is separated into solids and liquid parts
and the fermentation of cellulose fibres takes place. The second stomach
is the reticulum where further fermentation of cellulose fibres occurs. The
third stomach is the omasum which absorbs fluids. The forth stomach is
known as the abomasums where proteins are digested before the food
passes into the intestine for absorption of nutrients. A diagrammatic
representation of the digestive system of a cow is marked as Annexure P8 hereto.

8 (a) The cows digestive systems is such that plastic bags do not pass through
the rumen into the reticulum and the plastic remains trapped in the cows
first stomach. The 1st Petitioner society has conducted a total of 53

11

rumenotomies. A rumenotomy is a surgical operation conducted by a

veterinary surgeon which involves the cutting open of the rumen. The
discovery made during the rumenotomies is startling. The Petitioners
have found that tens of kilos of plastic waste clog the rumen of living
cows, completely destroying the digestive system and preventing food
from passing through the digestive track. What to an untrained eye
appears to be a normal cow roaming the streets is actually a plasticchoked cow or a cow full of plastic. This choking of the digestive
system causes extreme agony to the cow and eventually leads to a slow
and painful death. The plastic-filled cow, unable to eat any more, slowly
begins to starve and grinds and gnashes its teeth in utter pain. If the
problem is detected in time and rumenotomies are conducted, the cow
may survive, or else it dies a painful death.

8(b) The problem of plastic ingested by cows and bulls is the subject of
scientific research in India as well as overseas. Plastic bags threaten cattle
health, as brought out in a study entitled Plastic bags -- Threat to
Environment and Cattle Health: A Retrospective Study from Gondar City
of Ethiopia by V. Ramaswamy and H.R. Sharma; The IIOAB Journal,
Vol.2(1) Page 7-12 (2011). The authors of this study found that polythene
bags were causing various pathological conditions such as indigestion,
impaction, tympany, polybezoars, and immunosuppression. The animals
had bloated stomachs and suffered loss of weight, ruminial impaction and
reduction of milk yield. The acute bloat causes pressure over the
diaphragms and ribs, limiting respiratory movements, leading to
hypoventilation and decreased veinous return to the heart. The acute bloat
was recognized as a factor that could lead to cattle mortality. The
research paper was based on 711 rumenotomies during the period 20042010. A copy of the research paper is marked as Annexure P- 9 hereto.

12

9.

A summary of what was found during the rumenotomies conducted by

the 1st Petitioner in its animal hospital is below:
SN

Date

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

20.11.2010
20.11.2010
27.11.2010
04.12.2010
04.12.2010
11.12.2010
18.12.2010
25.12.2010
08.01.2011
08.01.2011
12.01.2011
16.01.2011
23.01.2011
27.01.2011
27.01.2011
29.01.2011
01.02.2011
05.02.2011

Quantum of plastic
waste removed from
the rumen
48 kg
48 kg
42 kg
56 kg
52 kg
63 kg
47 kg
46 kg
44 kg
52 kg
53 kg
42 kg
37 kg
42 kg
18 kg
42 kg
34 kg
62 kg

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

12.02.2011
17.02.2011
19.02.2011
21.02.2011
26.02.2011
26.02.2011
05.03.2011

56 kg
44 kg
52 kg
51 kg
62 kg
56 kg
59 kg

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

05.03.2011
05.03.2011
12.03.2011
12.03.2011
12.03.2011
15.03.2011
17.03.2011
17.03.2011
19.03.2011
28.03.2011

58 kg
47 kg
37 kg
36 kg
49 kg
44 kg
39 kg
41 kg
52 kg
38 kg

Remarks

Recovered
Died on 1112.2010
Died on 11.12.2010
Died on 06.12.2010
Died on 18.12.2010
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Euthanized on
12.02.2011
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered calf 8
months
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered

13

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

09.04.2011
09.04.2011
09.04.2011
16.04.2011
16.04.2011
16.04.2011
30.04.2011
30.04.2011
30.04.2011
14.05.2011
14.05.2011
24.09.2011
08.10.2011
15.10.2011
22.10.2011
22.10.2011
17.10.2011
17.10.2011

32 kg
57 kg
41 kg
61 kg
59 kg
29 kg
37 kg
41 kg
49 kg
59 kg
51 kg
61 kg
63 kg
51 kg
43 kg
38 kg
02 kg
03 kg

Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered
Recovered

Note: Three cows delivered healthy calves after surgery and four are
pregnant.
10.

The Petitioners research and inquiries have revealed that while the
problem of plastic collecting in the rumen of a cow is particularly acute in
the case of cows because of their particular digestive system, other
animals as well, including wild animals are ingesting plastic bags.

11.

PCB is an abbreviation for Polychlorinated Biphenyls. PCBs are harmful

to human health and studies show that the accumulation of PCBs in the
human body may lead to harmful effects like reduced growth, alteration
in hormone receptor binding and alternation in steroid hormone balance
of the population. PCBs are probable human carcinogens. They have been
shown to cause cancer in animals. Scientific studies of stray cattle in the
Chennai region show that the milk collected from stray cattle which
scavenged for food in urban streets and refuse dumps contained high
levels of PCBs. (Polychlorinated Biphenyles in Milk and Rumen Liquor

14

of Stray Cattle in Chennai by V. Vanitha, G. Sarath and A.P. Nambi;

Tamil Nadu J. Veterinary & Animal Sciences 6 (2) 71-74, March April,
2010). The ingestion of plastic by cows unless appropriately dealt with
is likely to have a serious and persistent deleterious impact on human
health. A copy of the aforesaid article on PCBs in the milk and rumen
liquor of stray cattle in Chennai is marked as Annexure P-10 hereto.

12.

It is submitted that it is essential that this Hon'ble Court examine the

issues raised in this case and pass appropriate orders that will eliminate
the interface between plastic bags/plastic waste and animals/cows and
bulls. The directions sought from this Hon'ble Court in the first instance
pertain to the prohibition of certain types of plastic bags; the segregation
of plastic waste; and the prevention of waste disposal through plastic
bags.

C. FACTS RELATING TO INGESTION OF PLASTIC BY ANIMALS

Cows and bulls

13.

