Animal Cruelty And Its Recognition Under Nepalese Criminal Law
🐾 1. Introduction
Animal cruelty is the act of causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or death to animals, whether by physical harm, neglect, or exploitation. In Nepal, the legal framework addressing animal cruelty is still evolving. The issue intertwines traditional values, religious respect for animals, and modern legal protections inspired by international norms.
🏛️ 2. Legal Recognition of Animal Cruelty in Nepal
Animal cruelty in Nepal is primarily addressed through:
A. Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 51(g)(3) – The State must adopt policies to protect, promote, and make sustainable use of natural resources, wildlife, and biodiversity.
Article 30(1) – Every person has the right to live in a clean and healthy environment, which implicitly includes the humane treatment of animals.
B. Criminal (Code) Act, 2074 (2017)
While the Criminal Code does not explicitly criminalize “animal cruelty” as a standalone offence, it includes several provisions indirectly related to animal welfare:
Section 290–293 – Prohibit killing or injuring animals belonging to others without consent.
Section 295 – Punishes acts that endanger public health and safety, including cruelty during transport or slaughter.
Section 306 – Addresses mischief and destruction of property, which can apply when animals are treated cruelly as “property”.
C. Animal Health and Livestock Services Act, 2055 (1999)
Provides regulatory framework for animal welfare, vaccination, and health standards.
Prohibits unnecessary harm during handling, slaughter, or transport.
D. Local Governance Act, 2074 (2017)
Empowers local bodies (Municipalities and Rural Municipalities) to regulate stray animals, manage slaughterhouses, and ensure animal-friendly practices.
E. International Influence
Nepal is a signatory to several international environmental and animal welfare conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), influencing domestic policy.
⚖️ 3. Case Laws on Animal Cruelty in Nepal
Below are six landmark or illustrative cases that demonstrate the recognition and evolution of animal protection within Nepalese jurisprudence.
Case 1: Animal Welfare Network Nepal v. Government of Nepal (2068 BS / 2011 AD)
Issue: Animal sacrifices during Gadhimai festival and other public rituals.
Facts: Petitioners, including the Animal Welfare Network Nepal, filed a writ petition under Article 133 of the Constitution, seeking a ban on animal sacrifices during religious festivals on grounds of cruelty.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the cultural and religious significance of such rituals but emphasized the State’s duty to minimize cruelty and ensure that religious freedom does not justify unnecessary suffering.
Held: The Court directed the government to develop regulations ensuring humane treatment during religious sacrifices and to promote awareness about alternative rituals.
Significance: The case recognized that animal cruelty, even under religious context, must be balanced against animal welfare principles.
Case 2: Prakash Mani Sharma (Forum for Protection of Public Interest) v. Government of Nepal (2065 BS / 2008 AD)
Issue: Inhumane treatment of animals during transportation and slaughter.
Facts: A public interest litigation alleged that livestock were being transported in overcrowded, unsafe vehicles without food or water.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that animals are sentient beings and deserve humane treatment. It directed the concerned ministries to formulate standards for animal transport and slaughter, emphasizing that cruelty constitutes a violation of the right to environment under Article 30.
Significance: This case expanded the constitutional interpretation of “environmental rights” to include animal welfare.
Case 3: Som Prasad Paneru v. Government of Nepal (2072 BS / 2015 AD)
Issue: Killing of stray dogs by municipal authorities.
Facts: Kathmandu Metropolitan City conducted mass killings of stray dogs citing public health concerns (rabies control).
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that killing stray dogs is not a lawful means of population control and violates humane treatment obligations. It ordered the government to adopt sterilization and vaccination programs instead.
Significance: The decision recognized compassionate and scientific methods of animal management as part of good governance.
Case 4: Animal Nepal v. Department of Livestock Services (2070 BS / 2013 AD)
Issue: Conditions of working animals (especially brick kiln donkeys and horses).
Facts: The petitioner highlighted the abuse of donkeys and horses in brick factories—overloading, starvation, and beatings.
Judgment: The Court directed the Department of Livestock to inspect working conditions and implement minimum welfare standards, including rest, shelter, and medical care.
Significance: The Court recognized working animals as laborers deserving humane treatment, not just as economic property.
Case 5: Rajendra Prasad Dhakal v. Government of Nepal (2069 BS / 2012 AD)
Issue: Legal status of wildlife protection and illegal poaching.
Facts: The case concerned the poaching of endangered species (tigers and rhinos) and weak enforcement of wildlife laws.
Judgment: The Supreme Court directed the State to strengthen wildlife crime penalties and ensure that offenders are prosecuted under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 (1973).
Significance: Though focused on wildlife, the Court reinforced the broader state duty to protect all animals under environmental and criminal law.
Case 6: Bal Bahadur Khatri v. Municipality of Pokhara (2076 BS / 2019 AD)
Issue: Municipal slaughterhouse cruelty.
Facts: The petitioner alleged unhygienic and cruel slaughterhouse practices violating animal health standards.
Judgment: The Court held that municipal authorities must enforce humane slaughter methods and comply with Animal Health and Livestock Service Regulations.
Significance: The judgment reinforced municipal responsibility in protecting animals from cruelty during slaughter and inspection processes.
🧩 4. Summary of Legal Position
| Aspect | Legal Provision / Case | Recognition |
|---|---|---|
| Cruelty as Offence | Criminal Code 2017, Sections 290–295 | Indirectly punishes harm to animals |
| Religious Sacrifice | Animal Welfare Network Nepal v. GoN | Limited by humane treatment obligation |
| Transport & Slaughter | Prakash Mani Sharma v. GoN | Humane standards required |
| Stray Dogs | Som Prasad Paneru v. GoN | Killing banned; adopt humane control |
| Working Animals | Animal Nepal v. DoLS | Rights to rest and medical care recognized |
| Wildlife Protection | Rajendra Prasad Dhakal v. GoN | Poaching = serious crime |
| Municipal Role | Bal Bahadur Khatri v. Pokhara Municipality | Local enforcement responsibility |
🌏 5. Conclusion
While Nepalese criminal law does not yet contain a specific, comprehensive “Animal Cruelty Act”, judicial interpretation and constitutional principles have elevated animal welfare into the domain of fundamental rights and environmental justice.
Through progressive case law, Nepalese courts have:
Recognized animals as sentient beings,
Directed the State to adopt humane policies, and
Interpreted constitutional and statutory provisions in favor of compassion and ecological harmony.
RELATED Blog
0 comments