________________
To say that killing itself should be compassionate without much pain or cruelty, is only to insult life and protect form. It is a first rank contradiction. To use violence and to take away a bubbling life is per-se cruelty.
102. Elsewhere, a question was raised, whether, when wild life is protected, other domesticated and other animals can be ignored. In my view, after the conceding of constitutional place for protection of living creatures one life cannot be discriminated, in prefereance to other ono. In my view, now, State should enact the Animal Life (Protection) Act, by replacing Wild Life (Protection) Act1972, and by bringing the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act-1960, under the same Act. The new law should clearly and sharply define the conditions and circumstances in which only animals could be destroyed for food, in the slaughter house.
103. As was discussed earlier, environmental destructive activities and practices are carried out in the namo of freedom of trade and profession. State should empower itself to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of preservation of environment, by introducing an Amendment in the Constitution to amend Article 19(6). In my view, the vico of environmentally destructive practices and acts, for whatever reasons, are not at par with other social vices or evils, which could be allowed to rest in society in the hope of eradiction by passage of time on the spread of education ofc. Effect on environment are often irreversible, unlike effects of other social evils. Environmental jurisprudence is to be restatod or created. This Court, therefore, suggests Environmentally Destructive Trade Practices (Restriction & Regulation Commission. A national body of Scientists and other concerned people should constantly go on defining and redefining the Critical Line or Laxman Rekha.in respect of use etc. or various national resources of environment, consistent with sustainable development.. Such a body could independently take cognizence, make orders and recommend to be Government. with a right of appeal to National Environmental Tribunal or Supreme Court.
103a. An Environmental Procedure Code is also appears to be immediate need of the day, as the Ordinary Civil Court and Civil Procedure Code are not suitable in many ways for trial of disputes for protection of environment, immediately, when needed.
104. It is equally true to accuse and easy to say that, if we breath invisible creatures and walk on them or eat them in micro-forms and that bacteria are useful, how is it possible to fulfill the duty by citizens or State? No principle or value is for the sake of it only. There is a legal maxim that law does not demand impossible and, therefore, impossibility of avoidable of killing to many is no ground to intentionally and openly close the eyes to avoideable killings of large livestock population. It can also be said that, plants too have life. It is true, but there is no Constitutional legal duty or obligation towards plant life, except to the extent of Forest Act etc. and, therefore, the objection is invalid. It is essentially a question of values of culture, not of logic alone.
105. Environmental conservation demand that killings for food are strictly need based rather than greed based.
106. This order is principally directed against the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry. and Ministry of Environment, who have chosen to remain ONLOOKERS totho situation, and have not filed their case despite notice and having engaged a counsel.
107. The observations and suggestions etc. have been made, keeping in view the vital interest of community and nation in the environment and in the interest of the welfare of the animals and our cultural heritage, and particularly the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shri Sachidanand Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109
23