Asst. Prof. Adv. Mrs. Gina S. Korgaonkar
Abstract:
India’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) is intended to be a shield for vulnerable creatures. However, a stark contrast exists between its noble aims and the reality on the ground. This article, focusing on Goa as a microcosm, examines the Act’s implementation, revealing systemic weaknesses. Through a blend of legal analysis and on-the-ground insights gathered from animal welfare organizations, law enforcement, and the public, we expose the challenges hindering the Act’s effectiveness. These include a lack of public awareness, inadequate enforcement mechanisms, resource shortages, and fundamental inefficiencies. Ultimately, we argue for comprehensive reforms – legislative amendments, increased investment, and robust public awareness campaigns – to transform the PCA Act from a symbolic gesture into a genuine instrument of animal protection.
Keywords: Animal Welfare, Animal Cruelty, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, Animal Rights, Indian Judiciary, NGOs, Goa, Animal Protection
I. Introduction
India’s relationship with its animal population is complex. While cultural and religious traditions often emphasize respect for life, economic pressures and societal attitudes frequently lead to exploitation and neglect. Laws like the PCA Act and the Wildlife Protection Act represent a commitment to ethical animal treatment. Yet, these laws are often more impressive on paper than in practice.
This article delves into the real-world impact of the PCA Act, using Goa as a case study. Goa, known for its tourism and vibrant culture, provides a valuable lens through which to examine the Act’s operational effectiveness. We will analyse the roles of key stakeholders, including NGOs, law enforcement, and the judiciary, to identify the barriers preventing the Act from achieving its intended purpose.
II. Why This Matters: The Cry of the Unheard
The ineffective implementation of animal welfare laws represents a systemic failure. It’s not simply a matter of legal loopholes; it reflects a broader societal problem. This research goes beyond a dry legal analysis, exploring the complex interplay of social, economic, cultural, and political factors that contribute to the problem. By amplifying the voices of abused and neglected animals, this article seeks to spark meaningful change. Change could include legislative amendments, improved enforcement, heightened public awareness, and better resource allocation, potentially serving as a model for other regions facing similar animal welfare challenges.
III. Testing the Waters: Hypothesis
Our investigation rests on two interconnected hypotheses:
Reported Cases Rising? We initially hypothesized that officially reported animal cruelty cases are on the rise, suggesting growing public awareness.
The Tip of the Iceberg? Crucially, we also hypothesize that a significant proportion of cruelty cases go unreported, thus distorting official statistics and indicating fundamental inadequacies in current reporting mechanisms.
These hypotheses, taken together, are designed to expose the gap between the PCA Act’s intent and its practical implementation.
IV. The Authorities in Action (or Inaction?)
The PCA Act assigns responsibilities to various authorities, including the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and local NGOs. The AWBI provides crucial support through funding and policy guidance. In Goa, numerous AWBI-recognized and private NGOs offer essential services like animal birth control and rescue operations.
However, these organizations often struggle with limited funding, weak enforcement powers, and a general lack of public awareness. This creates a situation where cruel practices – inhumane living conditions, painful scientific experimentation, and blatant acts of abuse – continue to thrive. A more robust implementation of the Act, coupled with a shift in societal attitudes, is urgently needed.
| Sr.no | Name of the NGO | Registration no. | Address. |
| 1. | Goa Animal Welfare Trust | 441 GO001/1999 | Near Ambedkar Circle Cacora, Curchorem-Goa. |
| 2. | People for Animals-Goa | 442 GO002/1999 | St.Britto’s Apartment, Feira Alta Mapusa, Goa |
| 3. | Panjim Animal Welfare Society | 443 GO003/1999 | Corporation City of Panaji, Goa. |
| 4. | International Animal Rescue, | GO006/2005 | Animal Tracks, Mardungo Vaddo, Assagao, Goa. |
| 5. | The Green Cross | GO007/2006 | H.No.128, Near Datta Temple Mapusa,Goa. |
V. Numbers Don’t Lie? Analyzing the Data
To assess the PCA Act’s impact in Goa, we analyzed statistical data collected from 2020 to 2024, focusing on the Bardez region of North Goa. Data was gathered through on-site visits to animal welfare organizations, information obtained from local police stations, and community engagement initiatives. Our analysis focused on three key metrics:
- Cases reported to animal welfare organizations.
- Cases registered by the police.
- Cases brought before the courts.
Table 1: People for Animals (PFA) – Bardez, Goa (2020-2024)
Information On Of Prevention of Cruelty against Animals by People for Animals (PFA).
