It is the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to have compassion

for all living creatures. Article 51A(g).

To kill or maim any animal, including stray animals, is a punishable

offence. IPC Sections 428 and 429.

Abandoning any animal for any reason can land you in prison for up to
three months. Section 11(1)(i) and Section 11(1)(j), PCA Act, 1960.

No animal (including chickens) can be slaughtered in any place other

than a slaughterhouse. Sick or pregnant animals shall not be
slaughtered. Rule 3, of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
(Slaughterhouse) Rules, 2001 and Chapter 4, Food Safety and
Standards Regulations, 2011.

5. Stray dogs that have been operated for birth control cannot be
captured or relocated by anybody including any authority. ABC Rules,
2001.

6. Neglecting an animal by denying her sufficient food, water, shelter

and exercise or by keeping him chained/confined for long hours is
punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 3 months or both. Section
11(1)(h), PCA Act, 1960.

7. Monkeys are protected under the Wildlife (Protection)Act, 1972 and

cannot be displayed or owned.

8. Bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers, lions and bulls are prohibited from
being trained and used for entertainment purposes, either in circuses or
streets. Section 22(ii), PCA
9. Animal sacrifice is illegal in every part of the country. Rule 3,
Slaughterhouse Rules, 2001.

10. Organizing of or participating in or inciting any animal fight is a

cognizable offence. Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 11(1)(n), PCA
Act, 1960.
11. Cosmetics tested on animals and the import of cosmetics tested on
animals is banned. Rules 148-C and 135-B of Drugs & Cosmetics
Rules, 1945.

12. Teasing, feeding or disturbing the animals in a zoo and littering the
zoo premises is an offence punishable by a fine of Rs. 25000 or
imprisonment of up to three years or both. Section 38J, Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972.

13. Capturing, trapping, poisoning or baiting of any wild animal or even

attempting to do so is punishable by law, with a fine of up to Rs. 25000
or imprisonment of up to seven years or both. Section 9, Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972.

14. Disturbing or destroying eggs or nests of birds and reptiles or

chopping a tree having nests of such birds and reptiles or even
attempting to do so constitutes to hunting and attracts a punishment of
a fine of up to Rs. 25000, or imprisonment of up to seven years or both.
Section 9, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

15. Conveying or carrying animals whether in or upon any vehicle, in

any manner or position which causes discomfort, pain or suffering is a
punishable offence under two Central Acts. Section 11(1)(d)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, (Transport of Animal) Rules, 2001
and Motor Vehicles Act 1978.

The posit of supremacy by man over nature has led to conflicts with nature. The burgeoning
human population and its multifarious requisites are leading to an elevation in the conflicts
between man and natural resources/lives. Even the wildlife has come at squabble with human
beings owing to the pre-emption of their natural habitats.

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts. - -Bhagavad Gita;
Chapter 15, Verse 7[1]

Many drivers of conflicts are impecunious management, misguided clearance decisions, and
apathy. 99 percent of currently threatened species are in peril from human activities, primarily
those driving habitat loss, the exordium of exotic species, and global warming.[2] Animals are
a hugely consequential part of the human world, relied upon for aliment, utilized as research
models, companions, working animals, for sport and in recreation. Virtually proximately all
religions recognize the innate value of animal life and the desideratum to evade animal
suffering.
Henry Stephens Salt inscribed the first book entirely devoted to animal rights, published in
1892 - Animals Rights: Considered in relation to social progress. He sought to impress people
not to kill or victual animals and submitted that such comportment is the distinction of a
civilized society. British Zoologist William M.S. Russel and the microbiologist Rex L. Burch
in 1959 propounded 3Rs tenets or framework for humane animal research - replacement,
reduction, and refinement.

The Brambell Report (UK Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept
under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems) in December 1965 verbally expressed that farm
animals should have liberation to stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch
their limbs.[3]

These Five Freedoms of animals have been widely accepted as a verbalization of fundamental
principles of animal welfare. These freedoms as updated are liberation from hunger, thirst, and
malnutrition; liberation from fear and distress; liberation from physical and thermal discomfort;
liberation from pain, injury and disease; and liberation to express mundane patterns of
demeanour. These freedoms are recognized in India under Sections 11 (1), 12 ,14, 19 etc of
Prevention of Cruelty Act,1960[4]; Sections 30,31,32, 33A etc. of Wildlife Protection
Act,1972[5] and so on.

