Lahore High Court Seeks Reply On Plea Against Possessing Wildlife Animals

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday sought a reply from Wildlife Department authorities till June 8 on a petition challenging Section 12 of Punjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act 1974, which allows possession of wildlife animals to the general public

LAHORE, (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 6th May, 2021 ) :The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday sought a reply from Wildlife Department authorities till June 8 on a petition challenging Section 12 of Punjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act 1974, which allows possession of wildlife animals to the general public.

The court also directed a provincial law officer to seek instructions from the concerned authorities and apprise whether rules have been made as per provision of Section 46 of the act, besides steps taken for the welfare of the animals in Punjab. The court also appointed Barrister Sameer Khosa, Barrister Ahmad Pansota, and Hira Jalil as amicus curiae to assist the court.

Justice Jawad Hassan passed the orders while hearing a petition filed by Sanita Gulzar and others.

Advocate Abuzar Salman Khan Niazi on behalf of the petitioners argued before the court that Section 12 of Punjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act 1974 was ultra vires to the Constitution because it infringes fundamental rights of the animals.

He submitted that Section 12 of the act allowed the general public to keep the wild animals as pets but they were often kept in poor conditions, which caused an immense effect on their mental as well as physical well-being.

Providing wild animals their natural habitat is a fundamental right under the Constitution, he said, adding that it was dangerous for humans to keep the animals at homes. He pleaded with the court to set aside Section 12 of the act as unconstitutional.

To a court query, a law officer submitted that the act was regulated by the government through its Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries Department but he sought time to apprise whether rules have been made as per Section 46 of the act.

Subsequently, the court sought a reply from Wildlife Department authorities till June 8 and adjourned further hearing.