Cows and bulls feeding on garbage dumps is a common sight. Garbage

dumps contain a huge amount of plastic including plastic bags.
Photographs of cows and bulls feeding scavenging at garbage dumps are
annexed and marked as Annexure P-11.

14.

Despite rules framed for municipal solid waste disposal, in practice India
still has an open garbage system with open bins in virtually all human
settlements from villages to the metros. Typically, the garbage bins are on
roads and overflow with waste. Cows, dogs, pigs and other animals such
as monkeys, rats, etc. visit these dumps in search of food. A large number

15

of cows that stray on the roads eat from garbage bins, foraging for left
over vegetables, fruit and anything edible that smells like food. For
example, in Udaipur city, cows and bulls are seen on the streets everyday
feeding from blue plastic bins.

15.

Plastic bags are available everywhere, and food waste is disposed of in

these bags. Plastic bags are discarded on the road or at municipal waste
bins. Plastic bags are often knotted at the mouth, and cows and bulls are
not able to undo the knot. Cows and bulls eat this food left over and
ingest the plastic. Slowly, over time, cows build up a huge amount of
plastic inside their stomachs. Due to churning and contraction of the
ruemen and reticulum, and the micro flora population therein, the plastic
becomes like a hard rock inside the rumen (the first stomach) in the belly
of the cow.

16.

The cattle on the street may be stray or owned by small dairies and
individuals. The animals are left to roam the streets and the areas at the
periphery of cities or towns where garbage is dumped. Dairy owners and
individuals often send their animals out on the road to forage for food in
order to save money. The owners nevertheless extract milk from these
cows which derive sustenance from waste discarded in garbage bins,
garbage landfills, around vegetable markets, etc.

17.

The 1st Petitioner is based at Puttaparthi, around 70 kilometers away from

the city of Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh. In December, 2010 the 1st
Petitioners animal shelter received permanent custody of 36 stray cattle
that were delivered to it by the Anantpur municipal administration. Soon
after arrival, one of cows died. A postmortem of this cow conducted by a
veterinary surgeon revealed that animals rumen was full of plastic. The
plastic removed from this dead cow weighed around 40 kgs. After

16

examining the remaining cows, the surgeon advised conducting surgeries

to remove the plastic from these cows to save their lives.

18.

The digestive system of a cow has been explained above. The 1st
Petitioners staff as well as the veterinary surgeon noticed that many of
the cows which appeared normal to an untrained eye were experiencing
extreme discomfort and pain. These animals were unable to eat grass
since their digestive system was completely blocked by the hardened
plastic waste that had formed a solid block in the rumen. In cases where
the digestive system was almost completely compromised, the animals
were grinding their teeth in pain. When a cow or bull experiences
extreme pain, the pain manifests itself through the cow or bull
continuously grinding its teeth. The plastic also causes the belly of the
cow to bloat. Calves born from affected cows are small in size due to lack
of food and space in the womb caused by a rumen packed with plastic.

19.

The 1st Petitioner has maintained a record of the rumenotomies conducted

by it. The maximum plastic removed from cows stomach has been 63
kgs. The third petitioner, as President of the 1st Petitioner society, has
affirmed an affidavit setting out the experience of this society. This
affidavit dated _____ is annexed and marked as Annexure P 12. A
statement summarizing the particulars of the above mentioned operations,
each of which was conducted by a veterinary surgeon, are set out in
Annexure P-13. Photographs taken during the rumenotomies and showing
various stages of the surgery and removal of the plastic are set out in
Annexure P-14.

20.

In order to sensitize cattle owners as to how much their cattle suffer when
they are allowed to roam the streets, some of the surgeries were
performed in the presence of cattle owners. The members of the Gram

17

Panchayat, Municipal Officers from Anantpur and other areas have also
attended the surgeries. On the basis of awareness spread by the activities
of the 1st Petitioner, Anantpur has banned plastic bags. The
Commissioner of Anantpur after seeing the video of the surgery and the
suffering of the cows ordered the removal of all open garbage bins and
has now implemented collection of municipal garbage from door to door.
The Municipal Council has engaged a door to door campaign to educate
members of the public not to discard their waste and plastic because of
the harm caused to animals.
21(a). Apart from the 1st Petitioner, post mortems conducted by emptying the
rumens of cows and bulls, have also been carried out at Udaipur by
another non-governmental organization, Animal Aid Charitable Trust.
Animal Aid runs a hospital facility for rescued animals at Badi, Udaipur
and is assisted by a team of 2 veterinary doctors and 35 staff including 5
veterinary nurses. Animal Aid has also found that bull and stray cows
wandering the streets of Udaipur ingest huge amounts of plastic. Dr.
James Myers and Erika Abrams-Myers, who founded Animal Aid
Charitable Trust, and who perform honorary work at Animal Aid in the
capacity of Joint Directors have affirmed an affidavit setting out the
experience of this organization which works in the Udaipur region. The
affidavit of Dr. James Myers and Erika Abrams-Myers dated
_________is here annexed and marked as Annexure P-15.

21(b). Mr. Lakshman Singh Rathod is a Manager at Animal Aid. He has

affirmed an affidavit setting out the reasons why cows are forced to

18

scavenge, as well as his experience with regard to post-mortems

conducted by Animal Aid. The affidavit of Mr. Lakshman Singh Rathore
dated _______ is here annexed and marked as Annexure P- 16

22.

The India Project for Animals and Nature (IPAN) has also carried out
rumenotomies at Masinagudi, in Tamil Nadu where they run an animal
refuge for abandoned and injured animals. The IPAN has a veterinary
team comprising of three veterinarians and this team has observed the
presence of large quantities of plastic lodged in the stomachs stray cows
and bulls. Dr. Ilona Otter, a veterinary surgeon working with IPAN has
affirmed an affidavit setting out her experience with the IPAN in the
Masinagudi region. The affidavit of Dr. Ilona Otter dated ______ is here
annexed and marked as Annexure P 17.

23.

Dr. Suresh Kumar is a practicing veterinary surgeon in Vishakapatnam.

