Project Report on

APPLICABILITY OF EXTENSION OF RIGHT TO LIFE TO

ANIMALS

Submitted by

OISHI SEN

Division A

PRN 19010323076

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, PUNE

In

March, 2023

Under the guidance of

Dr. Sanu Rani Paul

Assistant Professor

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

I
 C E R T I F IC AT E

The Project titled “Applicability of Extension of Right to Life to Animals” submitted to the
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad as part of Internal assessment on Environmental Law is
based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Dr. Sanu Rani Paul from 13 th
January, 2023 to 8th March, 2023. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for
the award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the candidate: Oishi Sen

Date: 08/03/2023

II
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am indebted to my guide, Dr. Sanu Rani Paul, for being understanding, cooperative and
helping me very patiently with even the tiniest doubts I had. The duration of this research
paper has been extremely difficult for me pertaining to certain issues. I sincerely thank my
best friend for being an immaculate source of strength and inspiration. I would extend my
gratitude to my friends and my roommates for their constant love and support. His paper
would not have been possible without the aforementioned people. I once again thank them
from the bottom of my heart. If any mistakes remain, I take solely responsibility for the same.

III
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. TABLE OF CASES V-VI
2. ABSTRACT 1
3. INTRODUCTION 2-9
4. VIABILITY OF A “RIGHTS-BASED” APPROACH IN 10-16
THE CONTEXT OF ANIMAL RIGHTS
5. CRULETY INFLICTED UPON ANIMALS- LAWS & 17-26
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 21
6. ANIMAL RIGHTS IN THE BACKDROP OF HUMAN 27-32
DEVELOPMENT
7. SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION 33-34
8. REFERENCES 35-37

IV
 TABLE OF CASES

SL NO. CASE NAME PAGE NO.

1. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., (2014) 7 2
SCC 547.
2. A. Periyakaruppan v. the Principal Secretary, W.P. (MD) No. 13
2614/2020, Judgement dated Apr 19, 2022.
3. Ramesh Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 SCC 15
OnLine HP 4679.
4. Mohammad Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) 15
No. 126/2014, Judgement dated Mar 20, 2017.
5. Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 15
140/2015, Judgement dated Mar 30, 2017.
6. Karnail Singh v State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539. 16
7. Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 16
645.
8. Alim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 16
112/2017, Judgement dated Aug 10, 2018.
9. Subhas Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 20
441.
10. In Ramlila Maidan Incident, Suo Moto, (2012) 5 SCC 377. 20
11. Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India, (1993) 3 SCR 21. 20
12. Mahisagar Mataji Samaj Seva Trust v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 21
2 GujLR 1300.
13. Abdul Kadar Mohammad Azam Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 21
Special Criminal Application No. 1635/2010 dated May 12,
2011.
14. Gauri Maulekhi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2015) 4 21
BomCR 1.
15. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, AIR 21
2006 SC 212.
16. Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of 22

V
 India, (1997) 3 SCC 549.
17. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1. 27
18. Justice I.S. Irani (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2103) 4 CDR 1973 29
(Raj).
19. Indus Towers Ltd. v. State of Goa, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 29
6863.
20. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 SCC 750. 30
21. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 31
SCC 647.
22. Noise Pollution v. Unknown, AIR 2005 SC 3136. 31

VI
ABSTRACT

This abundant earth bestows the very same riches on every living thing that is birthed here.
We share the same atmosphere and a common horizon. Even so, a superior species—humans
—claims to control and direct the activities of the others. To fulfil their materialistic needs,
homo sapiens take advantage of the lives of other animals. Inhumane methods are used to
extract benefits from these speechless animals, which at times even result in their death. They
are frequently killed and their skins torn from their dead bodies or for extracting their flesh
for food or offered in accordance with traditional rites in garb of faith. These animals
are tormented, shackled, and imprisoned before being forced to perform for entertainment of
the humans.

In the context of environmental law jurisprudence, much has been done by the legislature and
the judiciary to ensure protection of the interests of these animals. The most laudable yet
controversial of these measures was the extension of right to life to animals under Article 21
of the Constitution. This step by the judiciary was applauded by animal activists. Yet, there
remained a sect which preferred a duty-based approach rather than a right based approach
when it came to animal welfare.

Animals are more than just wild creatures who are to be viewed as a means to an end. They
too inhabit a soul and are creations of nature and are thus part of it. They too breathe and
procreate. They have a right to live a life free from human interference and cruelty. Each
animal and bird has a significant role to play in maintenance of the order of the food chain,
thereby maintaining the ecological balance. One of the very basic tenets of human existence
is harbouring the essence of humanity towards the less superior species that surrounds us.
This is common knowledge and probably known to all humans, yet animals’ sufferings
continue.

This instant paper shall seek to understand the applicability of extension of right to life to
animals from an eco-centric approach, the various laws and judgements available in India on
the above subject-matter and the detrimental effects of a rapid human development on
animals.

Keywords: Animals, Right to Life, Nature, Cruelty, Judiciary, Development

VII
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

The law concerning animal rights and environmental law are intrinsically intertwined by the
concept that species belonging to this particular kingdom, both humans and non-humans, co-
exist in the environment and yet there exists a strained relationship between the two. The
term “animal rights” refers to idea that all animals should have certain entitlement, such as
the freedom from human interference, preservation of their natural habitat. 1 On the basis of
fundamental knowledge, it can be safely inferred that Humans fall within the ambit of
Kingdom Animalia.2 The treatment of non-human species in India has long been a topic of
concern and debate, with many questioning the morality and ethics of the widespread
exploitation and abuse of animals in industries such as meat production, animal testing, and
animal entertainment.3 The issue of animal welfare and the extension of the right to life to
animals is a contentious and complex topic, with proponents and opponents on both sides of
the debate.

Environmental law is relatively the older and more developed area of law. Compared to the
branch of environmental law, it is only a recent trend to adopt an eco-centric approach to
extend right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India 4 to the non-human species,
i.e., the group largely categorised as “animals” by humans (For future reference, the term
“animal” shall be used more frequently to refer to non-human species in the instant paper).
The judiciary has had a significant contribution in widening the scope of Article 21 of the
Constitution and recognising the right to life to animals 5 and has often taken the role of
“parens patriae” while dealing with the issue of animal rights. 6 In the opinion of the Supreme
Court of India, each and every species is bestowed with the right to life and security and has
1
Priyanka Sharma, Rights of Animals under Indian Legal System: A Judicial Perception, 4 IJTRD 361, 366
(2017),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352001615_Rights_of_Animals_under_Indian_Legal_System_A_Judi
cial_Perception?enrichId=rgreq-77e8a5c2b48deafece2fbc8174d6a1f6-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM1MjAwMTYxNTtBUzoxMDI5NTM2NTUyNjA3NzU2QDE2MjI0
NzIwNTA4ODA%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf.
2
3
Navya Jain & Muskan Jain, Animal Cruelty and Rights: Review and Recommendations, 1 IJPSL 747, 780
(2020), https://ijpsl.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Animal-Cruelty-and-Rights-Review-and-
Recommendations_Navya-Jain-Muskan-Jain-.pdf.
4
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
5
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., (2014) 7 SCC 547.
6
SCIENCE THE WIRE, https://science.thewire.in/environment/rights-of-nature-anthropocentrism/ (last visited
Mar 04, 2023).

VIII
given the term “life” under Article 21, a wide connotation to include all non-human animals
and humans under the scope of its applicability. 7 Besides extension of right to life to animals
vide interpretation of Article 21 by the judiciary, The Constitution of India, which is in
essence the Holy Grail, too provides for protection of wildlife and compassion towards all
living creatures as part of the Fundamental Duties 8 as well as imposes a duty on the State to
safeguard forests and wildlife.9 The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 specifically deals with
protection of animals. Other laws include Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of
Livestock and Marketing) Rules, 2017, Dog (Breeding and Marketing) Rules, 2017. Penalty
for killing or hurting animals is provided for in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which includes
imprisonment for upto 2 years or fine or with both.10

Although it is claimed that adaptation of an eco-centric approach with respect to animal rights
is fairly a recent phenomenon, it is ought to be noted that in ancient India, environmental
protection, and more particularly protection of animals, was imposed on people as a moral
duty prescribed by religious scriptures and saints. People co-habited peacefully with elements
of nature, holding supreme respect for the same. Animals too were considered as the very
personification of Mother Nature.11 There are evidences of ancient humans worshipping
animals which can be found as early as the Harappan, Mesopotamian and Egyptian
Civilizations.12 The author of the Arthasasthras, Kautilya, prohibited harming and killing of
animals as well as laid down penalties for the same. 13 Ashoka, the much renowned Mauryan
king, banned the killing of animals. At a later stage, he prohibited the killing of certain
species of animals.14 In the context of Hindu mythology, numerous deities are connected to
different animals, as evidenced by the observance of celebrations like “Nag Panchami” or the
veneration of the Nandi bull in temples dedicated to Lord Shiva and is much revered as the
“vahan” of the Lord.15 Compassion for animals is not just a Hindu belief; it is also a

7
Prakash Sharma & Partha Pratim Mitra, Role of the Supreme Court in Developing the Concept of Animal
Rights India, SSRN PAPERS, (2020), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3637287.
8
INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g).
9
INDIA CONST. art. 48A.
10
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §428, No. 45, Acts of the Parliament, 1860 (India).
11
D.D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India In Historical Outline, VIDYA ORGANISATION,
(1964), https://vidyaonline.org/dl/cultddk.pdf.
12
KHAN ACADEMY, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/world-history-beginnings/ancient-
india/a/the-indus-river-valley-civilizations (last visited on Mar 08, 2023).
13
Roger Boesche, Kautilya’s Arthasastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India, 67 THE JOURNAL OF
MILITARY HISTORY 9, 20 (2003), http://doi.org/10.1353/jmh.2003.0006.
14
Ibid.
15
SAMVIDHI, https://www.samvidhi.org/post/animal-rights-in-india-most-underrated-topic-of-environmental-
law (last visited on Mar 07, 2023).

