In Hindu culture, we are taught that the same soul that is in a human being is the same in all animals. So we have to treat everything equally. Thus we have to treat all the animals with grave respect. (Geeta Seshamani, Animal Rights activist)1. Parliament in independent India passed the first legislation of its kind aiming to prevent the cruelty to the animals.(The prevention of cruelty animals Act ,1960)2.

Prevention of cruelty to animals came into force on 1960, but the penalties have not been revised for the last 50 years. We are pushing the government hard to revise the penalties now because few attacks which have taken place recently have kind of acted like a trigger in this entire movement. (Gauri Maulekhi, Animal Rights activist)3. This research paper focuses on the status of stray dogs and abandoned pets and their struggle for survival every single day. This research paper concerns about the Stray dogs regulation, vaccination programme, or birth control programme as the measure to prevent incidents of dog bites.

Although organizing several awareness programs to aware common people about dog's psychological behavior to understand them better and it also helps in limiting the rabies disease. So, this paper primarily focusses on many other mode of operation for the welfare, preservation, and protection of stray dogs, along with balancing the rights with humane. This research paper concern arises from the demand of ours civilization that a certain moral value recognized towards animals. Researcher suggest the imposition of strict civil liability along with criminal liability for offenses against animals. A solution is suggested in the form of statutory amendment and better implementation mechanism.

Recently several happenings with reference to cruelty to dogs is being administered on them have come to light. Stray dogs are being killed for fun, dogs are getting raped and animals are continued to be maltreated quite often. These incidents make our blood boil with anger. Dogs are supposed to be man's best friend but there are few people who think otherwise. If they can't treat them well, they have no right to treat them badly either. Suffering of animals has been categorized in three areas: neglect, failing to provide an animal with a vital requirements such as food water and shelter, abuse which is striking or willfully harming an animal and deprivation or limiting an animal's freedom or preventing an animal from being with others of its kind.(A.John Dryden, 2001)4.

In one such dreadful incident happened in Chennai, a man was seen dragging a dog on a busy road, after brutally beating it. He then throw the dog into a pond filled with sewage. The accused was well known to torture dogs in the locality. (India times, Jun 11 , 2019)5.

(Sai Vignesh said,  I am very shocked at this incident. It shows how cruel humans can be). (Animal rights activist and president of Almighty Animal Care Trust)6
In a case of animal cruelty, three men in UP's Hathras area, kidnapped a pet dog and took turns to rape the pooch. The dog owner said the accused lured her with an egg and raped her. All three accused were said to be drunk when they raped the Pomeranian dog. (IndiaToday,July16,2019)7

The worst-part of being a journalist is you end up reporting and writing stories that shake you to the core. In one such gut-wrenching incident of animal cruelty, someone tied a stray dog to a vehicle and dragged it until it died a horrifying death in Mumbai. (India TV News, July 31, 2019)8. Many bollywood actors shown their concern on twitter refering that these voiceless souls should be protected from cruelty and this concern somehow motivates or inspires many people to be atleast not to hurt them. In a heart-wrenching case of animal cruelty, as many as 50 dogs were reportedly poisoned in Telladevarapalli village in the Nalgonda district of Telangana. ( NDTV, July 12, 2019)9.

The practice of slaughter stray dogs spreads across cities in India. The moment there's a threat of stray dog menace, killing them in one go seems to be the only thing some people resort to. A colony of ex-servicemen in Bangalore was left shaken after a woman named Ponnamma killed an entire litter of 15-day old puppies to  teach the mother a lesson  for giving birth outside her gate.

She reportedly flung them across the road with so much force that some of them were found with their intestines out. The mother of the litter, a stray dog fondly called Ammu by residents, was devastated, howling through the night, and trying to approach residents for help.(TimesofIndia, March22,2016)10. Gautam Sudarshan and Ashish Paul of Madha Medical College filmed a video of themselves throwing a brown street dog off a terrace. For Fun. Rescued by animal rights activist Shravan Krishnan, the dog was named Bhadra and nursed back to health. But she suffered multiple fractures and will never walk normally again. Sudarshan and Paul were granted bail, and Bhadra still awaits justice under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. (NDTV, Aug31,2016)11.