He has also conducted rumenotomies on stray cattle since 2010. He too
has found large quantities of plastic in the stomachs of cows and
buffaloes in the course of these rumenotomies. He has affirmed an
affidavit stating why harm is caused to cows by the ingestion of plastic,
how these affected animals suffer and the large amounts of plastic
consumed by cows in his experience. The affidavit of Dr. Suresh Kumar
dated _________ is here annexed and marked as Annexure P - 18. Three
other veterinary surgeons, Dr. Anuj Pratap Singh of Rewa, Madhya

19

Pradesh; Dr. M. Jencilin Jeevaranthinam, Thanjavore, Tamil Nadu and

Dr. Viju Vijayan Pillai, Kerala have also set out on affidavit their
observations with regard to rumenotomies conducted by them. The
affidavits of Dr. Anuj Pratap Singh, Dr. M. Jencilin Jeevaranthinam, and
Dr. Viju Vijayan Pillai are hereto annexed and marked as Annexures P19
21.

Other Domestic Animals

24.

Apart from cows and bulls, other domestic animals forage in garbage
dumps around cities such as donkeys, buffalos, goats, sheep, pigs and
dogs. Inevitably, these animals too ingest plastic. Media reports about
animals feeding on plastic are hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P
- 22.

Wild Animals
25.

Along Indias rivers and coast, plastic waste and garbage is dumped from
thousands of villages and towns into the water along with untreated
sewage. This garbage including plastic waste is found by wild animals
and is ingested by these animals. Turtles are highly susceptible to
swallowing plastic bags as they strongly resemble their target prey jellyfish and squid. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nath, the 5th Petitioner, in the
course of his sea turtle protection work has found that postmortems
conducted on dead turtles show plastic waste in the dead animal. The
affidavit of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nath dated _______ are hereto annexed
and marked as Annexure P-23 hereto.

20

26.

A survey by the United Nations found that plastic in the worlds oceans is
killing more than a million seabirds and a hundred thousand marine
mammals and sea turtles each year. Ingestion of plastic debris may cause
blockage of the digestive tract, perforation of the gut, and result in a loss
of nutrition (due to displacement of food) or cause a false feeling of being
full. An extract of the UNEP report of April 2005 on the Regional Seas
Programme is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-24.

27.

Despite the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which contains provisions to

prevent littering (including plastic) in sanctuaries, there have been several
reports of the adverse effects of plastic waste on wildlife in Indias
national parks and zoos. The Bannerghatta National Park, in Karnataka,
lost 18 sambars and deer due to blockage of their rumenoratiular passage
by thin plastics. Clogged plastic balls were found in the stomachs of the
dead animals. Dumping of garbage in the Suswa, an important tributary
of the Ganga, pollutes the Rajaji National Park to such an extent that
elephants at the Park end up eating the plastic waste which has been
found in their dung and is also suspected of causing intestinal problems in
these animals. The Bhimashankar wildlife sanctuary is littered with
garbage and the river basin near the temple is clogged with polythene
bags. Copies of media reports in respect of Indian wildlife affected by
plastic waste are hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-25 to P 29.

D. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Constitutional Provisions
28.

The principal provisions in the Constitution of India are Articles 14, 21,
47, 48, 48A and 51A (g). These provisions are reproduced below:
14 Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within
the territory of India.

21

21 Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be

deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.
47 Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard
of living and to improve public health The State shall regard the
raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its
people and the improvement of public health as among its primary
duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of
intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health

48 Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.The

State shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry
on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for
preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter
of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
48A Protection and improvement of environment and
safeguarding of forests and wild life.The State shall endeavour
to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wild life of the country.
51A Fundamental Duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of
India
(g)

29.

To protect and improve the natural environment including

forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion
for living creatures;

The Petitioners fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 are directly

impacted as explained in the grounds in this petition. Briefly, the right to
life of persons is affected because of the potential adverse health impact
arising from PCBs entering into humans through dairy and animal
products. The inaction of the Respondents in failing and neglecting to
adequately implement existing laws for the segregation and disposal of
plastic wastes; the regulatory failure on the part of the Respondents in
failing to prevent the interface between cows and plastic bags resulting in
the ingestion of bags by animals; the failure by the state to recognize and

22

respond to the potential health threats to its citizens arising from plastic
clogging the stomach of cows, are all arbitrary and unreasonable actions,
transgressing Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

30.

Article 47 of the Constitution of India, being part of the Directive

Principles of State Policy, states inter alia that the state has a primary
duty to take steps to better public health. This Court, in the case of
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC
162 directed an erring Municipality to perform its duty, holding that a
Court may compel a statutory body to carry out its duty to the
community. This Court held:
Where Directive Principles have found statutory expression in
Do's and Dont's the court will not sit idly by and allow municipal
government to become a statutory mockery.
The Court went on to hold:
The State will realise that Art. 47 makes it a paramount principle
of governance that steps are taken 'for the improvement of public
health as amongst its primary duties.
It is respectfully submitted that the Respondents have failed to perform
the paramount duty of providing for the betterment of public health. This
inaction has resulted in a substantial threat to public health due to the
improper segregation and disposal of waste, as well as the consumption
of plastic by cows.

31.

The Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 48 of the

Constitution of India, inter alia, enjoins the State to prohibit the slaughter of
cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. A Constitution Bench of
seven Learned Judges of this Court

in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti

Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534 has held that Article 48 would cover

23

all cattle even after they had lost their ability to produce milk or to move loads.
This Court expressly held:
A milch cattle goes through a life cycle during which it is
sometimes milch and sometimes it becomes dry. This does not
mean that as soon as a milch cattle ceases to produce milk, for a
short period as a part of its life cycle, it goes out of purview of
Article 48, and can be slaughtered. A draught cattle may lose its
utility on account of injury or sickness and may be rendered useless
as a draught cattle during that period. This would not mean that if a
draught cattle ceases to be of utility for a short period on account of
sickness or injury, it is excluded from the definition of draught
cattle and deprived of the benefit of Article 48.
It is respectfully submitted that the Constitution Bench has consciously
used the expression deprived of the benefit of Article 48 in the context
of cattle, thereby implying that under the Constitution of India
constitutional benefits extend to animals as well.

32.

