Madras High Court: PIL seeking ban on PETA dismissed

Source:- thehindu.com

A 32-year-old waiter, who tried to convince the Madras High Court to direct the Union government to issue a blanket ban on the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), faced the wrath of the court, which dismissed his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, terming it as a “misadventure” for publicity, exploiting the current social context.

M. Dinesh, a resident of Ayanavaram, Chennai, who claimed to be well versed in English and Tamil though he had pursued only up to class XII, wanted the High Court to direct the government to ban PETA claiming that the organisation’s acts were contrary to the sovereignty and integrity of India. He alleged that PETA filed vexatious PILs against the sovereign powers of India, and created disharmony between communities.

The petitioner also sought the court to block the website of the organisation as it allegedly carried obscene advertisements offending the sensibilities and rights of women and children.

When the plea came up for hearing before the First Bench of Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice M. Sundar, the Bench perused the printouts of the alleged pornographic advertisements produced by the petitioner and said, “We find nothing of that sort (of pornography). There are photographs of women sparsely clad propagating non use of fur and such other materials which affect the rights of animals.”

In any case, nothing compels the petitioner to visit the website and then claim that he is provoked by its content, the Bench added.

Questions legal basis

Pointing to the averments of the petitioner that PETA, instead of adhering to its objective, has indulged in unnecessary activities like filing frivolous PILs against the government which allowed its operation in India, the Bench queried the counsel for the petitioner as to under what law this court could issue a direction to ban the organisation.

As the counsel could not answer the query repeatedly posed by the court, the Bench said, “It would be the prerogative of the executive, if any law is violated, to take action against any such organisation.”

Troubled by the tenor of the petition, which suggested that entertaining of petitions filed by PETA by the apex court amounts to violation of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the judges said, “In our view, this is contemptuous of the Supreme Court, as it is the prerogative of the court whether or not to entertain a petition.”

Concluding that the PIL is nothing but a misadventure for publicity given the current social context on account of the role of PETA in banning the jallikattu, the Bench dismissed the PIL.

The court also holds that one cannot question the SC’s prerogative to entertain a petition or not