CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACT 2024

Introduction

The relationship between humans and animals has undergone a radical transformation in the twenty-first century, driven by scientific advancements in understanding animal cognition, increasing public concern about cruelty, and evolving judicial interpretations regarding the dignity and moral status of animals. Against this backdrop, the Animal Rights Act 2024 represents a landmark legislative attempt to modernise India’s animal protection regime. Unlike the predominantly welfare-oriented Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prioritised minimizing suffering without recognising intrinsic rights, the 2024 Act explicitly incorporates a rights-based perspective. Contemporary scholarship increasingly argues for recognising animals as right-holders rather than mere beneficiaries of human compassion (Francione, 2008).

This paper provides a critical analysis of the Animal Rights Act 2024, evaluating its philosophical foundations, structural strengths, limitations, enforcement mechanisms, sector-specific provisions, and alignment with landmark Supreme Court judgments. Significant cases such as Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), N.R. Nair v. Union of India (2000), Centre for Environment Law, WWF v. Union of India (2013), and Union of India v. PETA (2018) inform the analysis, enabling an assessment of whether the Act genuinely embodies a rights-based approach or merely extends welfare-oriented protections.

Historical and Jurisprudential Background

India’s earlier animal protection laws largely reflected an anthropocentric perspective, treating animals as property with limited welfare safeguards (Narayan, 2016). The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was progressive for its era, establishing legal obligations for preventing overt cruelty. However, the Act quickly revealed limitations, including nominal penalties, narrow definitions of cruelty, and the absence of enforceable rights.

Judicial interventions gradually expanded the moral and legal landscape. In N.R. Nair v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court upheld restrictions on the use of certain wild animals for entertainment, recognising the state’s role in preventing exploitation. A more profound shift occurred in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), where the Court articulated that animals possess intrinsic dignity, referencing the “Five Freedoms” developed by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). The judgment linked animal protection to Article 51A(g), emphasising the fundamental duty of citizens to show compassion toward all living creatures.

Further, in the Centre for Environment Law, WWF v. Union of India (2013), the Court declared wild animals to be a national asset, reinforcing the principle that the state functions as a trustee of biodiversity. In Union of India v. PETA (2018), the Court upheld restrictions on jallikattu-like events, emphasising that cultural practices cannot justify cruelty. Collectively, these cases established a jurisprudence that blends welfare-oriented safeguards with rights-informed reasoning, influencing the framing of the 2024 Act.

Overview of the Animal Rights Act 2024

The Animal Rights Act 2024 introduces significant structural and substantive changes, including the recognition of animal sentience, broader definitions of cruelty, stronger regulatory mechanisms, and more effective enforcement.

Recognition of Sentience

The Act explicitly recognises animals as sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, distress, and emotional states. This aligns with contemporary scientific research demonstrating complex cognitive and emotional capacities in mammals, birds, and even certain invertebrates (Bekoff, 2007). Recognition of sentience represents a legal acknowledgment of animals as more than property, integrating ethical and scientific insights into statutory language.

Statutory Rights Framework

The Act establishes multiple rights, including:

• The right to live free from unnecessary pain and suffering,
• The right to adequate nourishment, shelter, and healthcare,
• The right to express natural behaviour, and
• Freedom from exploitation in commercial, scientific, and entertainment contexts.
  

Despite these recognitions, the enforceability of these rights remains limited. Animals lack legal standing, and the Act does not provide for guardians or legal representatives, leaving the rights largely aspirational.

Regulatory Provisions

The Act applies to industrial agriculture, laboratory research, pet breeding, entertainment industries, and wildlife protection. Compliance mechanisms include licensing, mandatory reporting, inspections, and record-keeping requirements. These regulatory provisions aim to prevent systemic cruelty while providing a structured framework for monitoring animal welfare across sectors.

Enforcement Mechanisms

Central and State Animal Welfare Authorities are empowered to oversee compliance, conduct inspections, issue directions, suspend licences, and initiate prosecutions. Veterinary officers, legal experts, and trained inspectors constitute the backbone of these authorities, improving oversight and accountability.

Penalties

Penalties under the Act include increased fines, imprisonment, and revocation of licenses, addressing the inadequacies of the 1960 Act, which often imposed nominal punishments insufficient to deter violations.

Philosophical and Theoretical Foundations

A central tension within the Act stems from its attempt to reconcile welfare-based and rights-based ethical frameworks.

Welfare-Based Ethics

The welfare approach permits human use of animals provided that unnecessary suffering is minimised. It relies on utilitarian reasoning, evaluating actions in terms of costs and benefits to overall well-being (Singer, 1975). Most pre-2024 legislation reflected this perspective.

Rights-Based Ethics

Rights theorists, notably Regan (1983), contend that animals possess inherent moral value and must not be treated merely as means to human ends. Rights are non-negotiable and confer legal and moral claims that cannot be overridden for utilitarian considerations.

Hybrid Nature of the Act

While the Act’s preamble references intrinsic value and autonomy, it simultaneously permits several exploitative practices, including intensive confinement, invasive experimentation, entertainment uses, and commercial breeding. This creates conceptual inconsistencies. Scholars argue that legal recognition of rights cannot coexist with large-scale exploitation (Francione, 2008). The Act, therefore, represents a transitional hybrid, straddling welfare and rights paradigms without fully committing to either.

 Strengths of the Animal Rights Act 2024

Recognition of Sentience

By explicitly recognising sentience, the Act aligns with contemporary scientific understanding and global trends in legal protection of animals.

Expanded Definition of Cruelty

The Act broadens the scope of cruelty to include neglect, psychological distress, confinement beyond natural limits, and deprivation of behavioural expression. These changes reflect an advanced understanding of animal welfare (OIE, 2021).