Despite having many traditions rooted in animism, and an admiration for the natural world, India has not been an easy place for animals. While the realities of there are incidents happening in our own backyards that we cannot ignore. With every stick or stone used to harm an animal, a part of our own humanity dies. Stray dogs are part of the society and therefore should be protected by the government in order to mitigate cruelty towards them. Cruelty is not limited to attacks but abandonment of pets is also one of the reasons for the increase in the population of stray dogs. (Gauri Maulekhi, animal rights activist, from People For Animals)12.

Irresponsible pet ownership adds a huge amount of burden on the already existing huge population of street dogs. A lot of people think that dogs are just a matter of convenience; you can keep them for as long as you like them and leave them whenever you want.

We can learn so many things from a dog's behavior, personality, demeanor, resiliency, and most importantly, the willingness to provide their family members with unconditional love, loyalty, and companionship down to their very last breath. We cannot even give them the right to live with peace from whom we are getting so many things. People often tell others, do not act like animals, but do we actually act like animals. The answer is a big 'NO', Animals are way better than humans. Dogs are adding so much in our lives that we can't even count, and we are still do not appreciate their presence in return we are giving them pain and suffering.

It all raise questions whether an amendment to present prevention of cruelty to animals act 1960 is a requisite for right to life of animals. This is the needful act to recognize all animals as a legal personality, and to recognice all wrongful acts on animals should be considered a crime. There is a very popular story about the Moghul Emperor Jahangir where an animal was treated as capable of owing rights. The bullock was presented before the emperor. It was decided that the bullock might have pulled the chain to complain against his master for making him carry heavy load. The master of the bullock was summoned and he was ordered to reduce the load which he made his bullock to carry. (B.N. Mani Tripathi, Jurisprudence the legal theory, 2015)13.

Research methodology
The researcher has adopted the doctrinal form of research in preparing this project. As the project is an analysis laws pertaining to the status of stray dogs in India as well as in America and this form of research was most appropriate.

Status of Animals under Indian Constitution 1950.
Animals play an important role in many people's lives and there's no place in a civilized society for maiming & torturing animals. The constitution of India was also amended in the year 1976 to incorporate the state policy safeguarding wildlife as well as cast duty on Indian citizens to protect the wildlife and have compassion for all living creatures. (Article-48(A) and 51(A)(g) of Indian constitution 1950)14.

Recognition has been given to the rights of animals under the Constitution itself. This section briefly summaries the various constitutional provisions which grant animals rights or impose duties upon humans towards non-human animals.

The constitutional validity and the ambit of statutory provisions must be judged with reference to our fundamental duties. The provisions of the PCA which are concerned with issues of animal welfare and prevention of cruelty must also be in consonance with our collective fundamental duties, that is, to have compassion for living creatures (Article 51 A )15 and to develop and inculcate the spirit of humanity as well as a scientific temper, (Article 51 A (h) )16. When dealing with animals so as not to harm them. The fundamental duties of the citizens of the country are collective duties of the State. ( State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and ors)17. The adequacy and applicability of statutory provisions are therefore, to be determined with reference to the fundamental duties, as also the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The implication of the said Fundamental Duties and the Directive Principle of State Policies is that it is also the moral and ethical duty of the State to make such laws which invoke the performance and furtherance of the duties as contained in the Constitution of India. (N.R.Nair V. Union of India)18. The Courts have also enjoined the fundamental duties under Articles 51A (g) &(h), to prevent cock fighting, (S.Kanna V. The commissioner of police)19 to ban bull-fighting, (Animal welfare board of India V. A. Nagaraja)20 to accord birds with the right to fly ( People for Animals v. Md. Mohazzim)21 etc. Courts have placed liberal interpretations on constitutional provisions and have read them into other statutory provisions dealing with both animals and wildlife.

