No fear of animal cruelty law because of low fines: J&K High Court calls for heavier penalties, jail time

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently called for stricter jail time and heavier penalties for offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 [Anwar Jan v. Union Territory of J&K].

The Bench observed that animals experience pain, stress and fear like humans, while noting that the existing legal framework continues to treat animals largely as objects or property.

It also expressed concern over the penalties prescribed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, observing that fines for certain acts of cruelty can be as low as ₹10 to ₹50.

"Since these fines are so low, there is almost no fear of the law, which is why we see people committing acts of abuse just to post videos on social media for views. While the courts have agreed that animals deserve to live without suffering, the written law has not changed enough yet. For real change to happen, the law needs to officially recognize the animal feelings and replace those tiny fines with strict jail time and heavy penalties,” the Court observed.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani made the observations while allowing an appeal against the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition filed by Anwar Jan (Choudhary), who had been detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

The record showed that Jan had been involved in several criminal cases and was also accused in multiple bovine-smuggling cases. He had previously faced PSA detention as well.

The Court said that bovine animal smuggling is not merely a criminal offence but can also hurt religious sentiments and has the potential to disturb public tranquillity. However, it clarified that even in such cases, authorities must strictly comply with the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention.

The Division Bench found several serious defects in the latest detention order. It noted that the appellant was already in custody but the detention order did not demonstrate awareness of his custody or record any compelling reason showing a real possibility of his release and subsequent involvement in prejudicial activities.

The Court also noted an unexplained 18-day delay between the passing of the detention order on December 1, 2025 and its execution on December 19, 2025.

The Bench concluded that the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind and violation of mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards. It accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed the PSA detention order.

Senior Advocate MA Goni, assisted by Advocate Tanveer Ahmad, appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate Ilyas Laway appeared for the Union Territory.

[Read order]