In the year of Coronavirus, ‘wet markets’ have emerged as a mainstream issue across the globe. It denotes a partially open commercial complex with vending stalls, which often have slippery floors and narrow aisles, where independent vendors primarily sell‘wet’ items such as meat, poultry and sea food. Such markets may or may not sell live animals and do not always include meat of wild animals. As frozen markets or dry markets are gaining popularity, wet markets continue to thrive as they need little infrastructure.This is supplemented by the prevalence of a belief in rural parts across countries that the meat in these markets is comparatively inexpensive and relatively fresher. However, scientists have acknowledged theories of wet markets being the birthplace of the zoonotic COVID-19 disease, which disrupted affairs across the globe and has so far claimed more than a million lives.The possibility of a zoonotic disease turning into a pandemic in the future has emerged as a global public health challenge. Wet markets are an undeniable reality in various parts of the world, including India. Recently, the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations wrote to the Indian Union Health Minister, Dr. Harsh Vardhan calling out for stringent regulation of meat markets in India. This letter highlighted the importance, in Indian scenario of the ‘One Health’ principle, propagating interdependence of human, environment and animal health.
Cruelty against animals: The legal regime in India
Currently,the legality of wet markets in India is a grey area.This year, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), India conducted a covert investigation to assess the prevailing situation. PETA’s Report revealed deplorable hygiene conditions and the prevalence of illegal trade of wild animals in these markets. Sting videos and reports of a meat mandi in India’s capital, New Delhi put on display exhibit diabolical levels of cruelty which fail all expected standards of animal welfare or hygiene.
Analysis and enforcement of the legality of wet markets in India is per se languishing. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 are union legislations aimed at preventing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. They remain mere theoretical texts in the country, seldom enforced. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 outlaws torture and causing unnecessary pain or suffering to any animal, amongst other forms of cruelty. But as PETA’s exposé and a corresponding visit would tell us, animals are often beaten into submission and unconsciousness, their festering wounds neglected with basic anaesthesia being denied to them right before slaughter. Almost always, chickens and buffaloes are kept in sheds brimming with faeces without daylight or appropriate ventilation before being brought to these wet markets, dead or alive. Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001,forbids the slaughtering of animals except in recognised or licensed slaughterhouses. Even in most licensed slaughterhouses in the country, the conditions in which animals are kept are abominable. Despite the widespread political clamour around cattle protection in the country, cattle are routinely tortured and subjected to inhuman exploitation. Thus, these wet markets in India become a site for torture of animals.
Per-se illegality of wet markets selling wild bushmeat
A specific type of wet market has been widely condemned globally since the onset of COVID-19, i.e. wild meat markets / markets selling bush meat. Scientific findings attribute the spread of COVID-19 to a zoonotic virus which evolved in Wuhan, Hubei from the interaction of a human and a vertebrae mammal, i.e. the pangolin. Another theory suggesting that animals being kept in close quarters in these wild markets had facilitated the virus’ jump has also featured prominently. Incidentally, the idea of wet wild meat markets is not new and remains a much larger phenomenon in Asian countries.While not being as popularly known across the country, some markets in the North Eastern sub-tropical states of India are hotspots for sale of bush meat. Once again, a revealing report by PETA exposed to the larger public in India, live-animal markets dealing in bush meat, filled with bodily fluids, raw meat, sick and stressed animals.While most consumers buying bush meat in India remain rural and indigenous people who believe cultural rights historically have and should continue to permit such dietary habits, any efforts to regulate sale and consumption are doggedly resisted. Recently, Nagaland saw an outrage when the state government attempted banning dog meat.
Notably, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 prohibits hunting and consumption ofvarious wild animals categorised into 4 schedules. Section 39 declares all wild animals sought to be protected as government property.As per Section 49, unlicensed dealing in any scheduled wild captive animals or their meat, trophies, animal article is also prohibited. The Schedules in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 enumerate endangered speciesat the verge of extinction and species which may be hunted along with animals whose hunting is permitted. It also empowers the government to permit hunting of animals if they endanger human life, for the purposes of education, population management, scientific research and making life saving drugs. The legislation has largely been an effort to embody the State’s promise of protecting wildlife, made under Article 48A of the Indian Constitution as a directive principle of state policy.
Conclusion: The need for effective enforcement
The Indian Penal Code in Chapter XIV contains provisions which deem illegal those activities which put health and safety of public at stake. Acts which cause danger/ annoyance to the public are punishable offenses of public nuisance. Even actions which propagate infections or diseases dangerous to life are considered negligent or malignant actsand are punishable. The most important legislation controlling food security in the country, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 also prescribe no standardization guidelines for meat of wild animals, thus implicitly excluding wild meat from the category of a safe and consumable food product. A preview of these provisions and the legislations discussed above denotes that a robust framework for regulation of wet wild meat markets exist, but the enforcement has not been as effective.
Several nations like China, Ivory Coast, Congo, Gabon, Liberia and Vietnam amongst others have, in response to the current and past pandemics, banned trade / consumption of wild meat. At a global level, to regulate bushmeat just like India, several countries have put in place permit systems and regulatory authorities. These include Cambodia, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam et cetera. Primarily, the need of the hour remains enforcement of existing norms stringently. The issue requires attention from Governments around the globe as much as it needs awareness of consequences amongst the people in developed and developing countries. This wake-up call comes during extraordinary times of a raging pandemic wherein April 2020, the Director General of World Health Organisation (WHO), Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that WHO was collaborating with bodies of United Nations in order to develop guidance on safe operation of wet markets, while recognising wet markets as a source of affordable food and livelihood for millions. He also recognised the need for stringent food safety and hygiene standards. Most significantly, he even urged governments to vigorously enforce bans on the sale and trade of wildlife for food. The Director General’s suggestion should be considered extremely seriously. Indian Courts have been faced with such issues, every now and then. Exaggerated pleas seeking complete ban on meat consumption, ban on particular methods of slaughter or controlling state’s involvement in meat trade and related activities are unlikely to be accepted. However, issues arising from consumption of meat and the markets in which it is cut and sold are likely to arise repeatedly.
Chandramauli Dwivedi & Pallavi Modi
Chandramauli Dwivedi is a Senior Associate at L&L Partners Law Offices, a law firm in New Delhi and an alumnus of NLUO (2011-16).
Pallavi Modi is a Final year undergraduate student pursuing B.A. LLB.(Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal.
Comments