IX
fundamental component of Buddhism and Jainism.16 Such believes exist to date. However,
the situation is encountered in the real world, it all ceases to exist and appears to be very
artificial. Opinions of the animal rights, are not just confined to religious texts or saints; even
national leaders like Mahatma Gandhi have had taken a stance on the same. 17 The concept of
giving animals the respect they deserve and not treating them cruelly has been around for a
long time. It can even be traced back further to the time of the great Maharana Pratap Singh
whose affection for his horse Chetak has been addressed in numerous literatures. 18 The
history of India holds sufficient substance to guarantee animal rights even in the absence of
any specific legislations dedicated for the purpose of the same.

In the pre-Constitution period, enactments such as the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, the Indian
Forest Act, 1927, the Elephants Preservation Act, 1879, amongst others, were available for
protection of animals.19 Today, India has a respectable set of legal enactments to ensure the
interests of animal, but they are not without flaws because the target of providing animals
with a serene atmosphere has not yet been accomplished. However, these laws are often
poorly enforced, and there are widespread reports of animal cruelty and abuse in many
industries. The meat industry is one of the largest in India, with the meat industry alone
estimated to be worth over $30 billion. 20 Animal testing is another area where animals are
subjected to significant suffering in India. Many companies use animals to test the safety and
efficacy of their products, despite the availability of alternative methods such as in vitro
testing.21 While there have been efforts to promote alternatives to animal testing, these are
often not implemented due to cost and time constraints.

Animal entertainment is also a major issue in India, with circuses, elephant rides, and other
forms of animal entertainment still prevalent in many parts of the country. Despite growing
opposition from animal rights activists and conservationists, these practices continue to be
popular among tourists and locals alike. These practices raise important ethical and moral
questions around the treatment of animals, and the extent to which their interests and rights
should be taken into account.
16
Beauchamp, T. L., Animals as Moral Patients: Exploring the Philosophical Foundations of Extending Rights
to Non-Human Beings, 67 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES 468, (2011), doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01716.
17
Supra note 14.
18
Ibid.
19
Supra note 7.
20
Overview of the Indian Meat Industry, SR PUBLICATIONS (Mar 08, 2023),
https://www.srpublication.com/overview-of-the-indian-meat-industry/.
21
Navya Jain & Muskan Jain, Animal Cruelty and Rights: Review and Recommendations, 1 IJPSL 747, 780
(2020), https://ijpsl.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Animal-Cruelty-and-Rights-Review-and-
Recommendations_Navya-Jain-Muskan-Jain-.pdf.

X
This research paper seeks to understand the applicability of extending the right to life to
animals in India, and to discuss the current predicaments and challenges associated with such
a proposal. The paper shall also delve into the cruelty met out to animals and the applicability
of animal rights in the backdrop of rapid development.

1.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The paper deals with the following research questions:

i) Whether a rights-based approach is suitable in context of rights of animals?

ii) How animals are subjected to cruelty in various industries; what laws are in place
to alleviate their sufferings and what is the extent of their effectiveness?
iii) How is rapid human development affecting animal rights?

1.2. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

Despite the multitude of legislations and rules and catena of judgements, animals are till date
are subjected to much cruelty in various sectors for humans’ benefits. A duty-based approach
has also failed to secure animal welfare and their rights, yet people continue to profess for the
same because it keeps the reigns of mercy in the hands of the superior race, i.e., humans. To
top these difficulties, rapid human development is inter alia encroaching upon wild life
habitat thus violating their rights to a safe and serene niche.

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

i) To investigate the viability of promoting a rights-based approach for animals
ii) To examine the cruelty met out to animals in various industries; the laws in place,
judgements by various courts and to probe into their effectiveness.
iii) To explore the effects of fast paced human development on animal existence and
their rights

1.4. SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

XI
The scope of the paper extends to the study of extension of right to life to animals in the
Indian scenario. The paper shall also attempt to study the implications of these rights in the
backdrop of a fast-paced human development; the cruelty being met out to them in various
industries despite the existent laws and progressive views of judiciary.

The paper limits itself only to the legal implications and does not extensively cover moral
implications. The paper is restricted to study of laws and situation in the India.

1.5. RESEARCH METHODOLODY

The instant paper undertakes doctrinal method of research which involves referring to
secondary sources of information and reliable study materials available in the library and on
the internet. The author has referred to journals, articles, books, related research papers,
statutes, enactments, case studies and other relevant secondary sources related to the topic.

1.6. SOURCES OF DATA

Primary Sources- Since the instant paper is based on non-doctrinal research; primary sources
were not implemented as such.

Secondary Sources- Research papers, articles, blogs available online

1.7. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. “Animals as Moral Patients: Exploring the Philosophical Foundations of

Extending Rights to Non-Human Beings” by Tom L. Beauchamp (2011)22

This article explores the philosophical arguments for extending rights to animals, including
the idea that animals are moral patients who have interests that must be considered in ethical
decision-making. The article discusses the implications of this perspective for animal welfare
and the potential legal and social barriers to extending rights to animals.

22
T. L. Beauchamp, Animals as Moral Patients: Exploring the Philosophical Foundations of Extending Rights
to Non-Human Beings, 67 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES 468-476, (2011), doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01716.

XII
 2. “The Rights of Animals and the Future of Human Life" by Cass R. Sunstein
(2002)23

Sunstein argues that extending rights to animals is not only morally justified, but also
necessary for the future of human life on earth. He discusses the ways in which animal
welfare intersects with issues such as global warming, biodiversity, and the conservation of
natural resources.

3. “Animal Rights and the Right to Life: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary

Jurisprudence” by Laura K. Robinson (2015)24

This paper provides a comprehensive review of current legal frameworks and philosophical
debates surrounding the extension of the right to life to animals. The author critiques the
limitations of current approaches to animal rights and argues for a more radical
transformation of legal and social norms to ensure the protection of animal life.

4. “The Ethics of Animal Experimentation” by Bernard E. Rollin (1989)25

Rollin explores the ethical implications of using animals in scientific research. He argues that
while animal experimentation can be justified in some cases, it must be done with careful
consideration for animal welfare and with the aim of minimizing harm. Rollin's work has
contributed to the development of animal welfare regulations in the United States.

5. “Animals and the Law: A Critical Overview” by David S. Favre (2015) 26

The article provides an overview of current legal frameworks governing animal rights,
including animal cruelty laws, veterinary malpractice, and wildlife management policies. The
author critiques the limitations of current approaches and advocates for a more
comprehensive legal framework that extends the right to life to animals.

6. “Animals, Ethics, and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience” by World

Animal Protection (2016) 27

23
C. R. Sunstein, The Rights of Animals and the Future of Human Life, 112 THE YALE LAW JOURNAL 1711-
1719, (2002), doi: 10.2307/1562378.
24
L. K. Robinson,. Animal Rights and the Right to Life: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary Jurisprudence.
Animal Law, 185 (2015).
25
B. E. Rollin, The Ethics of Animal Experimentation, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, (1989), doi:
10.1017/CBO9780511625335
26
D. S. Favre, Animals and the Law: A Critical Overview. 21 ANIMAL LAW 1,46, (2015).
27
World Animal Protection,
https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/sites/default/files/int_files/eta_full_report_2016.pdf (last visited on Mar
9, 2023).

XIII
This Report provides a review of current practices in the trade and consumption of animals,
with a focus on animal sentience and welfare. The report highlights the need for greater legal
protections for animals, including the extension of the right to life to non-human animals, in
order to address the ethical and environmental challenges of animal agriculture and other
industries.

7. “Animal Rights and the Values of Nonhuman Life” by Tom Regan (1992)28

In this article, Regan discusses the applicability of extending the right to life to animals. He
argues that animals have inherent value and should be treated with respect, dignity, and
compassion. Regan also explores the current predicaments facing animals, including animal
exploitation in agriculture, research, and entertainment. The article concludes with a call for
greater recognition of animal rights and the development of ethical and legal frameworks that
protect animal welfare.

1.8. RESEARCH GAPS

The paper seeks to discuss about the following research gaps:

i) The viability of a rights-based approach over a duty based approach in rights of

animals.
ii) Pain, psychological trauma met out to animals in various sectors, laws in India
and the extent of effectiveness of these laws.
iii) Effect of various facets of human development on rights of animals.

1.9. CHAPTERISATION

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background

This chapter deals with the introduction to the paper by giving a brief history of the animal
rights in India. The Chapter briefly goes in-depth into the ancient connection between
Humans and animals by analysing the mythological evidences in Vedas and other Texts.
Moreover, The Chapter introduces the various provisions and laws which will be dealt with
in the Paper.