In the context of Article 51 A (g) the Constitution Bench in State of

Gujarat v. Mirzapur Kureshi Kassab Jamat held:
The State and every citizen must have compassion for living
creatures . . . The concept of compassion for living creatures
enshrined in Article 51A(g) is based on the background of the rich
cultural heritage of India the land of Mahatama Gandhi, Vinobha,
Mahaveer, Buddha, Nanak and others. No religion or holy book in
any part of the world teaches or encourages cruelty. Indian society
is a pluralistic society. It has unity in diversity. The religions,
cultures and people may be diverse, yet all speak in one voice that
cruelty to any living creature must be curbed and ceased. A cattle
which has served human beings is entitled to compassion in its old
age when it has ceased to be milch or draught and becomes socalled useless. It will be an act of reprehensible ingratitude to
condemn a cattle in its old age as useless and send it to a slaughter
house taking away the little time from its natural life that it would
have lived, forgetting its service for the major part of its life, for
which it had remained milch or draught. We have to remember the
weak and meek need more of protection and compassion.
It is respectfully submitted that the Constitution Bench has advisedly used
the expression entitlement to compassion in the context of cattle

24

because of the constitutional recognition of animal rights. Under the

constitutional scheme, animals have a right to be treated without cruelty
and a right to be free of plastic.

33.

From a Constitutional perspective, there is no difference between the

slaughter of cattle by swift mechanical means and cattle dying through an
unusually cruel and slow process of their stomachs being filled with
several kilos of plastic waste. Both these situations are constitutionally
disapproved.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

34.

Animals are integral to life in India. Statutes to prevent cruelty to animals

have been in force for more than 130 years and at present the infliction of
unnecessary pain or suffering on animals is proscribed by the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. (PCA, 1960).

35.

Section 3 of the PCA, 1960 reads:

3 Duties of persons having charge of animals.- It shall be the duty
of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all
reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to
prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or
suffering.

36.

Section 4 of the PCA, 1960 requires the Central Government to establish

the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) (Respondent 19 herein) for
the promotion of animal welfare generally and for the purpose of
protecting animals from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering.
Section 9 of the PCA, 1960 describes the functions of the AWBI. These
functions are described in wide terms and would include taking all
necessary steps to prevent the ingestion of plastic by animals. Section 9
(a), (b), (k) and (l) read:

25

9.
(a)

(b)

Functions of the Board The functions of the Board shall be

to keep the law in force in India for the prevention of cruelty

to animals under constant study and advise the Government
on the amendments to be undertaken in any such law from
time to time;
to advise the Central Government on the making of rules
under this Act with a view to preventing unnecessary pain or
suffering to animals generally, and more particularly when
they are being transported from one place to another or when
they are used as performing animals or when they are kept in
captivity or confinement;
* * *

37.

(k)

to impart education in relation to the humane treatment of

animals and to encourage the formation of public opinion
against the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to
animals and for the promotion of animal welfare by means
of lectures, books, posters, cinematographic exhibitions and
the like;

(l)

to advise the Government on any matter connected with

animal welfare or the prevention of infliction of unnecessary
pain or suffering on animals.

Section 11 of the PCA, 1960 penalises the cruel treatment of animals.

Section 11 (1) & (2) in pertinent part read:
11 Treating animals cruelty.-- (1) If any person
(a)

(h)

(i)

beats, kicks, over-rides, over-loads, tortures or

otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to
unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the
owner permits, any animals to be so treated; or
* * *
being the owner of any animal, fails to provide such
animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or
without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in
circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer
pain by reason of starvation or thirst;

26

* * *
he shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence,
with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but
which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a
second or subsequent offence committed within three
years of the previous offence, with fine which shall
not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may
extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three months, or with
both.
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), an owner shall be
deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to
exercise reasonable care and supervision, with a view to the
prevention of such offence.
Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting
cruelty by reason only of having failed to exercise such care
and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment
without the option of a time.
38.

In exercise of its power to make rules conferred under Section 38 of the

PCA, 1960 the Central Government has framed several rules including:
(a)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules,

1965

(b)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Licensing of Farriers)

Rules, 1965

(c)

The Performing Animals Rules, 1973

(d)

The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001

(e)

The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978

(f)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Application of Fines) Rules,

1978

(g)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Registration of Cattle

Premises) Rules, 1978

(h)

The Prevention of Cruelty (Capture of Animals) Rules, 1979

27

(i)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on

Foot) Rules, 2001

(j)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules,

2001

(k)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and

Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
Rules, 2001.

(l)

The Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules,

1968

(m)

The Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and

Supervision) Rules, 1998.

39. It is respectfully submitted that the action of owners to allow cows (and
other animals) to feed on plastic bags and the failure of the authorities to
prevent cows (and other animals) from ingesting plastic bags that are left at
garbage dumps and open garbage bins amounts to inflicting cruelty on
animals. The PCA, 1960 penalises such conduct or inaction and it is
imperative that corrective steps are taken to prevent such wide spread
breach of the law.
Environmental Statutes
40.

The principal statute governing environmental protection is the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA). Section 3 of the EPA
empowers the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems
necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the
quality of the environment. The measures that may be adopted by the
Central Government include the coordination of action by the State
Governments, officers and other authorities with respect to the planning
and execution of nation-wide programmes for the prevention control and
abatement of environmental pollution. Section 5 of the EPA specifically
empowers the Central Government to issue directions in writing to any
person, officer or any authority to attain the objects of the Act. Where

28

such directions are issued, the recipient of the directions is bound to

comply with the direction.

41.

In the exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the

EPA, the Central Government has framed:
a)

The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules,

2000 (MSW Rules); and

b)

The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 (PW

Rules).

42.

Rule 4 of the MSW Rules provides that every Municipal Authority shall
be responsible for implementation of the provisions of these Rules and
for infrastructure development in respect of the collection, storage,
segregation and disposal of municipal solid wastes. Rule 5 provides that
the Secretary of the Department of Urban Development of the concerned
State or Union Territory shall have the overall responsibility for
enforcement of the provisions of the MSW Rules in metropolitan cities.
Elsewhere, the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of the
concerned district has overall responsibility for enforcement of the
provisions of the Rules within the district. Rule 7 mandates that
municipal solid wastes generated in a city or a town shall be managed
and handled in accordance with the compliance criteria and procedure
laid down in Schedule II. Schedule II provides, inter alia,

Schedule II
Management of Municipal Solid Wastes
Sl.No. Parameters
1.

