Two people were fined Rs 200 each for organising a bullfight in Pilar. A car driver, owner of a Mercedes no less, was fined Rs 150 for ‘involuntarily’ driving over a dog at Dona Paula. These two headlines over the past few days in Goa reveal, more than anything, how, despite assurances being made time and again by successive governments that they are committed towards streamlining and updating laws, updating penalties under the laws and enhancing punishments under these laws, some of which were enacted decades ago, gaps persist.
The fine amount has made a mockery of the entire process. Even assuming that having a conviction against your name is to be treated as a punishment enough, how does one justify imposing a fine that will not even cover the costs of a single day’s hearing?
Both these fines have been imposed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a law that was enacted back in 1960. Society has evolved since then. Today, offences involving cruelty towards animals generate far more outrage than they once did. This is especially true in the case of social media, CCTVs and online lynch mobs baying for the blood of those who advertently or inadvertently are cruel towards animals.
In the Dona Paula case, where the Mercedes driver ‘involuntarily’ ran over the dog, and later pleaded guilty to the offence, the incident was recorded only because it was captured by a CCTV camera, after which it was shared online and later went ‘viral’. This prompted the North Goa district society for the prevention of cruelty to animals to file a complaint.
The second case is a case of bullfighting that was deliberately organised for entertainment. That the accused could get away with the payment of Rs 200 each leaves one wondering whether the government is really serious about implementing the ban on bullfighting. Because if they were, nothing explains the failure to enhance the fine for offenders.
What is especially important is to recognise that the fine is Rs 150 because there were multiple offences under the same Act slapped against them. The fine for each of the offences was Rs 50. More than anything, such paltry fines are an incentive for the offenders to wilfully break the law, because the punishment is procedural rather than anything else. The fine amount is not even worth the paper it is written on, while the offenders will probably hold up the challan as some kind of trophy they have achieved.
At the same time, one needs to keep in mind that if the government does agree to enhance the fines, the law needs to be flexible to differentiate between those acts that are committed as a result of an accident, or in self-defence, lest the law throw people defending themselves against dog and cattle attacks under the bus.
In this online age, when mobile video footage or CCTV footage does not tell the whole story, and where the animal lovers are quick to gang up against those seemingly cruel towards animals, while acting out of bona fide good intention, could be the real casualty.
The law needs to be kind where necessary, and stern where necessary. And when it comes to the latter, imposing fines of Rs 150 and 200 can’t even be called a penal provision anymore, thereby rendering the whole law ‘toothless.’