Further, The Constitution of India indirectly apperceives the rights of animals. The unique
feature of the Constitution of India is that it sanctions representatives to assert the interests of
animals in Courts and thereby engenders a readymade mechanism.[6] The notion of Public
Interest Litigations materialized in India in the 1980s. The judiciary sanctions such
representative actions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.[7]

The worsening condition of animals in India perpetuates to prevail in spite of the subsisting
legislative framework dealing with animals. Hundreds of animals are sacrificed and utilized as
performing animals in diverse religious cultural events throughout the country.[8]

As many as 2406 cases were registered under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
in 2017 but low conviction numbers and meagre fines have seen a spurt in crimes against
animals recently and people are not reporting the crimes anymore due to laughable fines as it
can be seen that lowest number of cases ever registered in India were registered in 2017.

Synopsis of Breach of Rights of Animals in India

 Endangered Species and Extinction: India has 988 species on International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)32 ‘Red List as of 2018 more
species were integrated to the List of threatened species.[9] In the mammals category,
96 mammals species, 82 bird species and 53 species of reptiles, amphibians, and fishes
are 75 and 214 respectively, 7 molluscs, 128 other invertebrates are imperilled.
 Conforming to The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, in India, you can get
away with being cruel to most animals by paying a fine of anything between Rs 10 and
Rs 50. If you reiterate the offense within three years, the penalty may go up to anything
between Rs 25 and Rs 100. You could additionally be thrown in confinement for three
months. But that s about it.[10]
Judicial Dictum
The true nature of laws can only be understood by going through the judgments of the Courts.
Any legal solutions and conclusions remain half-baked until views of the Courts are taken into
account. The Courts played an active role to bulwark the rights of animals on one hand.
Concurrently, in a few cases, they failed to forfend them and their rights. Indian judiciary is
often accredited for its role in bulwarking the natural environment and upholding the right to a
safe environment.[11]

The consequential role has been played by the Indian judiciary in efficaciously implementing
the provisions of assorted statutes conserving the rights of animals. The main aspects settled
by it are the slaughter of animals‟ vis-a-vis Constitution of India, rights of performing animals,
harmony between bulwark of animal and religious animal sacrifice, etc.

In Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. Union of India & Others[12], it was observed by
the apex court that - human beings have an obligation to obviate the species from extinction
and have to advocate for an efficacious species aegis regime. No state, organization or person
can claim ownership or possession over wild animals in the forest.

Animals in the wild are properties of the nation for which no state can claim ownership and the
state s obligation is to insulate the wildlife and safeguard it, for ascertaining the ecological and
environmental security of the country.

Further, the Court has given the following guidelines regarding the protection of animals and
these guidelines are discussed as follows[13]:

 The government of India and the MoEF (ministry of environment and forests) must
take exigent steps for the preservation of those imperilled species as well as to initiate
recuperation programs.
 The Government of India and the MoEF are directed to identify, as already highlighted
by National Wildlife Action Plan, all imperilled species of flora and fauna, study their
needs and survey their environs and habitats to establish the current level of security
and the nature of threats. They should withal conduct periodic reviews of flora and
fauna species status, and correlate the same with the IUCN Red Data List every three
years.
 Courts and environmentalists should pay more attention for implementing the
recuperation programs and the same be carried out with ingenuity and commitment.

In Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) v. A. Nagaraja and Ors[14] it was held by the Hon
ble Supreme Court of India that every species has an intrinsically right to live and shall be
safeguarded by law. Lordships have further held that so far animals are concerned, life denotes
something more than mere survival or subsistence or instrumental value for human beings, but
to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, accolade, and dignity.

An animal has withal accolade and dignity which cannot be arbitrarily deprived of. Lordships
held that Article 51 (g) and (h) are Magna Carta for protecting the lives of animals. The right
to dignity and equitable treatment is, ergo, not confined to human beings alone, but to animals
as well. Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-ridden, overloading is withal a right apperceived
by Section 11 read with Section 3 of the PCA Act. Animals have withal a right against human
beings not to be tortured and against the infliction of nonessential pain or suffering.

Penalty for contravention of these rights is nugatory since laws are made by humans. The
penalization prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offense.