Furthermore, in reference to the Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles of State Policy, the Supreme Court, in Nagaraja, (Animal welfare board of India v. A. Nagaraja)22 opined that that the PCA must be read in conjunction with (Articles 51A(g)) and (51A(h)) of the Constitution of India. It also becomes pertinent to note that fundamental duties are at par with and have the same force as that of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The Supreme Court (N.R. Nair v. Union of India)23 upholding the validity of a notification issued by the Central Government, banning the training and exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers and panthers, under S 22(ii) of the PCA, opined that even though such duties are not legally enforceable in courts of law, the courts will uphold a reasonable restriction on relevant fundamental rights of humans if the State were to make a law which prohibited any act or conduct in violation of any of the duties towards animals (N.R. Nair V. Union of India)24. (N.R. Nair v. Union of India)23 (N.R. Nair V. Union of India)24

Background of protection of cruelty against animals Act, 1960
The PCA came into existence largely due to the efforts of Rukmini Devi Arundale. ( India Today, Sep 16, 2017)25. She spent her years in Parliament studying the pathetic condition of animals in India, their slaughter for meat and the laws that might protect the animals.

In 1952, she, introduced a private member bill in the Rajya Sabha to replace the existing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890. It was after her passionate, powerful and enthusiastic speech in the Rajya Sabha in 1954, highlighting the need and importance of protecting animals, that Prime Minister Nehru set up a committee to look into the matter and formulate a comprehensive legislation.

He requested Rukmini Devi to withdraw her bill and assured her that his government would undertake the preparation of a proper legislation for the protection of animals and their rights. This paved the way for the enactment of the PCA. The PCA replaced the older PCA, 1890. The PCA, 1890 was restricted in its scope. It only applied to urban areas within municipal limits and it defined the term animal’ as any domestic or captured animal.

This meant that it excluded animals other than domestic and captured animals (Animal welfare board of India v. A. Nagaraja)26 from its ambit, such as, stray animals, who in fact, face the most amount of cruel and inhuman treatment, birds which have not been domesticated etc. Also, it only covered very few, specific types of cruelty towards animals. (For instance, under the PCA, 1980, willful administration of injurious drugs to animals and failure to provide sufficient food, drink and shelter were not offences which are offences under S-11 of the PCA, 1960. Under the current Act, the owner of an animal is required to provide such animal with adequate food and drink, under S-11(h). However, under the PCA, 1890, the only requirement was that such animal may not suffer by reason of thirst or starvation.

This shows that while animals under the current Act are required to be adequately and sufficiently nourished, under the previous Act, only starvation due to absolute neglect, would have amounted to cruelty.)27 and, additionally, the penalties enumerated under it were also inadequate. (The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890.

The penalties for any of the offences outlined by it did not exceed 100 rupees or a prison term, duration of which was one month or a maximum of three months in cases of subsequent offences)28. The PCA, thus, aimed to overcome the defects and inadequacies of the existing PCA, 1890. For the first time, it also extended protection to animals in the sphere of research and experimentation, and made provisions for the proper treatment and protection of performing animals.(The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, S-14-20.)29 It brought into existence the Animal Welfare Board of India, a statutory body that has been given the mandate to oversee and promote the welfare of animals (The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, S-4(1).)30 and to make recommendations to the Central Government for the same .(The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, S-9)31.

The Animal Welfare Board of India was established under the Provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960 to oversee the implementation of the animal welfare laws in the country, but present law is still remain unimplemented due to lack of evidence. The PCA is thus the most widely applicable set of laws in the sphere of animal rights.