28
T. Regan, Animal rights and the values of nonhuman life, 14(1) Environmental Ethics 3, (1992).

XIV
Chapter 2: Viability of a Rights-Based Approach in the Context of Animal rights

This chapter goes in-depth into the Judicial context of animal rights and how its viability can
be tested if we follow a rights-based approach. This chapter analyses the “rights of nature”
doctrine and how animal rights are intertwined with the same. The Chapter also emphasis on
the “Parens Patriae” doctrine which is invoked by Indian courts when they deal with animal
rights.

Chapter 3: Cruelty Inflicted upon Animals- Laws & Judicial Pronouncements Under
Article 21

This Chapter primarily focuses on the cruelty met out to animals in various industries for
various purposes of human. This chapter discusses in detail the applicability of Article 21 of
the Constitution on animals and relevant judicial pronouncements delivered in this regard.
The chapter also attempts to analyse the effectiveness of the present laws in India.

Chapter 4: Animal Rights in the Backdrop of Human Development

This Chapter did a detailed analysis on how industrial developments have effected the animal
rights. The Chapter deals with the negative impacts of radiation on birds from mobile towers
& Effects of Pollution on animal life.

Chapter 5: Suggestions & Conclusion

This chapter is the ultimate chapter of the paper and attempts to summarise the findings of the
paper. It also makes a humble attempt to provide suggestions that can be practically
implemented.

XV
 CHAPTER 2: VIABILITY OF A “RIGHTS-BASED” APPROACH IN
THE CONTEXT OF ANIMAL RIGHTS

In today’s world, animals are largely considered as living beings who possess consciousness
and ability to perceive the environment, much like humans do. Even on a global basis, people
are more upfront and upstanding whilst speaking out against cruelty met out to animals
instead of relegating it to secondary concerns. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
in the year 2012 witnessed a conference of prominent scientists who inferred that animals are
conscious living beings,29 thereby providing an additional premise for activists to rally against
animal cruelty and further boosting the agenda of animal rights movements. Overall, this
indicates to the shift of how humans today perceive animals as well as indicates to the policy
changes that are required to be brought about to cater to changing global social scenario.

Coming to the context of animal welfare, there exists a wide range of debate as to whether a
right-based approach or a duty-based is required to be adopted. The right-based approach
denotes granting constitutional rights to non-human animals in order to further the cause of
animals, whereas the duty-based approach tilts towards imposing obligations upon humans to
ensure protection of animals owing to the fact that humans constitute the most rational beings
on Earth.30 This debate was further sparked by the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in
the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja 31, which is well-known as the
magna carta in field of animal rights jurisprudence. In the aforementioned case, the Apex
Court banned the bull-fighting festival of Tamil Nadu known as “jallikattu” as well as
bullock cart races organised in Punjab and Maharashtra, while holding that right to life under
Article 21 applies to not only humans but also includes animals within its ambit, thus
identifying animals as “legal persons”. The Court further went on to hold that the provisions
of the Prevention from Cruelty Act hints upon an animal’s right to exist in a healthy and
serene environment, and to be protected against brutality of all forms. Moreover, the
judgement briefly circled upon the notion that legislature should give animals constitutional
rights in order to ensure their “dignity and honour” and suggested the Parliament to make an
amendment to that effect. This approach towards animal welfare has been adopted in other
nations. For instance, an Argentine Court ruled upon the necessity to recognise non-human
29
STANDFORD ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/ (last
visited on Mar 4, 2023).
30
Jessamine Therese Mathew & Ira Chadha-Sridhar, Granting Animal Rights Under the Constitution: A
Misplaced Approach?, 7 NUJS L. REV. 349, 356 (2014),
http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/07_jessamine__ira.pdf.
31
Supra note 6.

XVI
animals as creatures who are subject to have certain rights attached to their existence and
preferred a “dynamic rather than a static interpretation of the law.” 32 Many studies are of the
opinion that such conferment of rights to non-human animals is proportionately misplaced in
view of an inherent lack of superior rationality in animals as compared to humans and
parallel duties imposed upon animals and that Article 21 must remain restricted to mean
“human life and dignity”.33 These studies promote a duty-based approach which imposes
obligations on humans to ensure animal protection. Ironically, our Constitution provides for
animal welfare in both the Fundamental Duties 34 as well as the Directive Principles of State
Policies35, and yet there exists a recurring and increasing occurrences of cruelty towards
animals. In view of the current scenario, the author is of the view that instead of subjecting
animal rights to debates such as these, it is rather a bold step by the Apex Court to extend the
constitutional right to life to animals as well. The viability of this right-based approach taken
by the Court shall be discussed in the consecutive headings of this chapter. Recognizing the
consequences of such social construct that just humans own nature’s resources, seems to be
the key to ensuring rights to animals. Extending legal rights to animals may result in
redemption of the current situation of constant encroachment upon their living environment.
This chapter advocates for a rights-based approach while considering animal rights and
recognition of their rights as a means to their salvation.

2.1. RIGHTS OF NATURE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Humankind is surrounded by elements of nature all around and are essentially dependent on
nature for continuing to being in existence. As such, human beings co-exist with all other
living beings found in nature. Despite the fact that animals as well as humans require water,
air, land for subsistence and share the same from nature, yet humans tend to live inside a
bubble of constant superiority complex that humans must own all land and resources
available in nature since, being the most rational beings, only they are capable of utilising a
resource and extracting benefits to its maximum benefits. This anthropocentric approach is
the foremost reason for rampant loss of biodiversity and many exotic species being rapidly

32
Richard Lough, Captive Orangutan has Human Right to Freedom, Argentine Court Rules, REUTERS (Mar. 06,
2023, 9:45AM), https://www.reuters.com/article/argentina-orangutan-idUSL1N0U603W20141222.
33
Jessamine Therese Mathew & Ira Chadha-Sridhar, Granting Animal Rights Under the Constitution: A
Misplaced Approach?, 7 NUJS L. REV. 349, 356 (2014),
http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/07_jessamine__ira.pdf.
34
INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g).
35
Id. at art. 48, 48A.

XVII
enlisted as threatened, endangered and even extinct. Rising cautions about climate change are
also intrinsically enrooted in the rampant biodiversity loss which has emerged as one of the
greatest environmental challenges of the 21st century.

In the backdrop of current events, the “Rights of Nature” initiative, which is picking up
steam, is profoundly redefining how humankind interacts with environment. It is headed by
activists who support giving ecologies comparable rights and protections as people have. The
said approach aims for a radical transformation that places nature at the heart and views
human interaction with it as interconnected instead of dominating. 36 Ecuador emerged as the
initial country to officially acknowledge the rights of nature in their Constitution, followed by
Bolivia.37 The primary purpose of granting rights to nature is to assure the greatest degree of
environmental protection in order for the ecosystem to flourish and not be exploited by
humans. Satirically, even while granting rights to nature, it is often linked with human right
to a clean and healthy environment, which is in essence, an anthropocentric approach.

Considering Animals as Part of Nature

At the most basic level in scenarios wherein nature can be granted rights and animals being
an integrated part of nature, rights-based approach on behalf of animals can very well be
established using the rights of nature doctrine.38 In the year 2008, Brazil’s Superior Court of
Justice presided over a case wherein a wild species of a parrot was kept in custody for over 2
decades and in inadequate conditions. The Court was quick to establish the bird’s connection
to nature and took the discussion to include rights of nature and inclusion of “sentient beings”
within the ambit of the same.39 The Court ruled that it is high time for the concept of dignity
to be redefined to also mean “an intrinsic value conferred to non-human sensitive beings,
whose moral status would be recognized and would share with the human beings the same
moral community.” Speaking on the lines of rights of nature, the Court held, “This view of
nature as an expression of life in its entirety enables the Constitutional Law and other areas
of law to recognize the environment and non-human animals as beings of their own value,
therefore deserving respect and care, so that the legal system grants them the ownership of
rights and dignity.”
36
Tiffany Challe, The Rights of Nature- Can an Ecosystem Bear Legal Rights?, COLUMBIA CLIMATE SCHOOL
(Mar 07, 2023), https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/04/22/rights-of-nature-lawsuits/.
37
Ibid.
38
Alessandro Pelizzon & Monica Gagliano, Animal Rights and Rights of Nature Intersecting?, 11 AAPLJ 5, 7
(2015), http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/mini/The-Sentience-of-Plants---Animal-Rights-
and-Rights-of-Nature-Intersecting.pdf.
39
Kristen Stilt, Rights of Nature, Rights of Animals, 134 HARV. L. REV. F. 276, (2021),
https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/03/rights-of-nature-rights-of-animals/.

XVIII
In Indian jurisprudence, the “rights of nature” doctrine is still developing and has seen some
recent advancements. By striving to explore a dialect for Rights of Nature which builds on
our Constitutional provisions, the ebb and flow of worldwide trends and declarations, and
judgements of various tribunals and courts, judicial reasoning in India has been on the
course to manoeuvre towards an eco-centric approach even if only sporadically.

A perception of the religious and ethical practises of the Indian people can prove to be a rich
source of ideas for such eco-centric juridical thinking. The notion of “dharma” is ingrained in
Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagvad Gita. “Dharma” which can be translated to mean
“conduct” is understood to mean and include all of Nature, i.e., each element of nature has a
certain dharma attached to its existence. For instance, according to Hindu beliefs, “it is the
dharma of the bee to make honey, of the cow to give milk, of the sun to radiate sunshine, of
the river to flow.”40

Renowned jurist and former Supreme Court judge, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has observed
that ensuring justice to “animal citizens” is as fundamental to humanity as is ensuring justice
to an exploited human being. He noted his observation in the following words:

“Justice to animal citizens is as basic to humanism as social justice is to an exploited people.