TABLE NO.01
| Year | Number of cases of Cruelty to Animals. | Number of Cases reported to Police Station | Number of cases going on in Court. | Percentage of cases under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. |
| 2020 | 12 | 03 | 05 | 41.66% |
| 2021 | 14 | 01 | 04 | 28.57% |
| 2022 | 23 | 00 | 04 | 17.39% |
| 2023 | 16 | 01 | 05 | 31.25% |
| 2024 | 08 | 00 | 04 | 50% |
| Total | 73 | 05 | 23 | 31.50% |
Source: The office of People for Animal, Mapusa-Goa, visited on 24th May 2024.
Analysis: The data from People for Animals reveals a fluctuating trend in reported animal cruelty cases. While there was a peak in 2022, overall numbers remain inconsistent. Alarmingly, a very small percentage of reported cases result in police reports or court proceedings. This disparity suggests a significant bottleneck in the enforcement process. The low percentage of cases actually pursued under the PCA Act (31.50% on average) raises serious concerns about its effectiveness.
Information about Prevention of Cruelty against Animals by International Animal Rescue.
TABLE NO.02
| Year | Number of cases of Cruelty to Animals. | Number of Cases reported to Police Station | Number of cases going on in Court. | Percentage of cases under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. |
| 2020 | 09 | 01 | 02 | 22.22% |
| 2021 | 05 | 02 | 04 | 80% |
| 2022 | 06 | 00 | 04 | 66.66% |
| 2023 | 07 | 01 | 05 | 71% |
| 2024 | 09 | 02 | 07 | 77% |
| Total | 36 | 06 | 22 | 61.11% |
Source: The office and Centre of International Animal Rescue at Assagao-Bardez, Goa visited on 06th June 2024.
From the above statistical data in table No.2, it can be concluded that:-
Between 2020 and 2024, International Animal Rescue (IAR) reported a total of 36 animal cruelty cases. While the enforcement rate—cases pursued under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960—peaked in 2021 at 80%, the overall average across those years was a concerningly low 61.11%. Notably, IAR, located in a smaller village, reported fewer cases than People for Animals (PFA), suggesting regional variations in cruelty prevalence or reporting practices
Information about Prevention of Cruelty against Animals by Goa Animal Welfare Trust (Gawt).
TABLE NO.03
| Year | Number of cases of Cruelty to Animals. | Number of Cases reported to Police Station | Number of cases going on in Court. | Percentage of cases under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. |
| 2020 | 23 | 01 | 04 | 17.39% |
| 2021 | 20 | 02 | 06 | 30% |
| 2022 | 16 | 02 | 08 | 50% |
| 2023 | 14 | 01 | 09 | 64.28% |
| 2024 | 11 | 01 | 10 | 90.90% |
| Total | 84 | 07 | 37 | 44.04% |
Source: The office of the Goa Animal Welfare Trust (Gawt) at Calangute, visited on 22nd June 2024.
From the above statistical data in table No.3, it can be concluded that:-Goa Animal Welfare Trust (GAWT) reported 84 animal cruelty cases between 2020 and 2024, with the number of reported cases fluctuating over that period. The percentage of cases pursued under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act climbed to a high of 90.90% in 2024, but the overall average remained low at 44.04%. Notably, the number of reported cruelty cases decreased over the five-year span, although a low percentage of those reported matters were pursued in court.
Information of Prevention of Cruelty against Animals by Welfare of Animals of Goa (WAG)
TABLE NO.04
| Year | Number of cases of Cruelty to Animals. | Number of Cases reported to Police Station | Number of cases going on in Court. | Percentage of cases under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. |
| 2020 | 12 | 02 | 03 | 25% |
| 2021 | 08 | 01 | 04 | 50% |
| 2022 | 05 | 00 | 04 | 80% |
| 2023 | 06 | 01 | 05 | 83.33% |
| 2024 | 09 | 00 | 05 | 55.55% |
| Total | 40 | 04 | 21 | 52.5% |
Source: The office of Welfare of Animals of Goa, Siolim-Goa, 20th June 2024.
From the above statistical data in table No.4, it can be concluded that:-
Welfare of Animals of Goa (WAG) reported 40 animal cruelty cases between 2020 and 2024. While 2023 saw the highest percentage of cases pursued under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (83.33%), the overall average for the period was a low 52.5%. The number of reported cases dropped significantly, and a concerningly low number were reported to the police or formally filed in court, indicating underreporting and a potential underutilization of the Act’s protections.
Information about Prevention of Cruelty against Animals by Panjim Animal Welfare Society (PAWS).