Strengthened Penalties

Substantially increased fines and imprisonment enhance deterrence, overcoming one of the key weaknesses of prior legislation.

Institutional Reforms

The creation of welfare authorities with inspection powers, oversight mechanisms, and whistleblower protections improves accountability and administrative efficiency.

Alignment with Judicial Principles

The Act codifies several principles articulated in A. Nagaraja, including recognition of animal dignity, freedom from unnecessary suffering, and acknowledgment of the Five Freedoms framework.

Limitations of the Animal Rights Act 2024

Non-Enforceability of Rights

Despite rights-oriented language, the Act lacks mechanisms for enforcement. Animals cannot initiate legal proceedings, nor does the law designate legal guardians to act on their behalf. Consequently, these rights remain largely aspirational.

Broad Exemptions

Exemptions for industries such as agriculture, research, and cultural practices dilute statutory protections. Such broad exceptions undermine the universality of rights claims and contradict the Act’s rights rhetoric.

Inadequate Enforcement Infrastructure

Effective implementation requires trained inspectors, consistent funding, and inter-agency coordination. Historically, these elements have been weak within Indian administrative structures (Menon, 2019).

 Retention of Property Status

Animals continue to be classified as property under civil and commercial law. This legal status undermines the transformative potential of rights-based rhetoric.

Excessive Administrative Discretion

Many provisions grant sweeping discretionary powers to authorities, leading to potential inconsistencies and uneven enforcement.

Sector-Specific Analysis

Industrial Agriculture

The Act regulates transport, slaughter, and housing conditions but does not prohibit intensive systems such as battery cages or gestation crates. These practices compromise autonomy and the ability to express natural behaviour (Graham & Mench, 2013).

Scientific Research

Although the Act establishes oversight committees for laboratory experiments, it does not legally mandate alternatives to animal testing, unlike the EU Directive 2010/63/EU. Permissive regulation may perpetuate unnecessary suffering.

Entertainment and Performing Animals

Licensing and restrictions exist, yet the Act allows certain entertainment uses. This contrasts with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in A. Nagaraja and PETA, which emphasised that human amusement cannot justify cruelty.

Wildlife and Conservation

The Act complements existing conservation laws and aligns with the ecological jurisprudence articulated in Centre for Environment Law (2013). Enforcement challenges, however, persist due to coordination and resource limitations.

Companion Animals

Regulations for breeders and pet shops aim to prevent puppy mills and illegal trade. Nonetheless, enforcement gaps remain significant due to informal breeding networks.

Comparative International Analysis

Comparing India’s Act with global standards highlights areas of convergence and divergence:

• United Kingdom: The Animal Welfare Act 2006 imposes enforceable duties of care, and the Animal Sentience Act 2022 requires government consideration of animal welfare in policymaking.
• European Union: EU law strictly regulates transport, slaughter, and laboratory experiments, with an emphasis on alternatives to animal testing.
• New Zealand: Recognises animal sentience and mandates robust reporting and welfare obligations.

The 2024 Act aligns with international trends in its language and intent but falls short in enforceability and systemic oversight.

Implementation Challenges

Administrative Capacity

Effective enforcement requires well-trained inspectors, adequate funding, and sustained inter-agency coordination, historically weak points in Indian law enforcement.

Cultural and Religious Practices

Resistance arises where the Act intersects with long-standing traditions. Judicial interventions, including A. Nagaraja and PETA, have addressed these conflicts but practical enforcement remains difficult.

Economic Limitations

Industries dependent on animal use may resist higher welfare standards due to increased operational costs.

Coordination Challenges

Animal protection necessitates collaboration across agriculture, forest, municipal, and law enforcement agencies—a coordination that is often deficient in practice (Menon, 2019).

Judicial Alignment and Divergence

While the Act incorporates several judicial principles, including recognition of sentience and animal dignity, it diverges from the rights-based reasoning advanced in A. Nagaraja. Cultural and entertainment exemptions conflict with the Court’s stance that cruelty cannot be justified for human amusement or tradition. Additionally, the absence of enforceable rights contrasts with judicial recognition of intrinsic animal dignity.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Animal Rights Act 2024 represents a significant legislative advancement. Recognition of sentience, expanded definitions of cruelty, enhanced penalties, and improved institutional frameworks mark substantial progress. However, the Act remains a transitional statute, inadequately realising a fully rights-based framework.

• Introduce enforceable rights, including legal standing or guardianship provisions for animals.
• Limit industry exemptions to ensure consistency with rights-oriented language.
• Strengthen enforcement capacity via funding, training, and inter-agency collaboration.
• Mandate alternatives to animal experimentation wherever feasible.
• Align cultural exemptions with Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing animal dignity.
• Promote public education campaigns to cultivate ethical treatment of animals.

In conclusion, while the Act reflects significant progress, further reform is required to achieve a coherent and enforceable rights-based framework consistent with contemporary ethical and judicial standards.

References

• Bekoff, M. (2007). The emotional lives of animals. New World Library.
• Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. Columbia University Press.
• Graham, M., & Mench, J. (2013). Behavioural biology of farm animals and welfare implications. Journal of Animal Science, 91(2), 1–10.
•  Menon, N. (2019). Challenges in enforcement of animal protection laws in India. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 65(3), 503–517.
•  Narayan, D. (2016). Animal welfare legislation in India: A historical review. Asian Journal of Legal Studies, 12(1), 45–59.
•  OIE. (2021). Terrestrial animal health code. World Organisation for Animal Health.
•  Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
•  Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York Review Books.
•  Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547.
•  Centre for Environment Law, WWF v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 234.
•  N.R. Nair v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 465.
•  Union of India v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), (2018) 13 SCC 790.