ABSTRACT
This research explores the paradoxical relationship between humans and animals, focusing on India’s legal and cultural framework surrounding animal rights. Despite a long history of animal protection dating back to King Ashoka’s reign, animals in India continue to suffer due to societal norms, religious practices, and inadequate enforcement of laws. The research examines key Indian legal provisions, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Indian Penal Code, alongside judicial pronouncements shaping animal welfare policies. Cases like Jallikattu and animal sacrifices highlight the conflict between cultural traditions and ethical treatment. The study also discusses the evolving legal recognition of animals as sentient beings, including the acknowledgement of their “five freedoms” and rights in landmark court rulings. However, incidents of cruelty persist, revealing gaps between legal provisions and societal attitudes. The research concludes by emphasizing the need for better enforcement of animal welfare laws, public awareness, and the integration of ethical treatment into cultural practices, aiming for a compassionate coexistence between humans and animals.
Keywords:
Animal Welfare, Indian Law, Cultural Practices, Animal Rights
INTRODUCTION
Animals are a fundamental part of our lives, and humans evolved from apes and are the closest biological link to us. The terrestrial biosphere can be divided into flora and animals, with humans being the closest biological link to humans due to their advanced mental development, communication abilities, and upright position. Conversely, animals are living organisms that feed on organic matter and are considered “animals” in common language. However, there is a discrepancy in treatment between humans and animals. Killing another person is considered murder, while killing an animal is regarded as a culinary delicacy, a way to satisfy a higher power, a recreational activity for the upper class, or a valuable commodity in the market. Despite the focus on human rights, it is wrong to ignore animal suffering. For example, circus animals are mistreated, tortured, and agonized during their training to amuse humans. Considering the different responses to animal suffering is crucial, as people from various backgrounds will answer this question differently.
Indian Laws and Provisions
Animal protection in India dates back to 274-232 B.C. when King Ashoka banned animal slaughter and sacrifice, marking the beginning of the country’s long history of animal protection. India’s position on animals is paradoxical, with many being revered as sacred and worshipped in various forms, while others are cruelly killed to satisfy superstitious and religious beliefs. There are limits on the treatment of certain animals based on faith and spiritual representations. India’s high values have led to the belief that animals should be treated ethically, but the truth seems to be quite different. The Constitution of India contains DPSP, which the state must consider when drafting legislation. Despite not being legally enforceable in a court of law, the people are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting animals, as per Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.
Furthermore, Sections 4281 and 4292 of the IPC, 1860 also find relevance in extending protection to animals. Nevertheless, the application of these constraints is limited in the degree that it can be carried out. Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code defines a non-human living entity as an “animal” under the Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860. The first law prohibiting the brutal treatment of animals was introduced in 1890 by the United Kingdom. After the Act’s abolition, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 (PCA Act) was enacted, which remains the only significant statute targeting the inhumane treatment of animals.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is a significant improvement over the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in addressing animal cruelty. It introduces broader definitions of cruelty, including neglect and abandonment, and harsher penalties to deter offenders. Key sections, like Section 321 on cruelty to animals and Section 325 on neglect, replace outdated IPC provisions and introduce more structured regulations. Section 324 explicitly bans animal fights, while Section 323 directly addresses poisoning of animals. These changes aim to provide more comprehensive protection for animals and stricter consequences for offenders.
India’s animal status remains deplorable due to cultural norms, lack of knowledge, and other issues. Animals have been seen as living commodities since the early 20th century. In 2014, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh prohibited animal sacrifice in places of worship. Animals face cruel treatment, including random kicks and confined transportation. Prevention of animal cruelty is a topic in the Concurrent List of laws and regulations.3By throwing eight pups over a rock and killing them, an elderly lady in Bengaluru was attempting to “teach a lesson” to their mother for giving birth in close proximity to her home4; the tragedy of a dog who was stabbed to death in the nation’s capital5; In the city of Pune, a guy who was 45 years old brutally beat a woman and her daughter for providing refuge to stray dogs6; Students of the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery program in Chennai intentionally threw a dog off the top of a building with many stories and uploaded the clip on social media; acid attacks victimized livestock7; and several more. Animal cruelty and lack of empathy are significant societal issues, and India’s animal laws are ineffective. The Jallikattu event highlighted the need for a clear line between protection, ethical treatment, and culture. Jeremy Bentham advocates for the ethical treatment of all beings, regardless of race, gender, or nature. Prioritizing animal well-being over human welfare is crucial, as sentient creatures deserve respect and dignity.
An Intersection with Cultural and Religious Practices
According to the ruling in the case “Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Others” (2014)8, the court acknowledged that animals have the right to “five freedoms.” The court ruled that the use of bulls in competitions, bullfights, and sports that involve taming bulls, such as Jallikattu, is prohibited. This decision is based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Sections 3 and 11, and Article 51-A(g) and (h) of the Indian Constitution. The court upheld the right to a healthy and sanitary environment and to be free from needless suffering or distress, ensuring that bulls are not used in such activities.
According to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of “Karnail Singh and others v. State of Haryana” (2019),9 it was stated that all animals in their respective states would be regarded as legal individuals with their own identity, rights, duties, and obligations, which are comparable to those of a human being. Human representatives responsible for animal care are recognized as persons in loco parentis, extending to all residents. A petition to the Supreme Court aims to acknowledge the entire animal world as a separate legal species, providing equal rights and obligations.