The Court inter alia made the following declarations and directions[15]:

 Declared that the five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of the
PCA Act, be bulwarked and safeguarded by the Governments (including state and
UTs), MoEF and AWBI.
 Directed the AWBI and Government to take felicitous steps to visually perceive that
the persons-in-charge or care of animals, take plausible measures to ascertain the
salubrity of animals. AWBI and the governments would additionally optically discern
that even in cases, where Section 11(3) is involved the animals, be not put to
dispensable pain and suffering and adequate and scientific methods are adopted to
achieve equipollency.
 Directed that the AWBI and the governments should take steps to impart inculcation in
cognition to human treatment of animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating
the spirit of Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution.
 Declared that the Parliament is expected to make a felicitous amendment of the PCA
Act to provide an efficacious deterrent to achieving the object and purport of the Act
and for infringement of Section 11, adequate penalties and penalizations should be
imposed.
 Declared that the Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of animals to that of
constitutional rights, as done by many of the countries around the world, so as to forfend
their dignity and accolade.
 Declared that The Governments would optically discern that if the provisions of the
PCA Act and the declarations and the directions issued by this Court are not
opportunely and efficaciously complied with, disciplinary action is taken against the
erring officials so that the purport and object of PCA Act could be achieved.

 Directed AWBI to take efficacious and expeditious steps to implement the provisions
of the PCA Act in consultation with SPCA (state acts) and make periodical reports to
the governments and if any infringement is described, the Regimes should take steps to
remedy identically tantamount, including congruous follow-up action.

 Is Moral Status of Animals Justifiable
 Some contend that there is an answer that can differentiate humans from the remainder
of the natural world. Many of those who accept this answer are intrigued by justifying
certain human practices towards non-humans—practices that cause pain, discomfort,
suffering, and death. This second group expects that in responding to issue in a certain
means, people are likely to be justified in giving ethical consideration to many other
people that is neither needed nor justified when contemplating non-human animals.[16]
In contrast to this view, an incrementing number of philosophers have argued that while
 humans are different in a variety of ways from each other and other animals, these
differences do not provide a philosophical bulwark for gainsaying non-human animals
moral consideration. What the substratum of moral consideration is and what it amounts
to has been the source of many discrepancies.

As a consequence, we are increasingly liable to face ethical dilemmas over the value of
human versus non-human life. It won t be in the form of an expeditious decision to kill
an animal to preserve the life of a child. These dilemmas will play out in courtrooms
and parliaments, as human needs are pitted against environmental ones, and as the battle
for natural resources brings threats of deforestation and species extinction. As we edge
ever more proximate to the brink of the Earth s sixth mass extinction, perhaps we
require to consider just precisely what human life is worth.

 Towards Legal Rights for Animals

 The legal rights of nonhuman animals might first be achieved in any of the ways. Most
concur that the least likely will be through the re-interpretation or amendment of state
or federal constitutions, or through international treaties.[17] In general, most believe
that gaining personhood is much more probable through legislative enactment than
through a constitutional change. But a vicissitude in the prevalent law may be the most
likely of all. while in the process of deciding cases.

Unlike legislators, judges are at least formally bound to do equity. Opportunely

interpreted, the common law is devoted to being flexible, adaptable to transmutations
in public morality, and sensitive to incipient scientific revelations. Among its chief
values are liberty and equipollence. These favor prevalent law personhood, as a matter
of liberty.

 Legal Inculcation in Animal Law

 It is indicated that animal rights lawyer should not expect a judge to appreciate the
merits of arguments in favor of the legal personhood of any nonhuman animal the first
time, or the fifth time, he or she encounters them. While a sympathetic judge might be
found here and there, no appellate bench will seize the lead until the issue has been
exhaustively aired in law journals, books, and conferences. Law reviews discussing
animal legal rights must be established around the country in order to provide a
paramount scholarly forum in which the germane legal issues can be explored.

Legal conferences must be organized, law school courses devoted to edifying students
on animal law issues must be established, animal rights lawyers and law edifiers must
reach out to acquaint the vocation with the paramountcy of their work and the puissance
of their arguments.[18] The same quandary subsists for the millions of nonhuman
animals coerced to be subjects of biomedical research.

Conclusion And Suggestions

Animals have always composed and will always form a central feature of the human
world. Deference for the dignity of all animals lives needs to underlie consideration of
how human beings interact with other animals. The trend that is pellucid from the study
is that in the last few years, animal activism has gained momentum in India due to the
efforts of animal activists and the judiciary. Pro-animal Bills are under consideration to
 raise the penal provisions in cases of animal abuse. Nationwide campaigns are being
held to augment cognizance on the rights of animals.

