Behind Assam’s chicken trade is a transport system where welfare rules often go unchecked
On any given morning, on almost any road in Assam, the same scene repeats itself. A motorcycle weaves through traffic carrying dozens of chickens tied by their legs and hung upside down from the handlebars and rear carrier, their wings pinned and bodies swinging with every pothole and turn. Some are stacked in open crates on auto-rickshaws. Others are crammed by the score into vans with no ventilation, no water, and barely enough room to move. By the time they reach the market, many are injured. Some are already dead.
ALSO READ: Guwahati's Footpaths Put the ‘Right to Walk’ to the Test
Arpita Baruah, an independent animal rescuer and activist working on the ground in Assam, has spent years documenting exactly this. Recalling one case she encountered, where dozens of live chickens were tied and hanging precariously from a motorcycle, exposed to the sun, exhaust fumes, and moving traffic, she says the image is not an isolated incident but "a reflection of a widespread and normalised practice."
"Tied together, hung upside down, or squeezed into impossibly small spaces, these sentient animals endure immense pain, fear, and suffering long before they reach their destination," Baruah says. "Compassion should not end where commerce begins. The treatment of animals reflects the values of our society. Humane transport is not an unreasonable demand; it is a legal and moral obligation."
Her conclusion is clear: "It is time to stop treating living beings as cargo."
It would be easy to assume this happens everywhere, all the time, in full public view. But when GPlus spoke to a traffic official, a more nuanced picture emerged.
"We barely see any activity of this kind inside the city," the official said. "These mostly take place in rural areas, on roads that are largely unmonitored as there is no need," he added.
In other words, the cruelty is not disappearing because it is being addressed. It is simply occurring in places where there is little monitoring.
That distinction matters because it points to who is actually transporting these birds, and why.
Saiful, a chicken vendor from Fancy Bazar area, explained how the supply chain usually works for shops like his.
"Medium-sized chicken meat shops like us order chickens from distributors. I personally order around 40 to 50 broiler chickens every day. Combined with other orders in the area, the total comes to about 200 chickens, so the distributor can use a mini truck for transport."
The scale makes proper transport economically viable. A shared mini truck can be partitioned, ventilated, and loaded within legal limits. But Saiful was quick to explain where the system breaks down.
"If someone has a small shop in a remote location, of course they will find cheaper ways to transport 10 to 15 chickens at a time."
A small number of birds often does not justify the cost of hiring a truck for either the distributor or the vendor, many of whom operate on thin margins. In such cases, motorcycles become the default mode of transport, and the birds bear the consequences.
Someone who deals in the frozen meat business offered a broader perspective.
"The problem is with the system," he said. "In developed countries, chickens and other animals are processed in large industries in bulk. They are cut, packed, and frozen. Everyone eats frozen meat there. But in our country, we need a chicken meat shop in every locality and every corner."
It is a perspective that complicates any simple call for stricter enforcement. Fresh poultry sold through neighbourhood meat shops is not merely a transport failure; it reflects the structure of an entire retail economy.
Shop by shop and order by order, the system is built around the expectation that customers want to see a live bird before purchasing it. Changing how a handful of chickens reaches a corner shop therefore requires more than stricter enforcement. It would require changes across the supply chain itself.
None of this, however, excuses what the birds endure during transport.
Baruah's argument stands regardless of why the system functions the way it does. India already has a detailed regulatory framework governing the transport of animals, including poultry. Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, makes it a punishable offence to transport any animal in a manner that causes unnecessary pain or suffering. That includes practices such as tying birds to motorcycles or overloading them in vehicles beyond reasonable capacity.
The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, go a step further, with a dedicated chapter governing the transportation of poultry. Under these rules, birds must not be exposed to direct sunlight, rain, or strong wind during transit. They cannot legally be transported when the ambient temperature exceeds 25 degrees Celsius. They also cannot remain in continuous transit for more than six hours without a mandatory inspection and rest break, during which the vehicle must be parked in the shade and adequate feed and water must be provided.
A daytime motorcycle ride through open traffic under the sun violates several of these provisions at once.
Separately, Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, introduced in 2015, requires every vehicle transporting animals to have permanent partitions. For poultry, a minimum floor space of 40 square centimetres per bird must be provided. By design, a motorcycle or an open auto-rickshaw cannot meet these requirements, making such modes of transport arguably unlawful even before a single bird is loaded.
Transporters are also required to carry a valid certificate confirming compliance with these rules before beginning the journey. Without one, police are empowered to stop the vehicle and hand the animals over to an authorised animal welfare organisation.
If the rules are this specific, why does the practice continue almost entirely unchecked?
Two reasons stood out, both echoed by the people GPlus spoke to on the ground.
The first is the lack of enforcement infrastructure, or the near absence of it, especially on the rural roads identified by the traffic official, where monitoring is minimal or entirely absent. A 2020 Supreme Court writ petition, based on Right to Information (RTI) responses, found that Assam, along with a handful of other states, had failed to provide clear details on the functioning of its State Animal Welfare Board, the body responsible for coordinating the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act and overseeing district-level Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
Without an active and adequately resourced board, there is no coordinated mechanism to ensure checkpoints, inspections, or accountability on the roads where these incidents actually occur.
The second reason is the lack deterrence.
Penalties under the PCA Act for a first offence have historically ranged from as low as Rs 10 to Rs 50, while repeat violations could attract a maximum fine of Rs 100 and/or imprisonment of up to three months. For a vendor, the cost of proper transport, crates, partitioned vehicles, and rest stops can far outweigh a fine smaller than the price of a single chicken. When margins on a handful of birds are already thin, the law offers little incentive to change behaviour.
This is not only a question of compassion; it is also a road safety issue. Birds tied to the exterior of a moving two-wheeler create an unbalanced and unpredictable load, putting the rider and other road users at risk, whether in urban or rural areas. Overcrowded, stressed, and injured birds being transported through markets also raise legitimate public health concerns, including the risk of disease transmission. This is precisely why the 1978 Rules mandate proper ventilation, sterilised containers, and rest periods in the first place.
None of this means enforcement must wait for the entire retail structure to change. Solutions can begin with practical, local measures that address the realities described by vendors and officials on the ground.
For small and remote shops that order only a limited number of birds, authorities can explore outreach programmes and affordable transport alternatives so that motorcycles do not remain the only economical option.
Regular spot checks and verification of transport permits must extend beyond city limits and reach the rural roads that officials identify as largely unmonitored.
A properly functioning and adequately staffed State Animal Welfare Board is also essential. Although Assam has been directed under the existing framework to establish such mechanisms, effective implementation remains a challenge. Strengthening coordination between the board, district authorities, veterinary departments, and local animal welfare organisations would create a more responsive enforcement system.
The District Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Office and local SPCA must also be empowered to respond quickly to complaints and take action wherever violations are reported.
Residents who witness such forms of animal transport can report them through official channels. Complaints can be submitted to the Animal Welfare Board of India through the National Government Services Portal or its official website, awbi.gov.in. In Kamrup district, the District Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer and State SPCA can be contacted at Chenikuthi, Guwahati, on 09435013328. People for Animals in Guwahati operates a 24-hour ambulance and hospital service and can be reached at 0361 2730652 or 9435013328. The JBF Animal Relief Centre in Guwahati can be contacted at 0361 2269811 or 9954449528.
The issue of poultry transport in Assam is not only about individual acts of cruelty. It reflects a larger gap between existing laws and their implementation, between the realities of small-scale commerce and the standards required for humane treatment.
As Baruah puts it, the demand is not radical. It is simply the minimum protection that the law already promises these animals.
The challenge now is ensuring that promise is finally upheld.