In the case of “Subhas Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura” (2019)10, The Tripura Court ruled that offering animal sacrifices at temples violates the Indian Constitution, as Article 25 allows for restrictions on religious freedom when it interferes with other rights or poses a threat to public health, morals, or order. The court acknowledged the dignity of wild animals but deemed religious animal sacrifice immoral and detrimental to individuals’ emotional and psychological well-being.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
In recent years, the Indian judiciary has actively interpreted constitutional and statutory provisions to expand the scope of animal rights, often leading to landmark rulings that have shaped the jurisprudence around animal protection and welfare. The courts have reinforced the principle that animals are sentient beings with intrinsic rights, thereby advancing animal welfare legislation through progressive judgments.
One of the most significant cases in this regard is “Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.,” (2014) 7 SCC 547, which concerned the traditional practice of Jallikattu, a bull-taming event in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court of India ruled that Jallikattu inflicted unnecessary pain and suffering on bulls, thereby violating the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). The Court held that animals possess an inherent right to live with dignity and freedom from cruelty. The Indian court’s recent judgment expanded its mandate to protect animals from harmful practices, recognizing the sentience of animals and granting them constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution, a landmark in Indian animal rights jurisprudence.
In another important case, “Arun Gopal v. Union of India,” (2017) SCC OnLine Bom 717, the Bombay High Court addressed the legality of cockfighting, a practice commonly associated with festivals in various regions of India. The Court unequivocally declared cockfighting illegal, citing violations of the PCA Act. The court emphasized that traditional customs cannot justify animal mistreatment or exploitation, and upheld animal welfare laws over cultural practices, demonstrating its commitment to protecting animals from harm and ensuring that animal rights should not be sacrificed for tradition.
The Delhi High Court, in “People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. Union of India,” (2016) SCC Online Del 3511, addressed the exploitation of animals in circuses. Acting upon reports of widespread abuse and maltreatment of animals in circus performances, the Court directed a nationwide ban on the use of animals in such performances. The court’s ruling emphasized the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding animals from commercial exploitation, emphasizing the necessity of humane animal treatment in entertainment and ensuring economic interests do not override ethical animal treatment. A significant step forward in animal rights jurisprudence was taken by the Uttarakhand High Court in “State of Uttarakhand v. People for Animals,” (2020) SCC OnLine Utt 1099, where the Court declared that animals possess the same rights as humans. The Court’s ruling on animal legal personhood was a progressive step, directing the State to ensure proper living conditions for animals, including adequate shelter and healthcare. This decision reflects the evolving judicial stance on animal welfare, extending legal personhood beyond humans and recognizing animals as legal entities.
CONCLUSION
The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in advancing the cause of animal protection, demonstrating a progressive and compassionate approach. Through landmark judgments, such as the recognition of animals’ rights to live with dignity and freedom from cruelty, the courts have ensured that legal frameworks extend beyond humans to include animals. By interpreting the Constitution and statutes in favour of animal welfare, the judiciary has set important precedents, encouraging stricter enforcement of animal protection laws. However, the full realization of animal rights remains an ongoing challenge, requiring more comprehensive legislation, societal awareness, and collaborative efforts from various stakeholders. The judiciary’s role as a guardian of the voiceless underscores the moral and ethical obligation to treat animals with respect and compassion, marking an essential step towards a more humane society. The continued vigilance of the courts will be crucial in safeguarding the rights of animals in India.
Footnotes
- Indian Penal Code 1860, s 428. ↩︎
- Indian Penal Code 1860, s 429. ↩︎
- PTI, “Eight boys held for setting three puppies ablaze” The Times of India ( 21 July 2016)
available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Eight-boys-held-forsetting-three-puppies-ablaze/articleshow/53319802.cms last visited on 14 September 2024
↩︎ - Deccan Chronicle, “Bengaluru woman kills 8 puppies to teach mother a lesson” ( 22 March 2016) available at http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/crime/220316/bengaluruwoman-kills-8-puppies-to-teach-their-mother-a-lesson.html last visited on 14 September 2024 ↩︎
- [1] Anjali Bisaria, “Shocking Footage Shows a Killer Stabbing a Puppy to Death at Green Park Metro Station in Delhi” Indiatimes ( 20 March 2016) available at http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/shocking-footage-shows-akiller-stabbing-a-puppy-to-death-at-green-park-metro-station-in-delhi252306.html last visited on 214 September 2024 ↩︎
- PTI, “Pune man mercilessly beats mother, daughter for sheltering street dog” (Deccan Chronicle, 28 September 2016) available at http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/280916/videopune-man-mercilessly-beats-mother-daughter-for-sheltering-streetdogs.html last visited on 14 September 2024. ↩︎
- Arun Janardhan, “Chennai: MBBS students who threw dog from terrace to pay Rs 2 lakh fine” The Indian Express ( 31 August 2016) available at http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/chennai-mbbsstudents-who-threw-dog-from-terrace-to-pay-rs-2-lakh-fine-3004877/ last visited on 14 September 2024 ↩︎
- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5387 OF 2014 ↩︎
- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2003 ↩︎
- Writ Petition(C)(PIL) No.2/2018 ↩︎