TABLE NO.05
| Year | Number of cases of Cruelty to Animals. | Number of Cases reported to Police Station | Number of cases going on in Court. | Percentage of cases under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. |
| 2020 | 23 | 01 | 01 | 4.34% |
| 2021 | 15 | 00 | 01 | 6.66% |
| 2022 | 11 | 02 | 03 | 27.27% |
| 2023 | 09 | 03 | 06 | 66.66% |
| 2024 | 11 | 00 | 06 | 54.54% |
| Total | 69 | 06 | 17 | 24.63% |
Source: The office of the Panaji Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), visited on 25th June 2024.
From the above statistical data in table No.5, it can be concluded that:-
Panaji Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) reported 69 animal cruelty cases between 2020 and 2024. While the enforcement rate under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act reached 66.66% in 2023, the overall average for the period was a strikingly low 24.63%. Despite a significant drop in reported cases overall, a positive trend is seen in an increasing number of cases registered under the Act year by year. Still reporting of these cases is seen to be very low.
VI. Beyond the Numbers: Voices from the Ground
Statistical data provides a valuable overview, but it’s essential to understand the lived experiences of those working on the front lines of animal welfare. We supplemented our statistical analysis with empirical data collected from stakeholders through structured and unstructured questionnaires, interviews, and direct observation.
Table 6: Increase in Crime Rate Against Animals
| Respondent | Yes | No |
| N.G.O’s | 03 | 02 |
| General Public | 18 | 07 |
| Total | 21 | 09 |
Analysis: A clear majority of both the general public and animal welfare organizations believe that the crime rate against animals is increasing. This perception underscores the urgent need for more effective interventions.
Table 7: Awareness of Animal Laws
| RESPONDENTS | YES | NO |
| N.G.O’s | 05 | 00 |
| General Public | 25 | 00 |
| Total | 30 | 00 |
Analysis: While awareness of animal laws appears to be high, this doesn’t necessarily translate into action. Awareness is only the first step; enforcement and a change in attitudes are equally crucial. (Sharma, 2024) (al., (September 1999): )
Table 8: Animal Welfare as a School Subject
| RESPONDENTS | YES | NO |
| N.G.O’s | 05 | 00 |
| General Public | 25 | 00 |
| Total | 30 | 00 |
Analysis: Overwhelming support for including animal welfare in the school curriculum suggests a broad recognition of the need to cultivate compassion and responsibility in future generations.
Table 9: Need for Separate Animal Courts
| RESPONDENT | YES | NO |
| N.G.O’s | 05 | 00 |
| General Public | 20 | 05 |
| Total | 25 | 05 |
Analysis: The strong support for dedicated animal courts reflects a growing sentiment that the existing judicial system often fails to adequately address the unique needs and vulnerabilities of animal victims.
VII. Did Our Hypotheses Hold Up?
Our initial hypotheses required careful examination based on the collected data. Evaluation of the two hypotheses regarding animal cruelty in Goa using data collected between 2020-2024 from five animal welfare organizations. The first hypothesis, proposing an increase in reported animal cruelty, was disproven. Data analysis showed a decrease in cases reported annually across all organizations, with the exception of a spike in 2022 linked to “dhirio.” Despite the decline, a substantial number of reported cases were pursued through the legal system. The second hypothesis, suggesting underreporting of animal abuse, was also disproven. The empirical evidence indicates that cases are being reported, though with a noticeable trend towards decline due to awareness programs, while cases of ‘dhirio’ related assault and sexual assault on animals remain prevalent. While overall reporting is decreasing the research found that “dhirio” (bull fighting) and sexual assault were the most reported forms of animal cruelty.
VIII. Recommendations: A Path Forward
Our findings point towards a multi-faceted strategy for improving animal welfare. Key recommendations include educating and empowering the public towards greater sensitivity and responsible actions; enhancing NGO effectiveness through standardized protocols, training, and targeted programs; and, most critically, comprehensive government reform involving a revised PCA Act with significantly stronger penalties, specialized animal courts, mandatory school-based welfare education, and increased, well-managed funding for animal welfare initiatives.
IX. Conclusion: From Words to Action
The recommendations outlined in this research, which examines the implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, are derived from empirical data gathered through interviews with animal welfare organizations registered under the Act. The study reveals a gap between the number of reported cruelty cases and cases officially registered under the Act. This suggests a need for a more comprehensive application of the law to ensure all cases are registered and pursued to their full extent. Detailed analysis of registered cases and existing legal provisions is vital to inform modifications to the Act or develop supplementary legislation. The PCA Act, in its current form, is failing to adequately protect animals. It’s time to move beyond symbolic gestures and create a legal framework that truly reflects a commitment to animal welfare. Only through legislative reform, increased resources, and a fundamental shift in societal attitudes can we ensure that the cry of the unheard is finally answered.