New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court last week quashed a magistrate’s order to return nine rescued dogs to their owner, who is accused of animal cruelty and sexual abuse, saying that animals are living beings entitled to dignity, compassion and protection from cruelty.
In the order pronounced last week and uploaded on the court’s website on Tuesday, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said that sending rescued dogs back to the man accused of abusing them defeated the very purpose of animal welfare law.
“Such an order stands in direct conflict with the very object of the law meant to shield vulnerable beings from cruelty,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
“Protection of animal life is… not an act of charity. It is an affirmation of constitutional morality and recognition that the arc of justice must extend even to those who cannot knock at the doors of this Court by themselves,” the court said.
The court was responding to a petition by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) challenging the magistrate court’s interim order granting interim custody of six golden retrievers and three Shih Tzus to their owner despite being accused of repeated assault, sexual abuse, gross neglect, and illegal breeding.
The court held that the magistrate’s reliance on property/custody precedents was misplaced, given the gravity of the material on record, and that “ethical treatment of animals” was a foundational principle of civilised jurisprudence that the magistrate had lost sight of.
The magistrate’s order, the court concluded, “cannot be permitted to survive even for a moment in the eye of law. It deserves, and must meet, complete obliteration”.
“The measure of a civilised society is often reflected, not merely as to how it treats its fellow humans, but as to how it extends mercy and justice to the voiceless creatures that inhabit its shared world,” the court said, adding that every act of animal cruelty is “a blemish upon the collective human conscience”.
Accordingly, the court directed that the magistrate’s decision returning the dogs to the owner be quashed and that the nine dogs remain under the care and custody of PETA. It said this arrangement would continue until the investigation was completed.
Also Read: ‘Thrashed, bagged & dumped’: Mumbai society dog’s suspected killing sparks outrage, police probe
History of the case and the court’s findings
The case arose in February, when PETA India received information from a neighbour that nine dogs at a Bengaluru residence were being indiscriminately beaten and subjected to heinous assault and sexual abuse. PETA then lodged a criminal complaint with the police.
The investigating officer sought the assistance of animal welfare organisations for the rehabilitation and custody of the seized dogs. The dogs were placed with Bengaluru NGO Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA).
Further, a criminal case was registered against the owner under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) for committing cruelty as well as Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for committing mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering any animal useless) and Section 62 for allegedly attempting to commit a serious crime.
While the investigation was underway, the owner moved an interim application seeking custody of the nine dogs. The magistrate allowed the request in April 2026, directing that the dogs be returned to the owner while the case was pending.
The magistrate’s order proceeded despite the investigating officer’s objection to the dogs’ release. His report, filed on 6 April 2026, said that the investigation had revealed that “the petitioner/accused has assaulted the dogs and if released there are chances of repeating the same and also there are chances of selling the dogs”.
PETA challenged the order in the high court, arguing that returning rescued animals to the very person accused of perpetrating cruelty upon them was unconscionable.
It further contended that animals in such circumstances ought to remain with welfare organisations equipped to rehabilitate and care for them.
The High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the state, supported PETA’s position, arguing that “the dogs must be in a place where they are rehabilitated appropriately” and hence the application should be allowed.
The accused opposed the challenge, arguing that he lived alone and was “taking care of the dogs very well”. He also claimed that the allegations were “a figment of the imagination of the petitioner”.
The high court referred to PETA’s complaint, which alleged “extraordinary cruelty” to the dogs. According to the complaint, the dogs were routinely beaten with sticks, pipes and whips, often with such “savage force that the implements themselves broke; that the animals cried in agony; that they were confined in deplorable and unhygienic surroundings; and that the female dogs were allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation”.
“Such allegations, if true, reveal conduct that is not merely unlawful but profoundly antithetical to every civilizational notion of compassion and humane coexistence,” it added.
Photographs and videos were placed before the high court in support of PETA’s case. After examining the material on record and hearing the two sides, Justice Nagaprasanna said the law’s primary concern must be the welfare of the animals, not the restoration of possession to the owner.
“In the teeth of such compelling material, this Court finds itself unable to fathom how the concerned Court could have directed the return of the dogs to the very person alleged to have perpetrated the cruelty,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
He added that the investigation was still underway against the respondent, “who faces not merely allegations of physical assault upon the animals but also accusations of sexual abuse—allegations which, if true, reveal a degree of depravity that would shock even the most hardened conscience”.
Relinquishment deeds
A significant part of the high court’s reasoning rested on written relinquishment deeds executed by the accused, Ramesh, who is said to have voluntarily surrendered ownership and custody of the dogs to PETA.
In those deeds, he admitted that he had treated the animals cruelly, beating them with sticks and pipes “to a point that the pipe breaks”. He further stated that the animals were “injured, in bad shape” and that he had “failed in ensuring their safety and protection”. He also declared that he had no further ownership or claim over them once they were handed over.
Referring to the relinquishment deeds in his order, Justice Nagaprasanna said that the sequence of events presents a “troubling incongruity”.
He said the deeds assumed “considerable significance” as the accused himself executed the formal deeds of relinquishment, voluntarily surrendering ownership and custody of all nine dogs in favour of the petitioner.
“These relinquishment deeds are not mere formal papers; they contain admissions of striking gravity,” he said.
The court held that animals are living beings entitled to dignity, compassion and protection from cruelty.
The court was equally emphatic on the legal status of animals.
“Animals, though bereft of human speech, are not bereft of sentience, suffering, or the capacity to experience pain. The law, in its civilizational wisdom, has long ceased to view animals as mere chattels, existing solely for human utility. They are not,” it said.
The PCA Act’s penalty for cruelty is a meagre fine of Rs 10-50 for a first offence, rising to Rs 25-100 for a repeat offence within three years; one of the most frequently criticised features of India’s animal welfare law.
BNS Section 325 consolidates two separate Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions, eliminating the earlier distinction between animals based on their monetary value but also leaving no explicit provision for bestiality or the sexual abuse of animals.
PETA’s reaction
PETA India said in a statement it recommended that perpetrators of animal abuse “undergo a psychiatric evaluation and receive counselling, as abusing animals indicates a deep psychological disturbance. Research shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals are often repeat offenders who move on to hurting other animals, including humans”.
Shubhangi Tripathi, Senior Legal Counsel at PETA, thanked the Karnataka High Court for putting the welfare of the dogs at the forefront and sending a clear message that cruelty to animals will not be tolerated.
“In protecting the dogs from further abuse, the Court has rightly acknowledged cruelty to animals to be a form of depravity and a smear upon society.”
The high court’s observations are consistent with a prominent line of judicial thinking that has, over the years, moved steadily towards recognising animal sentience as a legally relevant consideration.
By treating the case as one about dignity, sentience and constitutional morality rather than mere possession, the Karnataka High Court has added a strong, rights-based layer to the jurisprudence on animal cruelty.
“Our judiciary is the last vestige of hope for the animals of the country. One would think that bestiality is confined to beasts, but sadly, it is common amongst us homo sapiens,” senior Advocate Percival Billimoria told ThePrint.
“Cases such as this reinforce the need for stricter punishment for cruelty towards animals,” he said.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)