Collection
of
Municipal
Solid
Wastes

Compliance Criteria
1. Littering of Municipal Solid Wastes shall be
prohibited in cities, towns and in urban areas
notified by the State Governments. To prohibit
littering and facilitate compliance, the following
steps shall be taken by the municipal authority,

29

namely
(i)

Organising house-to-house collection of

municipal solid wastes through any of the
methods, like community bin collection
(central bin), house-to-house collection,
collection on regular pre-informed timings
and scheduling by using bell ringing of
musical vehicle (without
exceeding
permissible noise levels);
* * *
(viii) Stray animals shall not be allowed to move
around waste storage facilities or at any
other place in the city or town and shall be
managed in accordance with State laws.
The division of responsibilities under the MSW Rules are summarized in
the following table:
S.No

Agencies/ Authorities

Responsibility

Municipal Authorities

i. Ensuring that municipal solid

wastes to be handled as per
rules.
ii. Seeking authorization from
State Pollution Control Board
(SPCB) for setting up waste
processing
and
disposal
facilities including landfills.
iii. Furnishing annual report.
iv. Complying with Schedule I, II,
III and IV of the rules

State Government

(i)

Secretary In-Charge of

Overall responsibility for the

enforcement of the provisions of
the rules in the metropolitan cities.

Department
Development
(ii)

of

Urban

District Magistrates/Deputy Overall responsibility for the

Commissioner
enforcement of the provisions of
the rules within the territorial
limits of their jurisdiction.
Central Pollution Control i. Co-ordinate with State Boards
Board
and Committees with reference

30

4.

43.

State
Pollution
Board (SPCB)

to implementation and review

of standards and guidelines and
compilation of monitoring data.
ii. Prepare consolidated annual
review report of management of
municipal solid wastes for
forwarding it to Central
Government along with its
recommendations before the
15th of December every year.
iii. Laying down standards on
waste
processing/disposal
technologies including approval
of technology.
Control i. Monitor the compliance of the
standards regarding ground
water, ambient air leachate
quality and the compost quality
including incineration standards
as specified under Schedule II,
III & IV.
ii. Issuance of authorization to the
municipal authority or an
operator of a facility stipulating
compliance
criteria
and
standards.
iii. Prepare and submit to the
CPCB an annual report with
regard to the implementation of
the rules.

On 4th February, 2011 the Central Government notified the Plastic Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. These rules were amended on
2nd July, 2011 by the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling)
(Amendment) Rules, 2011. Rule 5 The PW Rules, inter alia, prohibits
the manufacture, stocking, distribution or sale of a plastic bag which is
less than 40 microns in thickness. Rule 6 (c) requires that the municipal
authority shall be responsible for setting up, operationalisation and
coordination of the waste management system with regard to plastic
wastes. The municipal authority must ensure that no damage is caused to

31

the environment. It must also ensure safe collection, storage, segregation,

transport, processing and disposal of plastic wastes.

44.

It is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the MSW Rules and the
PW Rules framed under the EPA make it clear that the Respondent
authorities are obliged to ensure that the disposal of plastic waste is done
in a safe manner and does not cause any harm. There is a specific
obligation imposed on municipal authorities within the States to ensure
that stray animals are not allowed around waste storage facilities which
include facilities for the temporary containment of municipal solid
wastes. Despite the mandate of the law, municipal authorities in the
Respondent States are failing to discharge their obligations resulting in
cows, bulls and other animals ingesting plastic from garbage bins and
disposal sites.

State Laws

45.

The Petitioners state that apart from the central statutes outlined above, a
few State Governments have enacted specific laws to deal with the
problems caused by non-biodgradable garbage including plastic waste.
The preambles of these state laws recognize the ill effects of plastic waste
and the prevalence of plastic garbage that is polluting public drains, water
bodies, wetlands, roads etc. The State statutes include:
(a)

The Himachal Pradesh Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act,

1995;

(b)

The Delhi Degradable Plastic Bag (Manufacture, Sale and Usage)

and Garbage (Control) Act, 2000;

(c)

Maharashtra Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 2006; and

(d)

The

Jammu

and

Kashmir

Non-Biodegradable

(Management, Handling and Disposal) Act, 2007.

Material

32

The Petitioners submit that despite these state statutes, there is no

effective implementation resulting in a huge amount of plastic litter lying
about in a way that it can be ingested by animals.

Municipal Laws
46.

The Constitution (74th) Amendment Act, 1992 inserted Part IX-A into the
Constitution of India. Part IX-A deals with municipalities and Article
243W empowers the legislature of a State to endow the municipalities
with the necessary powers and authority to discharge their functions
enumerated in the XIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The
subjects solid waste management and prevention of cruelty to
animals are specifically mentioned in items 6 and 15 of the XIIth
Schedule.

47.

Moreover, specific statutes governing Municipal Corporations and

municipalities within the Respondent States empower these local
authorities to regulate matters relating to the issues raised in this petition.
Municipalities have a primary responsibility to ensure:
a)

The provision of receptacles for the disposal of waste;

b)

The removal of refuse from the receptacles;

c)

The proper disposal and treatment of municipal solid waste;

d)

The proper daily surface-cleaning of all streets;

e)

The maintenance of cleanliness and hygiene so as to prevent the

spread of disease;

f)

The prevention of cattle trespass;

g)

The regulation of animals within municipal limits.

33

E. ANIMAL RIGHTS
48.

The constitutional provisions referred to above clearly recognize the duty

of every citizen in relation to animals. Every citizen has a duty to have
compassion for living creatures. The Constitution of India also recognizes
the duty of the State in relation to animals. The State has a duty to
safeguard the wild life and it is also under the duty to prohibit the
slaughter of cows and calves. The Indian Constitution is a charter for the
governance of the people of India and contains goals and benchmarks for
civilized conduct. The duties on the citizen and State confer an
entitlement on animals to be treated with compassion. This entails an
element of autonomy on animals that are not treated merely as property
under the constitutional scheme but are beings with recognized
entitlements. At a minimum, under the constitutional scheme read with
the provisions of the PCA and other statutes, the cow and other animals
have a right to be free of plastic. They have a right not to be exposed to
the destructive effects of human waste, specifically plastic waste.