The philosophical perspective of animal welfare is . . . part and parcel of our cultural
heritage. Every time cruelty is practiced on man or beast or bird or insect, we do violence to
Buddha and Mahavira”41

As per the United Nation’s World Charter for Nature, 1982, “every form of life is unique,
warranting respect, regardless of its worth to man.”42

On 19th April, 2022, Madras High Court, Madurai bench, in the case of A. Periyakaruppan v.
the Principal Secretary43, invoked the court’s “parens patriae” jurisdiction and declared that
“Mother Nature” ought to be protected as it is a living being with rights corresponding to that
of a human being, which requires to be preserved and upheld. The Court also opined on how
human development is encroaching upon nature and resulting into biodiversity loss. It
referred to a report which stated that National parks and sanctuaries notified under the
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 occupy less than 5% of the geographical area of the Indian
subcontinent. The report also states that the above 5% of land caters to human sustenance.
40
Rita Brara, Can Nature Have Rights? : Legal and Political Insights, JSTOR 31, (2023),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26268373.pdf.
41
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Random Reflections, Universal, ed. 2003.
42
UN DOCUMENTS, http://www.un-documents.net/wcn.htm (last visited on Mar 04, 2023).
43
A. Periyakaruppan v. the Principal Secretary, W.P. (MD) No. 2614/2020, Judgement dated Apr 19, 2022.

XIX
The rest 95% of the geographical area is available to humans. Yet, even that 5% area under
national parks is not free of indiscriminate human activities. 44 The relevant excerpt from the
judgement is provided hereinbelow:

“The mother nature ought to be preserved. Indiscriminate destruction or change is leading to

several complications in ecosystem, ultimately is endangering the very existence of the
animals, flora and fauna, forests, rivers, lakes, water bodies, mountains, glaciers, air and of
course human. Strangely the destruction is carried on by few humans. Any such act ought to
be checked at all levels… Whether it is Amazon forest, sea life, elephants and tigers, rivers
and lakes, glaciers or aquifers is strongly impacting human life…And we attempt to pacify
the destruction with the words like 'compensatory afforestation' and it is like giving sanction
to kill all wild tigers and replace them by farming the same population in captivity, which is
absolutely against Nature.”45

The use of animals for purposes of entertainment in street shows, pitch fights and circuses has
been prohibited yet there remains instances wherein animals are captivated and exploited for
these purposes. The Isha Upanishads dating back to 600BC uphold the philosophy that no
creature on Earth is superior; that human beings are not above nature and such one species
must not encroach upon the rights and privileges of another species. 46 In the A. Nagaraja
case, while extending right to life to animals, the judgement noted that although animal rights
have been elevated to the status of constitutional rights in certain European jurisdictions such
as Germany and Switzerland, there has not been any international agreement or UN
Conferences to buttress and promote animal rights. 47 In the Indian context, rights of animals
have occupied quite a front seat in judicial pronouncements which range from vaccination of
stary dogs and extend all the way upto recommending reintroduction of endangered species
such as the Asiatic lions. Now, it must be highlighted that the emphasis on sustainability of
animal rights ought not to be on the basis of the exoticness of the species. Instead the same
should be based on their intrinsic worth from an eco-centric viewpoint.

For the establishment of animal rights, eco-centric methods that stake a claim to environment
or its constituent components could be encouraging. Although not widely recognised yet,
there is potential for this “rights of nature” movement to develop into a long-lasting effect.

44
Id. at ¶ 18.
45
Id. at ¶¶ 18,19.
46
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547.
47
Id.

XX
2.2. INVOKING “PARENS PATRIAE” BY INDIAN COURTS

The concept of the term “parens patriae” has its roots in Latin which translates to “parents of
the nation”, whereby state can invoke parens patriae jurisdiction in case of minors, children,
or physically or mentally challenged people whose rights were denied and/or violated by
irresponsible or abusive guardians or parents and who are unable to protect
themselves.48Indian courts have showcased a steadfast loyalty to the “parens patriae” doctrine
while interpreting rights of nature and while dealing with cases of animal welfare. Courts
view nature as a minor, thus solidifying the powers of state to restore nature and respect its
rights since improper application of powers had previously caused the ongoing environmental
catastrophe. In the landmark A. Nagaraja case, the Apex Court held that under this doctrine
even courts have a duty to ensure proper care of animals who are incapable of voicing out
concerns for their rights like humans do. In the case of Ramesh Sharma v. State of Himachal
Pradesh49 the High Court invoked the doctrine of parens patriae to protect animal rights
citing the same under constitutional provisions. The High Court banned sacrifice of animals
and birds under the garb of religious worship or traditional customs or during any
congregation or public streets. The court issued directions to the State Government to
circulate awareness by publishing and distributing pamphlets, putting up banners and boards
prohibiting sacrifice of birds and animals.

Courts have often invoked the “parens patriae” jurisdiction in matters of environmental
protection. Recently, the Madras High Court, in the case of A. Periyakaruppan v. Principal
Secretary50, invoked its “parens patriae” jurisdiction to declare “Mother Nature” a living
being, possessing rights and duties. In 2 decisions of the Uttarakhand High Court in 2017,
namely, Mohammad Salim v. State of Uttarakhand51 and Lalit Miglani v. State of
Uttarakhand52, Himalayan glaciers and the rivers originating therefrom, such as the Ganga
and Yamuna were declared to be “legal persons”.

Now coming to the context of animal rights, in the case of Karnail Singh v State of
Haryana53, the P&H High Court recognized the legal personality of animas and declared all

48
SCIENCE THE WIRE, https://science.thewire.in/environment/rights-of-nature-anthropocentrism/ (last visited
Mar 04, 2023).
49
Ramesh Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine HP 4679.
50
A. Periyakaruppan v. Principal Secretary, W.P. (MD) No. 2614/2020, Judgement dated Apr 19, 2022.
51
Mohammad Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126/2014, Judgement dated Mar 20, 2017.
52
Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140/2015, Judgement dated Mar 30, 2017.
53
Karnail Singh v State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539.

XXI
citizens to be “loco parentis” thus casting a collective responsibility on behalf of citizens to
protect the legal personality of animals.

A public interest litigation before Uttarakhand High Court, titled Narayan Dutt Bhatt v.
Union of India54 sought to directions from the court limiting the movement of “tongas” or
horse carts to and fro between India and Nepal via the district of Champawat. The petitioner
additionally sought for facilities for the horses such as medical check up and vaccinations for
the horses on the border areas. The High Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, issuing
several statements in the judgement promoting animal welfare, and declaring that all species
of animal kingdom, horses to fishes, were to be recognized as “legal entities” with the same
rights and liabilities as humans possess. To safeguard these animal interests, the court granted
the status of “loco parentis” to all residents of Uttarakhand.

In another PIL titled Alim v. State of Uttarakhand 55, the High Court of Uttarakhand invoked
its “parens patraie” jurisdiction while issuing almost 30 directions for prevention of
mistreatment and illegal slaughtering of cows and other stray cattle and to ensure their
welfare.

In conclusion to this chapter, the author re-asserts that a rights-based approach must be given
prevalence over a duty-based approach. Humans have forever had the duty to conserve the
ecosystem and live in peaceful harmony with our animals, and yet we have failed miserably
to conserve our ecosystem which is evident from the alarming rate of biodiversity loss. First
off, isn’t it a big privilege in itself that we humans get to sit and decide if rights should be
given to another species or should it be reserved only for the human race because we happen
to be the superior race? Each species has a role to play in maintaining the scales of the
ecosystem. We need animals more than they need us. Giving animals rights, instead of
humans duty to protect them, which we have already failed in, might just be what is required
to salvage the crisis.

CHAPTER 3: CRULETY INFLICTED UPON ANIMALS- LAWS &

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 21

Cruel treatment met out to animals by humans is not a new thing. Even during the times of
the Romans we can find evidences of animal cruelty such as gladiator fights against starved
lions- a match to death. Such cruel practices have left an imprint on us to date. In today’s
54
Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 645.
55
Alim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 112/2017, Judgement dated Aug 10, 2018.

XXII
times, wild animals, who are meant to be free and thriving in their natural environments are
kept caged and in shackles. Deprived of their natural habitats, these animals are kept in
simulated confinements for exhibition in zoos. Eventually these animals lose their natural
instincts and often being unable to accommodate to the confinements, succumb to death. 56
Take for example dolphins kept in marine parks. Dolphins are highly intelligent and social
creatures, however, they are kept confined and separated, trained to perform petty tricks to
amuse humans. How is it even fair?

In the name of “education” and “conservation”, circuses too treat animals in a pathetic
disposable manner. They are mere props in human entertainment, mammoth creatures like
elephants being made to stand on hind legs, lions being tortured to be tamed are only a couple
of examples from a myriad of indecent cheap human tricks that strip animals of their dignity
and glory. These helpless creatures are also exploited in practices such as horse or greyhound
racing, dog fights, cockfighting, monkey charmers. 57 This issue has been taken up by quite
many poets who personify the voices of animals in order to bring forth to the readers their
pain. One such poem is titled “The Dolphins” penned by Carol Ann Duffy. This poem is
written from a dolphin’s perspective in the first-person narrative. Carol brings to life the pain
of a couple of dolphins kept captive at a theme park. She writes:

“The moon has disappeared. We circle well-worn grooves of water on a single note.

Music of loss forever from the other’s heart which turns my own to stone.