As a result, the Courts have been reiterating the rights of animals and birds. The key
affirmative advances in this regard in the country are boost in the number of protected
areas under the Wildlife Protection Act,1972 ; veto on capture of dolphins;
establishment of Cow Department in Rajasthan; declaration of River Dolphin as City
Animal of Guwahati ; scheme for animal adoption in Haryana; incipient course on
Animal Welfare in Jawahar Lal Nehru University ; preclusion & regulation of avail of
animals during Veterinary Edification etc..

Infelicitously, the law of 1960 on preventing cruelty against animals has not been
amended even once in the last fifty years. The presence of numerous impotent and
ineffective legislative provisions in favour of animals is perpetually leading to
infringement of their rights in disparate forms. It is fascinating to note that the ways in
which the lives of animals are compromised can be often optically discerned, much
abuse goes unnoticed.

The negative trends can be observed as the integration of endangered Species in IUCN
Red List; two anti-animal notifications issued by MoEFCC; deaths of companion
animals; the liberal posture of judiciary etc. There certainly subsists a gap between
legislative policies and the practical situation as far as the rights of animals are
concerned. Furthermore, it becomes pellucid that the general acceptance of the rights
of animals is still not prevalent in India.

A paradigm shift in human consciousness is needed and it s time to realize that the
interaction of human beings and animals is as much a component of evolution and as
worthy of study as the extinction of the dinosaurs or the comportment of a chimpanzee.

Though the law has a consequential role to play in bulwarking animals from
exploitation and cruelty, people cannot be made by law more humanitarian. In the light
of the above discussions and conclusions, the following suggestions are being made to
address deteriorating state of animal rights in India-
 Future studies should investigate the factors responsible for encroachment by men over
nature.
 A comprehensive law should come into force. The legal regime to forfend them needs
to be more proactive. It would be an achievement for the animal rights activists and
organizations if both of Animal Welfare Bills get clearance by the Parliament. The Bill
in Parliament for incrementing penalties for breach of animal abuse must be passed as
soon as possible. Regarding the abandonment of pet animals, more rigorous legal
penalties must subsist. The scheme of marking the animals so as to trace the owner as
introduced for sundry animals must be efficaciously elongated to all. The
recommendations of the Law Commission of India vide its Report No. 261 submitted
in August 2015 additionally deserve immediate attention by the Parliament.
 The enforcement mechanism must be made more vigorous in India. The enactment of
the law to avert cruelty to the animals is not a terminus in itself. What is more
consequential is the implementation of sundry animal aegis statutes and to optically
discern to it that the activities which are proscribed under them do not take place in the
State & in case of infringement of the provisions of, to take stringent action against the
offenders.
This underlines the essentiality to acknowledge each individual animal s intrinsic value, and
the fact that every single animal is worthy of deference and care, deserves to live a life that is
consequential without dispensable human exploitation or interference. The point is to spread
vigilance that animal rights violation is an issue, an earnest issue worthy of public discourse.

End-Notes:

1. India, T. (2010). Srimad bhagavad gita. [S.l.]: The Times Group Books.
2. The Extinction Crisis. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/e
xtinction_crisis/
3. Sharma, B., & Sharma, P. (2017). RIGHTS OF ANIMALS AT PRACTICE IN INDIA.
JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW, 3(7), 3.
4. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960).
5. Wildlife Protection Act (1972).
6. Kelch, T. (2017). Globalization and animal law. Comparative law, international law
and international trade. Den Haag: Kluwer Law International.
7. Jain, M. (2014). Indian constitutional law. Haryana, India: LexisNexis.
8. Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, and bullock cart races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab,
Kerala, etc are events which charter use of animals as performing animals. Furthermore,
animals sacrifice takes place during Bijaya Yatra of the annual Chhattar festival at
Bhawanipatna in Kalahandi district in Orissa; animal sacrifice was prevalent before
September 2014 in various parts of Himachal Pradesh - Chamunda Devi temple in
Kangra, Hadimba Devi temple in Manali, etc.
9. IAS, P. (2019). IUCN Red List India | Red Data List | Red Book Part-1. Retrieved from
http://www.pmfias.com/iucn-red-list-india-red-data-list-red-book/
10. HuffPost is now a part of Oath. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/07/07/animal-cruelty-india_n_10856308.html
11. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others, 1 SCC 388 (Supreme Court of India 1997).
12. Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. Union of India & Others, 8 SCC 234 para 42
(Supreme Court of India 2013).
13. Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. Union of India & Others, 8 SCC 234 para 63
(Supreme Court of India 2013).
14. Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) v. A. Nagaraja and Ors, 7 SCC 547 (Supreme
Court of India 2014).
15. Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) v. A. Nagaraja and Ors, 7 SCC 547 para 77
(Supreme Court of India 2014).
16. Gruen, L. (2017). The Moral Status of Animals (Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
17. A. Posner, R. (2000). Animal Rights (reviewing Steven M. Wise, Rattling the Cage:
Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000)). Retrieved from
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4930&context=jour
nal_articles
18. Salem, D., & Rowan, A. (2003). The state of the animals II, 2003. Washington, D.C.:
Humane Society Press.
Animal Protection under The Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India recognizes the lives and welfare of animals by making it a
fundamental duty of the citizens of India to respect and treat all living creatures with
compassion.