49.

Recent scientific studies in evolutionary biology and related fields of

animal behaviour are blurring the once-sharp distinction between humans
and other animals. There is a growing understanding of the capacity and
ability of certain species of animals to use tools, communicate, express
emotions and even conceptualize the elements of morality. These new
animal studies lend an urgent necessity to interpret laws aimed at
preventing cruelty to animals in a new light and with greater vigor. The
provisions in the Constitution of India point to a constitutional morality
underlying the treatment of animals. All organs of the State are required
by this underlying constitutional morality to ensure that the natural
digestive systems of animals are not destroyed or compromised by plastic
waste lying about in a manner that can be ingested by animals. The State

34

cannot ignore its constitutional duty and allow cruelty and pain to be
inflicted on animals.

F. JUDICIAL DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT IN THE

CASE OF JODHPUR CITY
50.

This Court in Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and

Others (2007) 2 SCC 413 decided an appeal from a judgment of the High
Court of Rajasthan in a Public Interest Litigation concerning the city of
Jodhpur. The Rajasthan High Court had directed that milk dairies located
in Jodhpur be shifted from their locations to alternative sites. Paragraph 5
of this Courts judgment summarises the facts in the case and reads: 5. It is stated that the owners of the bovine animals, in the
city of Jodhpur, after milching the bovine animals were
turning them out of dairies so that they could eat whatever
was available on the roads. The stray cattle including the
cows, bulls, dogs, etc. freely roam in the city of Jodhpur and
in the porch of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, the principal
government hospital in the city. It is further stated that the
excreta of these animals was also visible all over, even in the
corridors of the High Court. This totally unhygienic,
unhealthy and injurious practice was creating considerable
nuisance to the citizens of the city of Jodhpur.
In paragraph 11 of this Courts judgment, a portion of the High Court
decision was quoted. In pertinent part, the quotation is reproduced below.
11. . . . It is surprising that after milching the bovine
animals, the dairy owners turn them out so that they can eat
whatever is available on the roads. Bovine animals in order
to satisfy their hunger even consume plastic. Once plastic
goes in their systems, it causes severe harm to them and
some of them even die. But this is not the concerns of the
dairy owners. Though people consider cow as mother yet the
treatment which is meted out to it is extremely harsh and
cruel.

35

This Court having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and
in the larger interest of the citizens of Jodhpur issued various directions
including the following: 4. The respondent State Government is directed to frame
guidelines regarding proper use of plastic bags in the State
because a number of deaths of cattle on account of
consuming of plastic bags have been reported. The State
Government is directed to frame necessary guidelines on or
before 31-3-2007;
5. The Municipal Corporation is directed to ensure that used
plastic bags and other plastic materials must be separated
from other garbage and destroyed to prevent their
consumption by cattle, bulls and other animals;
It is a matter of common knowledge that the position noticed by the
Rajasthan High Court and this Hon'ble Court in respect of the city of
Jodhpur with regard to stray cattle being turned out from dairies so that
they can eat whatever was available on the streets and these animals
consuming plastic, is a situation that prevails across India. What the
Petitioners here seek to highlight is the extreme cruelty on a nationwide
scale that is being caused to bovine animals as a result of wide spread
plastic pollution and non-implementation of municipal solid waste
regulations. The material placed on record by the Petitioners also shows
the scale of violation of the animals natural bodily function in respect of
eating and digesting, resulting in a slow and extremely painful death of
animals in a cruel manner proscribed by law. The Petitioners have also
highlighted the potentially adverse health impact on human beings
resulting from the consumption of plastic waste.

G. GROUNDS
51.

In the foregoing part of this petition, a detailed narration of facts and the
relevant provisions of law have been set out. The grounds stated below
draw on this material and for the sake of brevity, particularise the

36

challenge. In the premises, the Petitioners submit that this Hon'ble Court
issue appropriate writs, orders and directions under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India on the following amongst other grounds which are
set out hereafter and are without prejudice to one and another: -

A.

The law in India mandates that the infliction of unnecessary pain or

suffering to animals is illegal. This is evident from provisions in
the Constitution of India as well as the PCA, 1960 which was
specifically enacted to prevent cruelty to animals. It is the statutory
duty of all persons having charge of animals as also of municipal
authorities and the Respondents to ensure that animals are not
exposed to situations where due to the neglect or apathy of human
agencies, animals suffers excruciating pain and eventually die. The
facts outlined above establish a very grim situation caused by a
combination of factors that is leading to plastic waste being
ingested by cows, bulls and other animals leading to the destruction
of the animals capacity to digest food and live with dignity on its
natural diet. Animals have a right to live with dignity and to
obtained nourishment from the environment without being
poisoned by plastic waste. The problem of plastic waste clogging
the digestive system of cows has been documented extensively by
the Petitioners on the basis of more than 50 rumenotomies
conducted on cows. As seen from the table set out above over 60
kgs of plastic waste were removed from some of the cows. Each
and every cow on which the rumenotomy was conducted had
plastic in its rumen. In most cases the recovery ranged between 30
and 60 kgs. The Petitioners have also placed on record material
from different parts of the country regarding the problem of plastic
waste being strewn and dumped on streets, open garbage bins and

37

other places that are accessible to cows, bulls and other animals
that are part of the Indian milieu.