There is a plastic toy. There is no hope.

We sink to the limits of this pool until the whistle blows.

There is a man and our mind knows we will die here.”58

In 2012, PETA undertook a massive investigation into some of the oldest and renowned
circuses whose shows were famous because of their show stopper acts performed by animals.
These acts violated several codes of humanity and even the most basic human rights. Most of
the animals and the acts performed by them were unregistered. 59 The animals were made to
perform life threatening and unnatural tricks. One of such tricks were wherein an elephant

56
Supra note 28.
57
Id.
58
CAROL ANN DUFFY, REVERIE: A COLLECTION OF ISC POEMS 5 (Evergreen Publications 2017).
59
Navya Jain & Muskan Jain, Animal Cruelty and Rights: Review and Recommendations, 1 IJPSL 747, 780
(2020), https://ijpsl.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Animal-Cruelty-and-Rights-Review-and-
Recommendations_Navya-Jain-Muskan-Jain-.pdf.

XXIII
was made to balance on its hind legs on a podium while an acrobat performs stunts on its
back or while suspending from its trunk, causing immeasurable agony to the animals.
PETA’s report also recorded physical abuse being met out to these animals. They were hit,
probed, poked with thick whips, metal ticks and ankuses which were in direct violation of the
PCA Act. Additionally, even injured animals were forced to perform and adequate exercise
was not allowed to them. Restricted movement of these majestic creatures who are meant to
roam in vast territories also cause trauma and psychological distress to them.60

The brutality does not end here. In 2018, the infamous and unfortunate incident occurred
wherein a pregnant goat was brutally raped by 8 men in Haryana. A senior citizen was
arrested by sexually assaulting a stray dog in 2020 in Odisha. A female stray dog skull was so
brutally attacked that it smashed. Another female stray dog in Mumbai was sexually
assaulted. She was found lying in a pool of blood with sticks inserted into her private parts. 61
Is this what humanity seeks to inspire? Sexually assaulting stray animals who do not have the
cognitive ability to voice out their pain and torment, traumatising animals is one of the
heinous crimes against animals.

3.1. EXTENSION OF RIGHT TO LIFE TO ANIMALS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF

THE CONSTITUTION

The current trend followed by the judiciary in India is to broaden the purview of Article 21.
Recent judicial pronouncements have held that constitutional rights are not meant only for the
human species and have bestowed rights on animals and birds as well. The term “life” has
been provided an expanded definition to include all forms of life and is protected under
Article 21 of the Constitution.

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja- In brief62

The factual scenario of the abovenamed case surrounds the traditional practice of Jallikattu in
the state of Tamil Nadu. In this sport bulls are let loose into the gathering of audience who
then attempt to hold on to the hump of the bull whilst the bull tries to flee. This custom has
witnessed quite a number of human fatalities as well as harm to the bulls. Before the bulls are
let loose, they are agitated with sharp pointed objects such as scythes, their tails were
60
Ibid.
61
SAMVIDHI, https://www.samvidhi.org/post/animal-rights-in-india-most-underrated-topic-of-environmental-
law (last visited on Mar 03, 2023).
62
Supra note 47.

XXIV
mishandled to a point that sometimes led to damage of the vertebrae and were even bitten.
Reports also state that the bulls were made to consume alcohol and their eyes were rubbed
with chilli powder to cause further disorientation and agitation. The bulls were subject to
even more cruelty physically such as punching, pouncing on them, stabbing with knives.
Sometimes, due to lack of enclosure and chaos, the bulls would run into traffic leading to
fracture of bones or even death.

The AWBI, in 2010, approached the Supreme Court, seeking complete ban on the practice of
Jallikattu citing animal cruelty and safety of public. The Ministry of Environment and Forests
issued a notification in 2011 banning performing of dangerous acts by bulls. However, the
practice continued under regulated conditions facilitated by the Tamil Nadu Regulation of
Jallikattu Act, 2007 as the same was permitted by the Madras High Court. The case was
thereafter taken in appeal to the Supreme Court by the AWBI against the High Court order
seeking complete ban on exhibition or performance or any use of bulls for purposes staged as
traditional customs but in essence were utmost cruel exploitation of the animal for
entertainment.

After prolonged hearings, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of AWBI’s stance, giving
weightage to animal rights over traditional customs. The Apex Court upheld the ban on
Jallikattu ruling that Fundamental Duty envisaged under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution is
the “magna carta of animal rights” and made observations to safeguard animal life by
recognising animals’ Fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Pertinently, the Supreme Court ruled that:

“Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes
depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding
the rights of humans, protects life and the word life has been given an expanded definition
and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including
animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the
Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, in our view life means something more than
mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human beings, but to lead a life with
some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity.”

Rulings of High Courts in India

XXV
Besides the landmark judgement in A.Nagaraja case, several other judgements of High
Courts in India have brought animal life within the purview of Article 21. In the case of
Subhas Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura 63, the High Court at Tripura, while interpreting that
the ambit of the word “life” under Article 21 is wide enough to not remain restricted to mean
only human life but all forms of life, banned animal sacrifice. Offering of animals as part of
rituals and under the façade of religion is no longer permittable by law. In the case of Karnail
Singh v. State of Haryana, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that all of the animal
kingdom, including but not limited to aquatic and avian species are to be construed as “legal
entities” possessing distinct characteristics, rights and liabilities of a living person: “The
entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic are declared as legal entities having a
distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. All the
citizens throughout the State of Haryana are hereby declared persons in loco parentis as the
human face for the welfare/protection of animals.”64 In the case of In Ramlila Maidan
Incident, Suo Moto65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the constitutional provisions are
not meant for solely protecting the rights of human beings. There are plethora of judgements
that mention safeguarding interests of people, animals, flora, water bodies, highlands and
terrains, and of the natural world in general. Our Constitution affirms both rights and
obligations on individualistic basis as well as on collective basis. Every lifeform has a right to
life and security which includes protection against denying a non-human population’s life for
reasons of human imperative. In the case of Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India66, the
Apex Court restricted permits for mining dolomite and lime in the Sariska Tiger Park to
protect wild animals. The High Court of Gujarat in Mahisagar Mataji Samaj Seva Trust v.
State of Gujarat67 interpreted the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 and arrived at the inference that
even cattle, like human beings, cannot be deprived of their right to liberty except if required
and in accordance with law. In Abdul Kadar Mohammad Azam Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 68,
the High Court ruled that caging birds in large numbers and in inadequate spaces curbs their
right to move and would thus tantamount to illegal confinement. In Gauri Maulekhi v. State
of Uttarakhand & Ors.69, the Court directed state agencies to strictly regulate killing and

63
Subhas Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 441.
64
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539.
65
In Ramlila Maidan Incident, Suo Moto, (2012) 5 SCC 377.
66
Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India, (1993) 3 SCR 21.
67
Mahisagar Mataji Samaj Seva Trust v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 2 GujLR 1300.
68
Abdul Kadar Mohammad Azam Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application No. 1635/2010 dated
May 12, 2011.
69
Gauri Maulekhi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2015) 4 BomCR 1.

XXVI
sacrifice of any nature of any animals save for registered slaughter houses holding valid
license.

3.2. EXISTING LAWS TO PROTECT ANIMAL WELFARE IN INDIA

Constitutional Provisions

Articles 48 and 48A of the Directive Principles of State Policy casts a duty upon the State to
ensure animal welfare. Although the DPSPs are not enforceable, they constitute the
cornerstone of state policies on animal welfare.

According to Article 48, the state should make an endeavour to ensure animal husbandry
practices are updated as per modern scientific methods and shall also ensure prohibition of
slaughter of cattle. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
70
the Apex Court held that on a combined reading of the provisions of Article 48 and Article
51A(g) it was evident that citizens ought to be compassionate in their conduct with non-
human animals and that “animals have their own fundamental rights”

Article 48A of the Constitution, which was added vide the 42 nd Amendment in 1976,
obligates the State to preserve, protect and improve the environment and safeguard interests
of wildlife.

Article 51A(g) was included 42nd Amendment in 1976 as one of the Fundamental Duties in
consonance with Article 29(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As per this
article, each citizen of India bears an obligation to protect the environment, wildlife and show
compassion to other living creatures in spirit of humanism and reform.

In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat,71 the Apex Court observed that
one of the primary objectives of enacting Article 51A(g) was to ensure that the letter of
Articles 48 and 48A was honoured by all citizens.

In the case of Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India 72, the Supreme
Court ordered restraint on human activities in and around sanctuaries and national parks if the
same resulted in shrinkage of these protected areas. Additionally, the Court reminded the
State of its obligations under Article 48A in view of the duty enshrined in Article 51A(g) and

70
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212.
71
Ibid.
72
Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 549.

