first_imgNews UpdatesMadras HC To Consider Validity Of Centre’s 2017 Dog Breeding & Marketing Rules, Restrains State From Seizing Pets For Non-Compliance in Interim [Read Order] Mehal Jain23 July 2020 4:57 AMShare This – xConsidering the legality of the prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dogs Breeding and Marketing) Rules 2017, the Madras High Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to pet breeders of restraining the state from physically seizing dogs from their owners. The said Rules introduced by the Centre proceed on the assumption that breeding amounts to “cruelty” for the purpose of the Prevention…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginConsidering the legality of the prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dogs Breeding and Marketing) Rules 2017, the Madras High Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to pet breeders of restraining the state from physically seizing dogs from their owners. The said Rules introduced by the Centre proceed on the assumption that breeding amounts to “cruelty” for the purpose of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and accordingly prohibit breeders from carrying on any breeding activity or owning or housing dogs for breeding and sale of dogs and pups, unless he has obtained a certificate of registration in respect of the establishment being used for breeding or housing the dogs for breeding, from the State Animal Welfare Board. Chief Justice A. P. Shah and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the challenge raised to the Rules framed under Section 38 of the 1960 Act is that it clearly amounts to an incompetent exercise of framing a delegated legislation which is constitutionally impermissible keeping in view the nature of the definition of Entries as contained in Entry – 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India which is exclusively a State subject. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the exercise is in contrast to Entry 17 and Entry 17B of the Concurrent List – that breeding not being a defined cruelty under Section 11 of the Act of 1960, there is no competence with the Central Government to frame any such Rules. “Thus, the challenge is on the ground of total incompetence with a further contention that it even travels beyond the boundaries contained in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960”, observed the division bench. On the other hand, the respondents have come up with a plea that breeding per se may not be cruelty, but, breeding in violation of certain norms relatable to dignified animal existence of pets may be excessive and it is in order to regulate such contingencies which may amount to cruelty that Rules can be framed and thus, saved under List III Entry 17B of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Section 38 of 1960 Act. The Court on Wednesday deemed it fit to grant time to the Centre to file its counter-affidavit before proceeding with the hearing. The bench also called for details as to any such challenge having been raised in any other Court and orders passed in relation thereto as well as such other expert material and research documents that may be necessary with regard to breeding and possession of animals vis-a-vis cruelty in the light of impugned Rules. However, it was of the view that during the interregnum period, “keeping in view the COVID situation existing as on today, particularly, in the State of Tamil Nadu”, it is “expedient” and “in the interest of justice” to provide interim relief to the effect that pursuant to the impugned Rules, no further action to physically seize dogs from their owners shall be undertaken by the respondent State subject to any further orders in this regard.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

first_imgBaltimore Police Department(BALTIMORE) — Baltimore police announced the arrest of one of their own on Thursday after reviewing officer-worn body cam footage painting a very different picture than what one of their senior officers reported.Sgt. Ethan Newberg was charged with second-degree assault, misconduct and false imprisonment for allegedly attacking a man who did nothing wrong. The charges came after officials reviewed footage from his body-worn camera of an arrest earlier this week conducted by Newberg. According to officials, Newberg, a 24-year veteran with the department, was running a warrant check and claimed a second man at the scene “challenged him and became combative and aggressive.”“The body worn camera that I reviewed tells a much different story,” Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison said at a press conference Thursday. “It shows the man speaking to Sgt. Newberg and walking calmly away after offering his opinion that Sgt. Newberg should have not placed the suspect on a wet sidewalk.”In a video Harrison called “disturbing,” he said Newberg is seen chasing and grabbing the subject while another officer tackled the subject to the ground and placed him in handcuffs.Officials have not yet released the video. The other officer has not been charged.“From what I saw, he did nothing to provoke Sgt. Newberg, whose actions were not just wrong but deeply disturbing and illegal,” Harrison said. “I don’t know how something like this would have been handled in the past, but I knew that as soon as I saw this video I knew how I would be handling it.”Newberg was also suspended without pay from the police department.“This behavior cannot and will not be tolerated,” Harrison said. “His behavior will never have a place in this department as long as I’m the police commissioner.”Newberg was the second-highest paid city employee in 2018, making $243,132, according to city records. The only city employee who made more gross salary was fellow police Sgt. William Harris Jr.The sergeant was paid over $60,000 more than then-Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh.He also made more money than Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby — the third-highest paid city employee — who was also at Thursday’s press conference.“I’m grateful to the new police commissioner that has expeditiously ensured that one standard of justice is applied,” Mosby said. “Although Sgt. Newberg is presumed innocent unless, or until, proven guilty, he will have his day in court.”Acting Mayor Jack Young, who took over from Pugh when she resigned due to scandal in May, called the officer’s actions “unacceptable, weak and counterproductive.”“We will not make progress on the crime right until Baltimore’s communities can have their faith restored in the Department,” he said in a statement. “And as long as there are BPD officers who conducting (sic) themselves the way this officer did, we will never restore that trust.”Harrison said it was “no secret” the Baltimore Police Department has “a lot to do to repair our relationship with our community members” — a reference to a controversy that has embroiled the department in the past year.Former police Sgt. Keith Gladstone pleaded guilty earlier this week to planting a gun on a person allegedly run over by Sgt. Walter Jenkins, the leader of the department’s now-defunct Gun Trace Task Force in 2014. The same incident led to the suspension of Gladstone and three other unnamed officers.Jenkins is serving 25 years in prison for a host of crimes committed while leading the gun task force, including robbing citizens, extorting drug dealers and filing false reports, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.The commissioner said Newberg’s incident was reported to the department’s new integrity bureau, after which an investigation was initiated and the body cam footage was reviewed.Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.last_img read more

first_img“I have a recurring dream where I’m running up some stairs and I don’t know what’s at the top of them; it’s just a black hole. When I get to the top there’s a piece of bread on a pedestal. Either I need to start eating less or more bread, or the bread needs something” 20-year-old socialite Peaches Geldof, daughter of Sir Bob, has bread on her mind. Any answers?”The city of Toronto has a goal of making sure all coffee cups are recyclable” Toronto city councillor and chairman of the Public Works Committee Glenn De Baeremaeker picks a fight with the coffee chains, with the city on the verge of banning polyethylene cups, favoured by the likes of Tim Hortons”Egg cake, fruit cake, chocolate cake. I felt like a bakery dustbin” You can have too much of a good thing as Cheng Yu of Beijing found; he claims he is on the verge of divorcing his wife Tian Mae after she served up a cake for every meallast_img read more