Even Though Animals Don’t Have Rights, State Has Duty To Protect Them: Madras HC Invokes Parens Patriae Jurisdiction To Direct TANGEDCO To Compensate For Cow's Death By Electrocution
The Madras High Court has ruled that a man is entitled to compensation after his cow died from electrocution caused by electricity leaking into a puddle near a transformer.
A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan said, “even though animals do not have rights, State and its instrumentalities and local bodies have duty towards them and this duty can be enforced by courts. I hold that the State, its instrumentalities and local bodies including corporations, municipalities and panchayats are obliged to ensure a safe environment.”
The Court invoked the principle of parens patriae, which allows courts to act in the best interest of those unable to protect themselves, including animals. The Court added, “If death takes place due to electrocution, the cause is visible. Death due to consumption of plastic is not apparent. In the case of the former, death is instantaneous. In the case of the latter, the death comes gradually and insidiously accompanied by severe pain. The law that speaks of prevention of cruelty to animals is silent on this. Time has come to take note of this disturbing reality and remedy the situation. Courts have a duty to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to take care of rights of animals since they are unable to take care of themselves”
The Court pointed out the increasing risks to animals, highlighting that the natural lifespan of cows is often diminished due to plastic consumption, which leads to a slow and painful death. In contrast, the death of the cow in this case was immediate and resulted from clear electrocution—a situation that is readily apparent and distinct from the gradual suffering caused by plastic ingestion.
The Court remarked that the legal framework governing the prevention of cruelty to animals does not adequately address these issues, indicating the need for reform.
Advocate A. Saravanan appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate P.T. Thambidurai appeared for the Respondents.
In this particular incident, the Court noted that the cow stepped into a puddle adjacent to a 100KVA power transformer that lacked proper fencing. The leakage of electricity, confirmed by a post-mortem report, was directly responsible for the cow's death. Consequently, the petitioner sought compensation for the loss.
The Court added, “If it is established that death of cows has taken place due to consumption of plastic, action for damages will lie against the erring body/entity. TANGEDCO is obliged to put in place the safety measures mentioned above so that unnatural deaths do not take place either due to leakage of electricity or by snapping of live wires.”
Given that there were no factual disputes in the case, the Court directed TANGEDCO to pay the petitioner Rs. 50,000 within eight weeks. The ruling underscores the importance of ensuring safety for all living beings and the legal obligations of state bodies to uphold this standard.
Cause Title: T.Muthu Irulappan v. The State & Ors.
Appearance:
Respondents: Advocates P.T. Thambidurai, S. Deenadhayalan, A. Albert James