Animals are required by law to be treated in a manner that does not

inflict cruelty or suffering on them. Animals cannot discern
between plastic bags and food. Due to the failure and neglect on
the part of the Respondent authorities, plastic waste is entering the
bodies of animals. The material produced by the Petitioners also
documents the acute pain experienced by suffering animals where
the quantity of plastic ingested is large. In the circumstances, it is
respectfully submitted that due to the inaction on the part of the
Respondents in discharging their Constitutional and statutory
functions, cruelty is being inflicted on animals without cause. It is
incumbent for the Respondents to take all necessary measures
(which they have failed and neglected to take) to ensure that
animals, particularly cows and bulls, do not come into contact with
plastic waste. It is submitted that it is necessary that appropriate
directions are issued to prevent the cruel treatment of animals.
Across the country on the sides of roads, highways, railway tracks;
around garbage receptacles or bins placed by municipal authorities;
and at places where garbage including food and kitchen waste is
discarded in the open, animals forage for food. Plastic waste is
found in huge quantities at such places. It is imperative that the
plastic waste is eliminated, particularly discarded plastic bags that
are ingested by cows, bulls and other animals.

B.

The Petitioners grievance with regard to the improper collection

and disposal of plastic waste by municipalities is having a direct
impact on the health and well being of cows and animals. In so far
as the Petitioners are aware, the indiscriminate dumping of plastic

38

waste on the scale prevalent in India and the interface of plastic

waste and cows is particularly acute in India. Moreover, having
regard to the interface between human beings and animals through
the consumption of dairy products and animal products by humans,
there is a clear possibility of adverse health impacts on human
beings. PCBs are harmful to human health as explained above. It is
probably a human carcinogen. It is documented that PCBs are
present in milk collected from stray cattle that have scavenged for
food in urban streets. There is a clear and present danger of an
adverse health impact on humans arising from animals, particularly
cows, ingesting plastic waste. Unless suitable orders are passed and
appropriate action taken, PCBs are likely to enter into the human
body with harmful impacts. The precautionary principle is
applicable to the present situation. The Respondents are duty
bound to anticipate the negative effect on health of PCBs entering
into the human body through dairy and animal products. They are
also duty bound to take immediate steps to prevent adverse health
impacts on citizens by eliminating the interface between animals
and plastic waste. It is submitted that the inaction and neglect on
the part of the Respondents threatens to violate and violates Article
21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the fundamental
right to healthy living.

C.

The inaction and failure on the part of the Respondents to ensure

the proper collection, removal and disposal of plastic bags and
plastic waste amounts to a violation of the PCA, 1960 as well as
specific obligations under the MSW Rules framed under the EPA.
Rule 7 of the MSW Rules mandates that the municipal solid waste
generated in a city or town must be managed and handled in
accordance with the compliance criteria and procedure laid down

39

in Schedule II. Schedule II expressly prohibits littering of solid

waste. The municipalities within the Respondent States have failed
and neglected to discharge their obligations under municipal
statutes for the proper collection, storage and disposal of plastic
waste. In particular, the obligation to ensure that stray animals are
not allowed around waste storage and disposal facilities as
specified in Schedule II, is being persistently breached. The
Respondents are violating the law by slack implementation or
neglect. Moreover, it is submitted that these failures that are taking
place across the country, amount to arbitrary inaction and violate
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
D.

The Petitioners submit that the provisions of MSW Rules and the
PW Rules framed under EPA make it clear that the Respondent
authorities are obliged to ensure that the disposal of plastic waste is
done in a safe manner and does not cause any harm. There is
specific obligation imposed on municipal authorities within the
states to ensure that stray animals are not allowed around waste
storage facilities which include facilities for the temporary
containment of municipal solid wastes. Despite the mandate of the
law, municipal authorities in the Respondent states are failing to
discharge their obligations resulting in cows and other animals
ingesting plastic from garbage bins and waste disposal sites.

E.

The Respondent authorities have failed to observe the Plastic

Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 which were
notified on 4th February 2011 by the Central Government. These
rules were amended on 2nd July 2011 by the Plastic Waste
(Management and Handling) (Amendment) Rules, 2011. Rule 5 of
PW Rules, inter alia prohibits all manufacture, stocking,
distribution or sale of a plastic bag which is less than 40 microns in

40

thickness. Rule 6 (c) requires that that the municipal authority shall
be responsible for setting up, operationalisation and coordination of
waste management system with regard to plastic waste. The
municipal authorities are required to ensure that no damage is
caused to the environment by the lack of plastic waste
management. The Respondents are required to ensure the safe
collection, storage, transport, processing and disposal of plastic
waste. It is submitted that the obligation for safe collection,
storage, etc. under Rule 6 of the PW Rules (as amended) implies
safe practices from the stand point of humans as well as animals.
This obligation ought to be interpreted in the context of
Constitutional duties as well as the Parliamentary mandate to
prevent cruelty to animals. The open garbage disposal system in
vogue across the country with plastic waste lying around such that
it can be ingested by stray animals violates the PW Rules and
ought to be discontinued forthwith.

F.

The consequence of the neglect on part of the Respondents in

faithfully implementing the MSW Rules and the PW Rules is that
there is no proper segregation or disposal of plastic waste. This
neglect is resulting in a continuing interface between animals and
plastic bags that have been discarded. It is respectfully submitted
that even the statutory provisions that exist are being ignored by
the Respondent authorities who are not enforcing the Rules framed
under the EPA.

The paramount duty of the State may be traced to Article 47 of the

Constitution of India which obliges government to raise and
improve the standard of public health. This is declared by Article
47 to be one of the primary duties of the State. This Court has in

41

numerous judgments issued directions to enforce this public duty

where statutory authorities and municipalities have failed and
neglected in their task of removing municipal solid waste. The
thrust of this petition is to place before the court material which
shows a country-wide failure on the part of the authorities to
effectively remove plastic waste and the direct impact this has on
animals. It is submitted that the evidence brought on the record by
the Petitioners clearly establishes the failure of the Respondents to
safeguard minimum standards of public health.

G.

Apart from domesticated animals such as cows and bulls being

adversely impacted by plastic waste, wild animals are also severely
affected. The Petitioners have placed on record affidavits,
testimonies and news reports with regard to wild animals suffering
due to ingestion of plastic bags. The case of turtles being harmed
by plastic bags along the East Coast of India shows how plastic
waste discarded into rivers, nallas and waterbodies find their way
into the ocean. A media report in the Deccan Chronicle on 15th
June, 2011 (annexed to this petition) shows monkeys rummaging
through plastic bags and records the opinion of G.H.M.C. Chief
Veterinary Officer, Mr. Venkateshwara Reddy who estimated that
nearly 5000 cattle, stray dogs and other animals die in Andhra
Pradesh after eating plastic carry bags containing food. A report in
the Times of India on 24th April, 2002 stated that the Bannerghatta
National Park near Bangalore had recently lost 18 sambars and
deer due to blockage of their rumenoratiular passage by thin plastic
eaten by the animals. Clogged plastic balls were found in the
stomachs of the dead animals. The India Environmental Portal
carries a report from the Pioneer (New Delhi edition dated

42

20.06.2002) stating that bits of plastic were found in the stomach of

a 3 year old leopard who was caught.