 Animal rights are protected under the Constitution of India. Article 51A(G) makes
it a fundamental duty upon every citizen of India to protect wildlife and have
compassion for all living creatures.
 According to Article 48, the State has the duty to organize agriculture and animal
husbandry on modern, scientific lines and to take steps for preserving and improving
breeds, prohibiting slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
 Article 48A provides that the State also has a duty to protect, safeguard and improve
the forests and wildlife of the country.
 In List II (State List), Seventh Schedule, it is provided that the State has the power
and authority to:

14 Preserve, protect and improve stock and prevent animal diseases, and enforce veterinary
training and practice.

 In List III (Concurrent List), it is provided that both the Centre and the State have
the power and authority to:

17 Prevent cruelty to animals.

17B. Protect wild animals and birds.

 Under the Eleventh Schedule (Article 243 G), the Panchayati Raj institutions have
the duty and authority to deal with matters relating to:

4. Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry.

5. Fisheries
Animal Protection under The Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India recognizes the lives and welfare of animals by making it a
fundamental duty of the citizens of India to respect and treat all living creatures with
compassion.

 Animal rights are protected under the Constitution of India. Article 51A(G) makes
it a fundamental duty upon every citizen of India to protect wildlife and have
compassion for all living creatures.
 According to Article 48, the State has the duty to organize agriculture and animal
husbandry on modern, scientific lines and to take steps for preserving and improving
breeds, prohibiting slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
 Article 48A provides that the State also has a duty to protect, safeguard and improve
the forests and wildlife of the country.
 In List II (State List), Seventh Schedule, it is provided that the State has the power
and authority to:

14 Preserve, protect and improve stock and prevent animal diseases, and enforce veterinary
training and practice.

 In List III (Concurrent List), it is provided that both the Centre and the State have
the power and authority to:

17 Prevent cruelty to animals.

17B. Protect wild animals and birds.

 Under the Eleventh Schedule (Article 243 G), the Panchayati Raj institutions have
the duty and authority to deal with matters relating to:

4. Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry.