XXVII
ordered to act with urgency and expeditiously with respect to the Pench National Park
situated in Madhya Pradesh.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

The Act’s object is to prevent infliction of pain on animals and to mitigate their sufferings.
The Act consists of 6 chapter and 41 sections. Notable provisions of the Act are listed as
follows:

i) Section 2- Established the Animal Welfare Board of India to look after effective
execution of the objective of the Act.73
ii) Section 3- Enshrines the principle of “ahimsa” and compassion to all living
beings, thereby vesting each person with an obligation to take all reasonable care a
prudent man would take in order to ensure animal welfare.74
iii) Section 11- Prohibits acts of cruelty such as beating, torturing, confining, maiming
or any other treatment which shall have the effect of inflicting pain on the animal.
It also forbids sale or abandonment of the animal without valid reasons.
Additionally, it also forbids use of animals for entertainment by including them in
fights or shooting games which endangers their life. This section imposes a
maximum fine of Rs. 100 and imprisonment which may be upto 3 months.75
iv) Section 14- The provisions against protection from cruelty is not applicable to the
animals used in scientific experiments for drug tests. Such a provision is inserted
keeping in mind the superior status given to the objective of treating diseases and
mitigating human suffering.76
v) Section 28- Prevent slaughter of animals in the name of religion and categorises
the same as an offence.77

Several rules have also been established under this act:78

a) Performing Animals (Registration) Rules which mandates mandatory clearances

without which animals cannot be exhibited at circuses

73
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, §2, No. 59, Acts of the Parliament, 1960 (India).
74
Id. at §3.
75
Id. at §11.
76
Id. at §14.
77
Id. at §28.
78
Navya Jain & Muskan Jain, Animal Cruelty and Rights: Review and Recommendations, 1 IJPSL 747, 780
(2020), https://ijpsl.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Animal-Cruelty-and-Rights-Review-and-
Recommendations_Navya-Jain-Muskan-Jain-.pdf.

XXVIII
 b) Animal Birth Control Rules which provide for vaccination and sterilization to reduce
rabies infection and to curb population of stary dogs. It provides guidelines for
carrying out local programs on animal birth control
c) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules that defines the conditions
under which animals can be slaughtered. Also provides conditions making
slaughtering impermissible.
d) Pet Shop Rules were enacted to ensure proper handling of animals and their
subsistence in humane conditions in commercial establishments. Mandates valid
license for all pet shops that indulge in any sort of trade of animals.
e) Transport of Animal Rules lays down guidelines for movement of animals under
human care by road, rail, waterways, air.

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

The Act is aimed at protecting animals, birds and other wild life species. It consists of seven
chapters and sixty-six sections and six schedules. Notable provisions of the Act are listed as
follows:

i) Section 2- Strictly prohibits hunting of wild animals save for special

circumstances when such is necessary to protect human life and/or property or if
permitted under a reasonable and written permission. This section also provides
for rules as to safe and secure use of animals for educational or scientific purposes
which do not result in harm to these animals.79
ii) Section 5- Limits the sale of animals and animal products; forbids ownership and
trade of wild animals or products derived, from them stressing on ivory, citing
them wild animals as property of the respective State governments.80
iii) Section 6- Offenses against wildlife are prevented and found through regulation.
The Chief Wildlife Warden and other wildlife officials are given the authority to
access, check, seize, and imprison perpetrators. The act specifies punishments
which includes fine up to INR 25,000 or imprisonment for a period extendable
upto 3 years or both.81
iv) The schedules of the Act enlist the wildlife species covered under the Act.

79
The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, §2, No. 53, Acts of Parliament, 1972 (India).
80
Id. at §5.
81
Id. at §6.

XXIX
 v) The 1982 Amendment of the Act restricted people from applying for license for
trading animal products
vi) The 1991 Amendment immunized animals in sanctuaries and national parks.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Certain provisions under the IPC make it a punishable offence to harm animals.

i) Section 378- Stealing an animal is equivalent to theft.82

ii) Section 428- Committing mischief by poisoning, disabling or killing any animal
or an animal worth INR 10 or more is punishable with fine or imprisonment upto
2 years or with both.83
iii) Section 429- Committing mischief by poisoning, disabling or killing any animal
such as elephant, buffalo, cow, horse, camel, ox or an animal worth INR 50 or
more is punishable with fine or imprisonment upto 5 years or with both.84
iv) Section 508- Categorises activities targeted to illegally/forcibly prevent animal
caretakers from feeding strays or keeping pets as criminal intimidation and case
can be lodged against the offenders in a police station.85

3.3. EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING LAWS

India is known for having the most comprehensive animal protection laws in the world thanks
to its extensive set of rules and regulations that govern how domestic and untamed animals
should be treated. Its guiding principles are not just comprehensive but also all-
encompassing. The AWBI, which is exclusively dedicated to augmenting and securing rights
of animal welfare in the nation, is the custodian of these animals and these provisions.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the required measures and safeguards, numerous disturbing
instances of animal abuse have surfaced and have been documented well over the course of
all these years, undermining the idealistic disposition owing to ethical failing. Worse still, in
guise of customs and religion, animals have frequently been made to endure unwarranted

82
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §378, No. 45, Acts of the Parliament, 1860 (India).
83
Id. at §428.
84
Id. at §429.
85
Id. at §508.

XXX
agony and torment. A bullock cart race in Karnataka known as ‘Kambala’ is conducted on
occasion of an annual temple fair which is one of the many examples of such torment. A
Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court in 2015 to bring to the court’s notice
the absence of regulations and proper implementation of existing guidelines which bring
about suffering and trauma in animals used in the entertainment during such celebrations. The
Supreme Court, however, opted not to interfere with the aeons-old traditional practices of the
communities and disposed off the PIL.86

The Government of India had taken a couple of bold steps in the last decade to protect certain
animals. First off it banned use of animals for testing in the cosmetic industry, and secondly,
the Government imposed absolute ban on the import of skins of snakes, foxes and minks. 87
Although such a move was largely applauded by animal activists, the scope of imposing such
bans is quite narrow as it fails to take into account the fur and leather industry. There is a lot
of prospective for expansion in the nation's flourishing leather sector. The demand for leather
products has prevented the authorities from enacting any laws that are specifically aimed at
protecting animals beneficial to the leather industry. To add on to the current difficulties, the
government helps the sector by offering like 100% FDP allowances and does not impose duty
on imports. Such a disparity has frequently resulted in brutal killing and sometimes even
unlawful traffic. Furthermore, the reality that India's neighbours’ nations have a very robust
market for wildlife trafficking does not make things better. The ties between the unlawful
trade in wildlife and criminal organisations engaged in other international
crimes was recognised in a report by the UN on wildlife crimes.88

According to the statistics gathered in 2017 by the Bombay Society for Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, approximately 19,030 cases of animal cruelty were registered in just 5 years with
zero arrests of the offenders.89 In an infamous incident in 2016, in Kerala, which was
recorded to be state with the worst affected case of feral stray dog population, the Kerala
Government executed stray dogs in masses. Associations were formed which trained children
to kill stray dogs and subsidized air guns were also provided for the same. A few factions
committed killings in public. Whenever the offenders were detained; in each event they were
charged only a paltry fee of INR 50 in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
86
DECCAN HERALD, https://www.deccanherald.com/content/664339/sc-disposes-plea-against-kambala.html (last
visited Mar. 5, 2023).
87
Supra 74.
88
Ibid.
89
Badri Chatterjee, 19,028 animal cruelty cases in Mumbai over 5 years; not a single arrest, HINDUSTAN TIMES
(Mar. 5, 2023, 4:50PM), https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/19-028-animal-cruelty-cases-in-
mumbai-over-5-years-not-a-single-arrest/story-71BzHW03ONSXiKhu8FN0HL.html.

XXXI
Act. Amidst the condemnation from numerous organisations concerned with animal welfare,
it was not until the Apex Court intervened that the peril was eradicated. 90 In 2019, owing to
increasing threat from stray dogs, about 50 dogs were poisoned in Nalgonda district of
Telangana by order of the village head.91

These are only a couple of the numerous instances that demonstrate the magnitude
of mistreatment met out to animals and how those responsible for such severe types of animal
abuse have escaped due to meagre retribution or penalties. This calls for updated laws and
more stringent punishments, including but not limited to imposition of hefty fines. Guidelines
must also be formulated as to scenarios which qualify as “special circumstances” which allow
human beings to harm another species which can also include self-defence, but under
regulated conditions. As was depicted in the earlier instances, forming of associations,
training children to kill animals and taking up arms to eradicate an animal population is
nothing but unfair, gross injustice and is against the very letter and spirit of our laws.

CHAPTER 4: ANIMAL RIGHTS IN THE BACKDROP OF HUMAN

DEVELOPMENT

India has undergone significant industrial developments in recent years, transforming the
country’s economic landscape. However, this progress has come at a cost to the welfare of
animals. Industrialization has resulted in the loss of habitat, destruction of natural resources,
and pollution of the environment, affecting the lives of numerous animals in India. The issue
of animal rights has become increasingly important in India as the country grapples with the
challenge of balancing economic growth with ethical considerations. This Sub-Chapter will
examine the effects of industrial developments on animal rights in India, exploring the
various ways in which animals have been affected and the measures that have been taken to
protect their welfare.

One of the most significant effects of industrialization on animal rights in India is habitat
destruction. The construction of industries, roads, and other infrastructure has resulted in the

90
ONMANORAMA, https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2022/09/12/kerala-stray-dog-menace-govt-
campaign.html (last visited Mar 7, 2023).
91
TIMES OF INDIA, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/50-dogs-poisoned-at-village-in-nalgonda-
on-sarpanchs-order/articleshow/70165022.cms (last visited Mar 7, 2023).

