The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday underscored that the protection of animal life is not an act of charity but an affirmation of constitutional morality, while dealing with a case involving allegations that nine dogs were subjected to cruelty while in their owner's custody [People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals Vs State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna proceeded to set aside an order directing the return of the nine dogs to the owner. The Court allowed a plea by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) challenging the order.

The Court held that the six golden retrievers and three shih tzu dogs presently under the care of an NGO, Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA) would continue to remain there, while an investigation in the allegations of animal cruelty against the owner continues.

“The order of the concerned court which directs return of the dogs, cannot sustain even for a minute. It should meet its obliteration,” said Justice Nagaprasanna.

In its order, the Court emphasised that animals too deserve a life of dignity.

"The law now recognizes the animals also to be living beings entitled to dignity, compassion, protection from cruelty. The measure of a civilised society is often reflected, not merely as to how it treats its fellow humans, but as to how it extends mercy and justice to the voiceless creatures that inhabit in its shared world."

Every act of animal cruelty is a blemish upon collective human conscience, the Court added.

"Protection of animal life is, therefore, not an act of charity. It is an affirmation of constitutional morality and recognition that the arc of justice must extend even to those who cannot knock at the doors of this Court by themselves ... Dogs which are in the care and concern of CUPA shall continue there," the Court ordered.

PETA had approached the High Court challenging an order dated April 25, 2026 passed by a magistrate allowing the owner's application for the return of the nine dogs during the pendency of an investigation into animal cruelty allegations against him.

PETA said that it had received information from a neighbour that the dogs were being indiscriminately beaten, subjected to heinous assault and sexually abused.

Acting on the information, PETA had lodged a complaint with the police on February 15, alleging repeated assault, sexual abuse, gross neglect and illegal breeding of the dogs at the owner's residence.

Based on the complaint, a criminal case was registered for offences punishable under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 325 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Investigation commenced on February 18 and the investigating officer sought assistance from animal welfare organisations for rehabilitation and custody of the rescued dogs.

During the pendency of the investigation, the owner sought interim custody of the animals before the trial court, which allowed his application. PETA challenged that order before the High Court.

PETA contended that despite grave allegations of animal abuse, the magistrate had directed release of the dogs in favour of the very person accused of perpetrating such acts. It argued that rescued animals should remain with welfare organisations equipped to rehabilitate and care for them.

The owner's counsel opposed the plea, submitting that he lived alone and had raised the nine dogs with care. It was argued that the animals were healthy. It was further contended the allegations against the owner were a figment of PETA’s imagination since no written complaint had been made by any individual to the organisation.

The High Court Government Pleader, representing the State, supported PETA’s stand, submitting that the dogs ought to remain in an environment where they could be properly rehabilitated.

After examining photographs, screenshots and videos shown during the hearing, Justice Nagaprasanna expressed shock at the trial court’s order.

“A perusal at the order shocks the conscience of the court. The magistrate appears to have lost sight of the fact that ethical treatment to the animals is imperative,” the Court said.

The judge noted that the material placed before the Court depicted the owner repeatedly beating the dogs and treating them like chattels.

“What the photographs or screenshots depict in the case at hand video of which was also shown to the court the owner of the dog has repeatedly beaten every dog and has treated those dogs like chattels that he can deal with as and how he wants. In the teeth of this video or the photograph, it is un-understandable as to how the concerned court pass an order directing the dogs to be returned to the perpetrator of the crime,” the Court remarked.

Justice Nagaprasanna, therefore, quashed the order of the magistrate and emphasised that the measure of a civilised society is reflected through how it treats animals.

“Animals, though bereft of human speech, are not bereft of sentience, suffering, or the capacity to experience pain. The law, in its civilizational wisdom, has long ceased to view animals as mere chattels, existing solely for human utility. They are not," the Court held.

The Court directed that the nine dogs shall continue to remain in the care and custody of CUPA, pending the completion of the investigation.

Advocate Pradeep Nayak appeared for PETA.

The owner was represented by Advocates Abhishek R Huddar and Madan KS.