5. Fisheries
6. Humans are the most powerful species in the world. At the famous Lusaka Zoo, in
Zambia, there is a mirror which is kept in the cage. There is no animal in that cage and
outside that cage, following words have been written “The World’s most dangerous
animal”. In that mirror one can see himself, and that reflects the fear of men destroying
their own future, with their own deeds.
7. People are destroying their own ‘right to life’ by using their freedom to exploit nature.
Judiciary in India, has expanded the horizons of the, much debated and popular, Article
21. Ironically, it has indirectly given the right to life to nature. It is the nature from
where we derive our life energy, and now are endangering it. The Judicial Activism is
protecting the nature through the route of human’s right to enjoy healthy
environment.[1]
8. Further, this wave of Judicial Activism has led to the incorporation of principle of Inter-
generational equity and sustainable development in the right to life. There is increasing
need to protect the nature and wildlife from extinction, as without them there would be
no sustainable development. They directly or indirectly serve for the welfare of the
human beings. Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the people of
the country right to life and liberty, also cast a duty upon them to not to deprive other
from this right. People by destructing wildlife, are depriving the other people from their
life and liberty. Therefore, Article 21 is indirectly providing the right to life to animals.
9. In N.R. Nair v. Union of India, [(2000) 2 KLT 625], the debate was started by the
Kerela High Court that, animals are also beings, having right to dignified existences
and humane treatment without any cruelty. They only satisfy their need and not their
greed, unlike humans. Court in clear word said:
10. “In this context, we may ask why not our educational institutions offer a course on
“Animal Rights Law” with an emphasis on fundamental rights as has been done by the
Harvard Law School recently. “If humans are entitled to fundamental rights, why not
animals?” In our considered opinion, legal rights shall not be the exclusive preserve
of the humans which has to be extended beyond people thereby dismantling the thick
legal wall with humans all on one side and all non-human animals on the other side.
While the law currently protects wild life and endangered species from extinction,
animals are denied rights, an anachronism which must necessarily change.”
11. Jallikattu Case – Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja
12. Recently, in a decision of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, [(2014) 7
SCC 547] Apex court has discussed the Article 21 in the context of the animals. It was
a case concerning the violation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA,
Act), by the customary practice of ‘Jallikattu’.
13. Jallikattu is a practice where bulls are tamed or annoyed in inhumanely manner till they
get enraged, and start running haywire. It is a Tamil word, which comes from
“callikattu”, which is composed of two words “calli” means coins and “kattu” means a
package. Therefore, it’s a sport in which, silver or gold coins tied on the bulls’ horns,
and players fetch it, as an act of bravery.
14. Apex Court, said that the rights guaranteed to the animals under PCA Act are only
statutory rights, and the same have to be elevated to the status of fundamental rights. It
called the rights under, Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act, and Articles 51-A (g) and
(h) of the Constitution, as the Magna Carta of animal rights in India.
15. Article 21 has indirectly covered under its umbrella every species, and blessed them
with right to life and security, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity.
Article 21 protects life, and the word “life” has been expanded by the highest
constitutional Court, so as to include all forms of life in the environment, which
contains animal life also, which are necessary for human life. Honorable Court held
that “life” in context of animals does not mean, mere survival or existence or
instrumental value for human beings, but also life with some intrinsic worth, honour
and dignity. It in addition enlisted these five internationally recognized freedoms for
animals, such as:
16. (i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;
17. (ii) freedom from fear and distress;
18. (iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;
19. (iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and
20. (v) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.
21. They are also called “Brambell’s Five Freedoms”. They have been elevated and equated
with rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country under Part III of the Constitution
of India, thought they find their place in Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act.
22. Conclusion
23. The A. Nagaraja, judgment, has limited the scope of the application of the Judgment,
to the point when such animals’ life is necessary for human life, and has failed to give
precedence to the need of nature i.e. going Eco-centric from Anthropocentric.
24. Supreme Court, in Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union of
India,[(2013) 8 SCC 234] said that sustainable development has Anthropocentric bias,
and is not concerned with the rights of other species which live on this earth. Honorable
Court explained that laws are made by men, and as a result they are anthropocentric,
and rights of wild animals become of secondary importance.[2]
25. Anthropocentric approach always gives preference to the interest of the humans. On the
other hand Eco-centric approach is concerned with needs of nature. In this approach
unlike anthropocentric approach, non-humans also have intrinsic value, and human
interest does not take automatic precedence. Therefore, following, the Eco-centric
approach, to an extent the Apex court in A. Nagaraja held that Article 21 protects not
only human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to protect and preserve
a specie from becoming extinct, and to conserve and protect environment, as these are
also an inseparable part of right to life.
26. Now, treating animals cruelly is against the public morale and public order.[3] Bombay
High Court in Public Interest Litigation of Animals and Birds Charitable Trusts and
Others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others[4], has supported the
Eco-centric view developed by the Supreme Court in above said judgments.
