Why animal abuse must be under the purview of Juvenile Justice Act

The recent past is witness to a horrific rise in instances of vile and brutal acts of violence against animals, perpetrated with unnerving impunity. However, those who commit animal abuse can go scot-free upon the payment of a paltry sum of Rs 50.

This fine, imposed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, has not been amended since its inception in 1960.

The rising demand for an amendment resulting in meaningful punishment for acts of animal cruelty under the PCA is reason to hope for a better future for animals, and yet, there is cause for despair.

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, was replaced by the new and strengthened Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as of December 31, 2015.

Also read: Do you know how little Chennai man will pay for throwing dog off terrace?

The new act has special provisions to deal with children in conflict with the law, between the ages of 16 to 18, who commit heinous offences.

In the act, heinous offences are defined as those that attract a minimum punishment of seven years. Those children between the ages of 16 to 18 found guilty of committing heinous offences are assessed and thereupon tried as adults, thus deterring children from committing serious crimes.

But how barbaric does an act have to be to define it as heinous?

Recently, a video of a group of boys burning puppies alive went viral. If the act in itself wasn’t gruesome enough, those who had the heart to pay attention to the audio will note that the act was premeditated and done for some incomprehensible and sadistic pleasure.

But according to the new Juvenile Justice Act, burning puppies alive or any other form of animal cruelty does not constitute a heinous offence.

Also read: How India can pay the perfect tribute to Shaktiman

Animal abuse, including the gruesome puppy burning, is an offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860, that attracts a maximum imprisonment of five years. It’s also an offence under the PCA Act, where the punishment is only Rs 50.

This incident adds to the increasing list of instances of extreme cruelty against animals committed by children. It’s a topic that the authorities need to look at closely because several studies have shown that juveniles who commit animal cruelty are more prone to commit violent crimes as adults.

For example, a study of convicted male sexual homicide perpetrators in the United States by Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas (1988) found that 36 per cent self-reported abusing animals as children, and 46 per cent noted they abused animals as adolescents.

In a study by Schiff, Louw, and Ascione (1999) that surveyed 117 men incarcerated in a South African prison, found that 65 per cent of the men who committed aggressive crimes had committed animal cruelty compared with only 10.5 per cent of the non-aggressive inmates.

Considering that the inclination to wilfully subject animals to acts of violence has been proven to be linked with a propensity to display violence towards humans, it is now imperative to amend the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to include animal abuse in the definition of heinous offences.

Offences involving moral turpitude

Indian criminal law uses the phrase "moral turpitude" to describe conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.

Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general. These acts of moral turpitude may harm the interests of the community at large.

The incident of Shaktiman, the loyal police horse who was allegedly beaten by an MLA and later died of his injuries, shocked the conscience of the entire nation.

The consequence faced by the perpetrator? A fine of Rs 50.

While more than 30 offences described in the Indian Penal Code fall under offences of moral turpitude, including murder, theft and perjury, the definition has found no mention of offences relating to animal abuse. 

Mahatma Gandhi said in a quote repeated around the world, "The greatness of a Nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

If the moral progress of an entire nation can be judged by how its animals are being treated, why shouldn’t the way one treats an animal judge his or her morality?

Those accused and convicted of offences involving moral turpitude are liable to be debarred from holding public offices, from sitting on the boards of trusts, from holding such positions that they might use to inflict further harm to the society they live in. Offences against animals should be under the same umbrella.

It is time we acknowledged the predisposition to violence within people that enables them to commit such acts of brutality against helpless animals and make sure that they are held accountable for it.

Or else, we are at risk of putting society as a whole at the mercy of the conscience of a person who showed little or no remorse to begin with.