H. DEMAND FOR JUSTICE

52.

By separate letters dated February ____2012, the 4th Petitioner addressed

Respondent Nos. 1 and 19, highlighting some of the principal issues
raised in this petition and sought appropriate action to redress the
Petitioners grievances. In particular, the letters contained details of the
rumenotomies conducted on cows and urged the Respondent authorities
to take necessary action. The letter emphasized the national dimension of
the problem and requested urgent measures to prevent further harm to
animals and humans. Copies of the letters dated ______ February 2012
addressed to Respondent Nos. 1 and 19 are hereto annexed and marked as
Annexure P 30 and P-31 respectively.

53.

The Petitioners have not received any reply or response to their letters
dated ______February, 2012. The Petitioners have demanded justice but
justice has been denied to them. It is submitted that the Respondents are
under a public duty to take necessary steps to eliminate or substantially
reduce the problem outlined in this petition. The Respondents have failed
and neglected to discharge their public duties.

I. JURISDICTION
54.

This Petition is preferred directly to this Hon'ble Court under Article 32

of the Constitution of India having regard to the violation of Article 14
and 21 as explained above. Having regard to the nationwide dimension of
the issues raised in this Petition and the extreme cruelty being caused to
animals by destroying the integrity of their natural digestive system, this
Hon'ble Court ought to entertain and hear the present Petition. Moreover,

43

there is a severe potential adverse health impact that human beings are
likely to suffer as a consequence of animals ingesting plastic.

55.

The Petitioners State that the 2nd Petitioner Society of which the 5th
Petitioner is the President has filed writ petitions before the Andhra
Pradesh High Court relating to pollution caused by plastic bags. Writ
Petition No. 19225 of 2000 seeking a ban on the manufacture, sale, use
and circulation of plastic/polythene bags in commercial establishments
was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
on 27.12.2001. The High Court in its order recorded that having regard to
a government order dated 30.03.2001 which imposed restrictions on the
use of plastic carry bags in Andhra Pradesh, no further directions were
necessary. A copy of the order dated 27.12.2001 passed by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court is annexed as Annexure P - 32 hereto. More recently,
the 2nd Petitioner Society has filed Writ Petition 9852/2010 seeking a ban
on plastic bags and also seeking directions for the proper collection of
waste by municipal administrations within the State of Andhra Pradesh.
This writ petition is pending before the High Court and no effective
directions have been passed till date.

56.

The issues raised in the present petition and the factual foundation drawn
from the experience from veterinary surgeons from across the country,
make this petition distinct and different from the earlier cases, though
there may be some areas of overlap. The problem is of a national
magnitude and is not confined to State of Andhra Pradesh alone. The
present petition is being filed as a public interest litigation and it is
respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may admit the case and
issue appropriate directions.

44

J. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

57.

Plastic bags are not biodegradable. The bags when discarded are easily
ingested by animals. This causes acute pain to animals, chokes their
digestive system, and frequently results in death. The treatment of
animals in this manner is cruel and harsh and is proscribed. It is submitted
that urgent injunctive relief and directions as more particularly prayed for
hereafter are necessary and are in the public interest. For the reasons set
out above, the Petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case which
necessitates the grant of interlocutory relief. The balance of convenience
is clearly in favour of the Petitioners and the interest of the public at
large.

K. RELIEF
58.

In the premises, the Petitioners pray:

a)

That this Hon'ble Court issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, ordering and
directing: (1)

the 1st Respondent to issue appropriate directions under

Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
prohibiting the use, sale and disposal of plastic bags in all
municipalities and municipal corporations;

(2)

the 1st Respondent to issue appropriate directions to all State

Governments and municipalities / municipal corporations to
forthwith prohibit and /or to phase out in a time bound
manner the open garbage disposal system and to remove
open garbage receptacles;

(3)

the 1st Respondent to issue appropriate directions to State

Governments, municipal corporations and municipalities
requiring them to implement door to door garbage collection

45

and to ensure that waste storage facilities are built and

managed such that animals are not allowed to move around
in the vicinity of such facilities;
(4)

the 1st Respondent issue appropriate directions to State

Government / Municipal Corporation and municipalities to
require segregation of all plastic waste across the municipal
solid waste collection and disposal chain/systems; and

(5)

the Respondent State Governments to issue appropriate

directions prohibiting the use, sale and disposal of plastic
bags in all municipalities and municipal corporations within
their territory.

(6)

the 1st Respondent and the 19th Respondent to provide

animal shelters, rescue homes and veterinary services for
stray cattle to provide amelioration for suffering animals;

(b)

Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honble
Court be pleased to order and direct:
(1)

That proper garbage receptacles be provided in all cities and

towns covered by the Municipal Solid Waste (Management
and Handling) Rules, 2000 such that waste is not exposed to
the open atmosphere and stray animals are not allowed to
move around the waste storage facilities;

(2)

That all Respondent States and Municipalities do conduct a

survey of the existing waste collection and disposal facilities
in their jurisdictions and prepare time bound plans for door
to door collection of municipal waste;

(3)

That in all cities and towns, door to door collection of waste

be implemented within 6 months or such period as this Court
deems appropriate;

(4)

That the 1st Respondent and the Respondent States do

implement the provisions of Schedule II for the collection,

46

segregation and disposal of municipal solid waste within 6

months or such time as this Court deems appropriate;
(5)

That the 1st Respondent and the 19th Respondent provide

animal shelters, rescue homes and veterinary services for
stray cattle to provide amelioration for suffering animals;

(c)

Provide for such further and other relief, both interim as well as
final, as the facts and circumstances of the case require; and

(d)

Costs