27. The Apex court has gone to the extent to use Article 21 to give life to animals,
equivalent to that of humans. It has brought the rights of animals to be protected like a
fundamental right. Therefore, it has reflected that the animals also have fundamental
right under the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court still held the interest of the
human beings to supersede the interest of animals. Hence, it has failed in its attempt to
neutralize a speciesism which means favoring one’s own species.
28. Justice would be done, only if we transform our laws from the principle of
anthropocentric to eco-centric, completely. Famous principles in International
Environmental jurisprudence like sustainable development, polluter-pays principle,
inter-generational equity have their roots in anthropocentric principles, so these must
be changed and, Eco-centrism, should be promoted, which is nature-centred as well as
life-centred, and humans form part of nature and flora-fauna have intrinsic value.[5]
29. [1] Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496
30. [2] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 277
31. [3] Jumbo Circus v. Union of India, June 6, 2000,O.P Nos. 155, 1066, 2187, 1141,
5086, 6378, 6148, 6032, 2029, 5616, 486, 2636, 6229, 8173, 9483, 3845, 430, 6352,
2460 & 11729 of 1999
32. [4] Animals and Birds Charitable Trusts and Others v. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and others, Public Interest Litigation No.36 Of 2011, decided on
08.06.2015
33. [5] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 277
34. Advocacy groups and humanitarians alike have long argued for the rights of animals
around the world, fighting for their right as sentient creatures to a life free of torture
and suffering. Some advocate for not using animals as food, clothing or other goods
and others such as vegans even go as far as to denounce the use of animal by-products.
35. In the United States, people often say that they love animals and that they consider their
pets to be part of the family, but many draw the line at animal rights. Isn't it enough that
we treat them humanely? Why should animals have rights? What rights should animals
have? How are those rights different from human rights?
36. The fact of the matter is that since the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued the 1966
Animal Welfare Act, even animals used in commercial farming are entitled to a certain
base-level of treatment. But that differs from the wants of animal rights activist groups
like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the more extreme British
direct-action group known as the Animal Liberation Front.
37. Animal Rights Versus Animal Welfare
38. The animal welfare view, which is distinguishable from the animal rights view, is that
humans can use and exploit animals as long as the animals are treated humanely and
the use is not too frivolous. To animal rights activists, the main problem with this view
is that humans do not have the right to use and exploit animals, no matter how well the
animals are treated. Buying, selling, breeding, confining, and killing animals infringe
on the animals' rights, no matter how "humanely" they are treated.
39. Furthermore, the idea of treating animals humanely is vague and means something
different to everyone. For instance, an egg farmer may think that there is nothing wrong
with killing male chicks by grinding them up alive to cut feeding costs versus yield.
Also, "cage-free eggs" are not as humane as the industry would have us believe. In fact,
a cage-free egg operation buys their eggs from the same hatcheries that factory farms
buy from, and those hatcheries kill the male chicks as well.
40. The idea of "humane" meat also seems absurd to animal rights activists, since the
animals must be killed to obtain the meat. And for farms to be profitable, those animals
are killed as soon as they reach slaughter weight, which is still very young.
41. Why Should Animals Have Rights?
42. Animal rights activism is based on the idea that animals are sentient and that speciesism
is wrong, the former of which is scientifically backed — an international panel of
neuroscientists declared in 2012 that non-human animals have consciousness — and
the latter is still hotly contested among humanitarians.
43. Animal rights activists argue that because animals are sentient, the only reason humans
are treated differently is speciesism, which is an arbitrary distinction based on the
incorrect belief that humans are the only species deserving of moral consideration.
Speciesism, like racism and sexism, is wrong because of animals popular in the meat
industry like cows, pigs and chickens suffer when confined, tortured and slaughtered
and there is no reason to morally distinguish between humans and non-human animals.
44. The reason that people have rights is to prevent unjust suffering. Similarly, the reason
that animal rights activists want animals to have rights is to prevent them from suffering
unjustly. We have animal cruelty statutes to prevent some animal suffering, although
U.S law prohibits only the most egregious, extraordinary animal cruelty. These laws do
nothing to prevent most forms of animal exploitation, including fur, veal, and foie gras.
45. Human Rights Versus Animal Rights
46. No one is asking for animals to have the same rights as humans, but in an animal rights
activist's ideal world, animals would have the right to live free of human use and
exploitation — a vegan world where animals are no longer used for food, clothing or
entertainment.
47. While there is some debate as to what basic human rights are, most people recognize
that other humans have certain fundamental rights. According to the United Nations'
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights include "the right to life, liberty
and security of person..an adequate standard of living...to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution...to own property...freedom of opinion and
expression...to education...of thought, conscience and religion; and the right to freedom
from torture and degrading treatment, among others."
48. These rights are different from animal rights because we have the power to ensure that
other humans have access to food and housing, are free from torture, and can express
themselves. On the other hand, it's not in our power to ensure that every bird has a nest
or that every squirrel has an acorn. Part of animal rights is leaving the animals alone to
live their lives, without encroaching on their world or their lives.