XXXII
destruction of forests and other natural habitats, displacing animals from their natural homes.
This has led to the loss of biodiversity in many areas, which has further exacerbated the
problem of habitat loss. In 2014, the Supreme Court of India ordered the demolition of illegal
structures built in the ecologically sensitive Aravalli Hills region in Haryana, which had
resulted in the loss of habitat for various species, including leopards and other animals.92

Another effect of industrialization on animal rights in India is pollution. Industries release

toxic chemicals and other pollutants into the air and water, causing widespread harm to
animals. In some cases, animals are exposed to these pollutants directly, while in others, they
consume contaminated water and food. For example, in 2015, the National Green Tribunal
ordered the closure of 76 industries in the vicinity of the Bellandur Lake in Bengaluru, which
had resulted in severe pollution of the lake, affecting the lives of various aquatic animals. 93

The use of animals for entertainment purposes is another area where industrialization has had
a significant impact on animal rights in India. Many industries use animals in various forms
of entertainment, such as circuses and other performances. These animals are often mistreated
and subjected to harsh conditions, causing them immense suffering. In 2017, the Supreme
Court of India banned the use of bulls in the popular bull-taming sport of Jallikattu, which
had been a long-standing tradition in Tamil Nadu. The court found that the sport subjected
animals to unnecessary pain and suffering, and was therefore a violation of their rights.94

Industrialization has also led to the increase in poaching and illegal wildlife trade, which has
had a devastating impact on the lives of many animals in India. The demand for wildlife
products such as ivory and tiger skins has led to the illegal killing of these animals, resulting
in a decline in their populations. The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 95 and the Forest
Conservation Act of 198096 were enacted to protect wildlife and their habitats, but the illegal
wildlife trade remains a significant problem in India.

In response to the negative impact of industrialization on animal rights, various measures

have been taken to protect animals in India. For example, the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change has launched several initiatives aimed at protecting wildlife and
their habitats, such as Project Tiger and Project Elephant. These initiatives have helped to
92
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1.
93
NGT Directs Closure of Polluting Industries Around Bellandur Lake in Bengaluru, THE HINDU BUSINESS
LINE (Mar. 6, 2023, 6:05PM), https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/ngt-directs-closure-of-
polluting-industries-around-bellandur-lake-in-bengaluru/article64267161.ece.
94
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 6 SCALE 468.
95
The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, No. 53 Acts of Parliament, 1972 (India).
96
Forest Conservation Act of 1980, No. 69 Acts of Parliament, 1980 (India).

XXXIII
increase awareness about the importance of conservation and have led to the establishment of
numerous protected areas across the country.

In addition to these government initiatives, various non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

have also been actively involved in protecting animal rights in India. One such organization
is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, which has been instrumental in
promoting animal welfare and rights in the country. PETA India has launched several
campaigns aimed at raising awareness about animal cruelty, such as its "Save the Elephants"
campaign and its "Stop Using Animals for Experiments" campaign.97

4.1. NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF RADIATION FROM MOBILE TOWERS ON THE

BIRD POPULATION IN INDIA

The increasing use of mobile phones has led to the installation of mobile towers in various
locations across India. While these towers have become an integral part of modern
communication, they have also raised concerns about the impact of radiation on the
environment and wildlife, particularly the bird population. This Sub-Chapter will explore the
negative impacts of radiation from mobile towers on the bird population in India, with a focus
on landmark judgements from the Supreme Court of India and relevant case names.

One of the most significant negative impacts of radiation from mobile towers on the bird
population is its effect on their reproductive behaviour. Studies have shown that exposure to
radiation from mobile towers can lead to a decrease in the reproductive success of birds. The
radiation can affect the growth and development of eggs, resulting in reduced hatching rates
and increased abnormalities in hatchlings. This can have significant long-term impacts on the
bird population, as a decrease in reproductive success can lead to a decline in population.

In addition to reproductive behaviour, radiation from mobile towers can also affect the
migratory patterns of birds. Birds rely on various environmental cues to navigate during their
migrations, such as the Earth's magnetic field and the position of the sun. However, exposure
to radiation from mobile towers can disrupt these cues, causing birds to become disoriented
and lose their way. This can lead to a decline in the bird population in certain areas, as birds
may avoid migrating through areas with high levels of radiation.

The impact of radiation from mobile towers on the bird population has been a matter of
concern in India, and various measures have been taken to address the issue. One of the most
97
PETA INDIA, https://www.petaindia.com/blog/peta-indias-most-compelling-animals-rights-campaigns-of-
2022/ (last visited Mar. 6, 2023).

XXXIV
significant steps was taken by the Rajasthan High Court in 2012 in the case of Justice I.S.
Irani (Retd.) v. Union of India.98 The case was filed by a group of individuals who were
concerned about the impact of radiation from mobile towers on their health and the
environment. The court directed the government to establish regulations for the installation
and operation of mobile towers, with a particular focus on their impact on the environment
and wildlife.

In another landmark judgement in 2018, the Supreme Court of India directed the government
to take steps to prevent the impact of radiation from mobile towers on birds. The case, filed
by the non-governmental organization “Grahak Shakti” highlighted the negative impact of
radiation from mobile towers on the bird population in India. The court directed the
government to establish a mechanism for monitoring the impact of radiation on birds and to
take steps to reduce the exposure of birds to radiation from mobile towers.99

In addition to these court rulings, various studies have been conducted to examine the impact
of radiation from mobile towers on birds in India. One such study, conducted by the Bombay
Natural History Society, found that birds living in areas with high levels of radiation from
mobile towers had reduced reproductive success and abnormal growth in hatchlings. 100
Another study, conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research, found that exposure to
radiation from mobile towers can lead to a decrease in the population of certain bird
species.101

In response to these findings, various measures have been taken to reduce the impact of
radiation from mobile towers on birds in India. One such measure is the establishment of
guidelines for the installation and operation of mobile towers, which include provisions for
the protection of wildlife and the environment. These guidelines require that mobile towers
be installed at a safe distance from sensitive areas, such as wildlife reserves and bird
sanctuaries.

Another measure that has been taken is the use of alternative technologies that emit less
radiation, such as fiber-optic cables. The use of these technologies can significantly reduce
the impact of radiation on the environment and wildlife, including the bird population.

4.2. EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON ANIMAL LIFE

98
Justice I.S. Irani (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2103) 4 CDR 1973 (Raj).
99
Indus Towers Ltd. v. State of Goa, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6863.
100
Dhami KK. The electromagnetic radiations and its impacts on bird diversity in India, 5 INT J AVIAN &
WILDLIFE BIOL.1, 5-7 (2020), 10.15406/ijawb.2020.05.00166.
101
Ibid

XXXV
Pollution has become a major threat to animal life, both in India and around the world.
Different forms of pollution, such as air pollution, water pollution, and noise pollution, have a
significant impact on the health and wellbeing of animals, and can even lead to their
extinction. This Sub-Chapter will explore the effects of various forms of pollution on animal
life in India, with a focus on Supreme Court cases that have addressed the issue.

One of the most significant forms of pollution affecting animal life in India is air pollution.
Air pollution is caused by the release of harmful gases and particles into the atmosphere,
which can lead to respiratory diseases and other health problems in animals. Studies have
shown that air pollution can lead to a decline in the population of certain species of birds, and
can also affect the behaviour and reproductive patterns of other animals.

In 1996, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of air pollution in the case of M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India.102 The case was filed by a public interest lawyer, M.C. Mehta, who
sought to address the issue of air pollution in Delhi. The court issued a series of directives to
the government, including the establishment of a public transport system and the promotion
of alternative forms of energy. The case is considered to be a landmark in the history of
environmental law in India, and has had a significant impact on efforts to reduce air pollution
in the country.

Water pollution is another form of pollution that has a significant impact on animal life in
India. Water pollution is caused by the release of pollutants into rivers, lakes, and other
bodies of water, which can lead to the death of fish and other aquatic species. Water pollution
can also affect the health of animals that rely on these bodies of water for drinking and other
purposes.

In 1991, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of water pollution in the case of
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India.103 The case was filed by a group of citizens
who were concerned about the impact of industrial pollution on the Palar River in Tamil
Nadu. The court issued a series of directives to the government, including the establishment
of a pollution control board and the enforcement of environmental laws. The case is
considered to be a landmark in the history of environmental law in India, and has had a
significant impact on efforts to reduce water pollution in the country.

102
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 SCC 750.
103
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

XXXVI
Noise pollution is another form of pollution that has a significant impact on animal life in
India. Noise pollution is caused by the release of loud and persistent sounds, which can lead
to stress and other health problems in animals. Studies have shown that noise pollution can
affect the behaviour and reproductive patterns of birds, and can also lead to the death of
marine animals, such as dolphins and whales.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of noise pollution in the case of In
Re: Noise Pollution.104 The case was filed by a public interest lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, who
sought to address the issue of noise pollution in Delhi. The court issued a series of directives
to the government, including the establishment of noise pollution monitoring stations and the
regulation of the use of loudspeakers and horns. The case is considered to be a landmark in
the history of environmental law in India, and has had a significant impact on efforts to
reduce noise pollution in the country.

In conclusion, pollution has a significant impact on animal life in India, affecting their health,
behaviour, and reproductive patterns. The Supreme Court of India has played a significant
role in addressing the issue, issuing a series of directives to the government to reduce air
pollution, water pollution, and noise pollution. While more needs to be done to address the
issue, these landmark cases provide a foundation for future efforts to protect the environment
and the animals that rely on it.

104
Noise Pollution v. Unknown, AIR 2005 SC 3136.

XXXVII
 CHAPTER 5: SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION

The topic of animal rights is a complex topic with significant socio-economic, scientific,
political and ethical dimensions. There is sufficient structural, statutory as well as
governmental fortitude to collaborate with a proactive populace to create viable sustainable
ethos. The courts have been proactive part in safeguarding the interests of animals in the last
many years. The Apex Court and the various High Courts have repeatedly demonstrated their
empathy for the cause of animals. It can be safely anticipated that the applications that have
yet not been decided by courts will support rights for animals besides promoting human
rights.

When it concerns animal welfare, India is indeed proven to be an enlightened nation. Earlier
in the last decade, actions of the Indian Government drew criticism from a wide range of
stakeholders in the entertainment industry. These actions, forbade dolphins and other wild
animals to be used for the purposes of amusement and such stopped registering such acts in
Indian circuses. By prohibiting the importation of cosmetic products that have undergone
animal experimentation, it also proclaimed to be a nation immune from cruelty. Thus it can

XXXVIII
be safely inferred that India is invested into the cause of animals when it comes to industrial
brutality, thanks to these admirable actions.

However, there remains scope for improvement and more stringent implementation of the
laws. For instance, India lacks any concrete set of guidelines for regulating rearing of
animals. Another large determinant for which India requires laws is with respect to the legal
status of hunting of endangered species of animals for purposes of exhibition at zoos. Urgent
legislation is required for protection of stray animals.

In any reform taken by the government, the “7 Cs” approach must be adopted in context of
animal welfare. This approach spells out to be – Consideration, Concern, Cherish, Care,
Comprehend, Conserve, Compassion.105 The population, especially children who are our
future, must be sensitized to the cause of animal rights. Government must tie up with animal
friendly and popular organisations to hold awareness campaigns and training programs in
order to teach them how to handle animals in normal as well as crisis situations. Volunteers
must be selected in an area or group of areas and entrusted with the job of overlooking that
cruelty towards animals or any untoward activities harming animals does not take place in
those areas. Such person shall be responsible for alerting the nearest NGO or the police for
that matter.

For more robust and formal regulations to counter incidents of animal cruelty, welfare bodies
in each state could be set up constituting of 3 main components- a headquarters, zonal
branches and voluntary workers. It is suggested that these welfare bodies shall come under
the State Governments but shall work independently of the technicalities of the Governments.
Their working shall be activist in nature. Each zonal office shall have further city offices for
proper patrolling and keep track of the activities going on in the area under each’s
jurisdiction. Furthermore, a joint database must be maintained wherein all these happenings
must be kept updated for public access. Voluntary workers will operate as the eyes of the
organisation and shall be reporting to the city offices. They shall be made in-charge of
reporting any mishaps, trafficking of strays, abandonment of pets and so on.

105
Priyanka Sharma, Rights of Animals under Indian Legal System: A Judicial Perception, 4 IJTRD 361, 366
(2017),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352001615_Rights_of_Animals_under_Indian_Legal_System_A_Judi
cial_Perception?enrichId=rgreq-77e8a5c2b48deafece2fbc8174d6a1f6-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM1MjAwMTYxNTtBUzoxMDI5NTM2NTUyNjA3NzU2QDE2MjI0
NzIwNTA4ODA%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf.

XXXIX
 With respect to rights of animals, the same should be codified in a self-sufficient manner
instead of relying on courts to interpret animal rights. Examples should be taken from certain
Egyptian countries which have already granted animal rights constitutional status.106

India has quite all-encompassing legislations but the issue in India lies with poor
implementation of the regulations. The ignorant behaviour of citizens is equally deserving of
criticism. As a result, for the rules to be used effectively, both citizens and the State should
address and assume responsibility. If this isn’t done, human race may experience a number of
serious repercussions that would further endanger our survival.

The 2030 Agenda was formulated envisaging a model of development whereby humans live
in peace and harmony with nature. 2 of the Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs) have
been adopted with respect to animal welfare. SDG 14 talks of “Life below Water”, whereas,
SDG 15 refers to “Life on Land”. 107 The fact that animals are being recognised as part of the
SDGs holds significant promissory value which might just lead to the salvation of our
biodiversity too.

Notwithstanding this validation, all countries, which include India, continue to have an
exceptionally long way to go before they can settle the non-human animals’ unpaid debts and
possibly undo the damage done to the populations and ecosystems.

REFERENCES

 Priyanka Sharma, Rights of Animals under Indian Legal System: A Judicial Perception, 4
IJTRD 361, 366 (2017),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352001615_Rights_of_Animals_under_Indian_
Legal_System_A_Judicial_Perception?enrichId=rgreq-
77e8a5c2b48deafece2fbc8174d6a1f6-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM1MjAwMTYxNTtBUzoxMDI5NTM2NTUy
NjA3NzU2QDE2MjI0NzIwNTA4ODA%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf.
 Navya Jain & Muskan Jain, Animal Cruelty and Rights: Review and Recommendations, 1
IJPSL 747, 780 (2020), https://ijpsl.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Animal-Cruelty-and-
Rights-Review-and-Recommendations_Navya-Jain-Muskan-Jain-.pdf.
 Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., (2014) 7 SCC 547.

106
Supra note 28.
107
FRONTIERS, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00336/full (last visited Mar. 6, 2023).

XL
 SCIENCE THE WIRE, https://science.thewire.in/environment/rights-of-nature-
anthropocentrism/ (last visited Mar 04, 2023).
 Prakash Sharma & Partha Pratim Mitra, Role of the Supreme Court in Developing the
Concept of Animal Rights India, SSRN PAPERS, (2020),
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3637287.
 D.D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India In Historical Outline, VIDYA
ORGANISATION, (1964), https://vidyaonline.org/dl/cultddk.pdf.
 KHAN ACADEMY, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/world-history-
beginnings/ancient-india/a/the-indus-river-valley-civilizations (last visited on Mar 08,
2023).
 Roger Boesche, Kautilya’s Arthasastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India, 67 THE
JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY 9, 20 (2003), http://doi.org/10.1353/jmh.2003.0006.
 SAMVIDHI, https://www.samvidhi.org/post/animal-rights-in-india-most-underrated-topic-of-
environmental-law (last visited on Mar 07, 2023).
 Beauchamp, T. L., Animals as Moral Patients: Exploring the Philosophical Foundations of
Extending Rights to Non-Human Beings, 67 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES 468, (2011), doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01716.
 C. R. Sunstein, The Rights of Animals and the Future of Human Life, 112 THE YALE LAW
JOURNAL 1711-1719, (2002), doi: 10.2307/1562378.
 L. K. Robinson,. Animal Rights and the Right to Life: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary
Jurisprudence. Animal Law, 185 (2015).
 B. E. Rollin, The Ethics of Animal Experimentation, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, (1989),
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511625335
 D. S. Favre, Animals and the Law: A Critical Overview. 21 ANIMAL LAW 1,46, (2015).
 World Animal Protection,
https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/sites/default/files/int_files/
eta_full_report_2016.pdf (last visited on Mar 9, 2023).
 Badri Chatterjee, 19,028 animal cruelty cases in Mumbai over 5 years; not a single arrest,
HINDUSTAN TIMES (Mar. 5, 2023, 4:50PM), https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-
news/19-028-animal-cruelty-cases-in-mumbai-over-5-years-not-a-single-arrest/story-
71BzHW03ONSXiKhu8FN0HL.html.
 ONMANORAMA, https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2022/09/12/kerala-stray-dog-
menace-govt-campaign.html (last visited Mar 7, 2023).

XLI
 TIMES OF INDIA, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/50-dogs-poisoned-at-
village-in-nalgonda-on-sarpanchs-order/articleshow/70165022.cms (last visited Mar 7,
2023).
 FRONTIERS, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00336/full (last visited
Mar. 6, 2023).
 Ramesh Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine HP 4679.
 A. Periyakaruppan v. Principal Secretary, W.P. (MD) No. 2614/2020, Judgement dated Apr
19, 2022.
 Mohammad Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126/2014, Judgement
dated Mar 20, 2017.
 Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140/2015, Judgement dated
Mar 30, 2017.
 Dhami KK. The electromagnetic radiations and its impacts on bird diversity in India, 5 INT J
AVIAN & WILDLIFE BIOL.1, 5-7 (2020), 10.15406/ijawb.2020.05.00166.
 STANDFORD ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/ (last visited on Mar 4, 2023).
 Jessamine Therese Mathew & Ira Chadha-Sridhar, Granting Animal Rights Under the
Constitution: A Misplaced Approach?, 7 NUJS L. REV. 349, 356 (2014),
http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/07_jessamine__ira.pdf.
 Karnail Singh v State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539.
 Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 645.
 Alim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 112/2017, Judgement dated Aug 10,
2018.
 Rita Brara, Can Nature Have Rights? : Legal and Political Insights, JSTOR 31, (2023),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26268373.pdf.
 Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Random Reflections, Universal, ed. 2003.
 UN DOCUMENTS, http://www.un-documents.net/wcn.htm (last visited on Mar 04, 2023).
 Tiffany Challe, The Rights of Nature- Can an Ecosystem Bear Legal Rights?, COLUMBIA
CLIMATE SCHOOL (Mar 07, 2023), https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/04/22/rights-
of-nature-lawsuits/.
 Alessandro Pelizzon & Monica Gagliano, Animal Rights and Rights of Nature Intersecting?,
11 AAPLJ 5, 7 (2015), http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/mini/The-
Sentience-of-Plants---Animal-Rights-and-Rights-of-Nature-Intersecting.pdf.

XLII
 Kristen Stilt, Rights of Nature, Rights of Animals, 134 HARV. L. REV. F. 276, (2021),
https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/03/rights-of-nature-rights-of-animals/.

XLIII