Penalties for animal abuse in India and U.S.A.
Subjection of an animal to any of the acts, specified under S-11(1) (a) to (o) of the Act, makes the offender (in the case of a first offence) liable to pay a fine that may extend to only fifty rupees (The Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act, 1960, S11(1))32. In the case of a second offence or a subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, the offender shall be made to pay a fine of not less than twenty-five rupees, the quantum of which may also extend to one hundred rupees or the offender may be imprisoned for a term which may extend to three months or both.(The Prevention of Cruelty to against Animals Act, 1960, S-11(1)33.

Further, in the case of second offence, the offender's vehicle is to be confiscated, and he shall be barred from keeping an animal again. The laws in our country, which have been enacted for the protection and safety of animals, are ineffectual and toothless, considering the meager penalties prescribed, which are neither proportional to the gravity of the offences committed nor are enough to prevent such offences. The severity or the degree of the punishments prescribed by these laws is no match for the gravity of the crimes that offenders commit against animals. A fine of fifty rupees is not adequate punishment when it comes to offences which may result in the death of or in severe injury to animals.

Consequently, offenders get away easily, having suffered no major consequences for their reprehensible actions. S-11 lists several grave offences which may cause extreme discomfort and severe pain to animals, and sometimes even result in death. The consequences of such minor sentences and fines for such grave and serious offences are the recurring incidents of animal abuse. The animal cruelty legislation passed in 2017 increases the punishment for certain types of violent offenses such as torturing, cruelly killing, poisoning, or causing serious bodily injury to an animal to a third-degree felony with a penalty of two to 10 years in prison. It also closes loopholes that have allowed animal abusers to avoid prosecution altogether.

Before this law passed, the maximum penalty for animal cruelty was just two years.(Express News, Jan 19, 2018)34.


Negative and positive impacts of stray dogs
Stray dogs have many negative impacts on city environment and human health. Stray dogs cause noise pollution, feces garbage and traffic accidents. Michigan is ranked 23rd in the states caught in fighting dogs (Abbey-Lambertz K, 2013)35. Moreover, stray dogs have become a biggethreat to human health and lives. Stray dogs can transfer and spread Rabies a deadly disease (Wild Education, Directory of Wild Experts, 2015)36.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are more than 200 million stray dogs worldwide and that every year, 55,000 people die from rabies. A large number data shows that stray dogs have become a serious public administration problem in India as well as American cities. . The city of Detroit is known to be one of the top cities for dog fighting (Jessica, 2015)37.

Despite of many negative impacts there are countless positive impact of dogs.

When a child has no brothers or sisters, this shows that pets help children develop greater empathy, higher self-esteem, and increased participation in social and physical activities.(Hodgson, K., Barton, L., Darling, M., Antao, V., Kim, F. A., & Monavvari, A,2015)38. In addition dogs can be trained to detect seizures, animals can also be used in occupational therapy, speech therapy, or physical rehabilitation to help patients recover.(Nancy R. Gee, James A. Griffin, Penny Mccardle, 2017)39.

Similarly, a study of women in China found that those who were dog owners had fewer doctor visits, took fewer days off sick from work, and exercised more often than non-dog owners.(Headey BW, Fu Na, Zheng R 2008)40. A pack of stray dogs helped Delhi Police to crack a murder case by chasing away a man who was trying to hide his wife's dead body in the nearby forest area.( India Today, March 18, 2017)41. ( SHO kuldeep singh). People should learn humanity from them.

Provisions pertaining to animals rights in U.S.A.
The Animal Welfare Act: Signed into law in 1966, the Animal Welfare Act Definition: The primary federal animal protection law. (AWA) is the primary federal animal protection law. The AWA mainly involves animals kept at zoos and used in laboratories, as well as animals who are commercially bred and sold like those in puppy mills.

The AWA directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to set minimum standards regarding these animals’  handling, care, treatment, and transportation.  Dog fighting and cockfighting are also prohibited under the Animal Welfare Act, so long as the activity in some way crosses state lines. The AWA itself, as well as its enforcement by the Department of Agriculture, are frequently criticized for allowing inhumane practices to go unchecked.

California is at the forefront of some other statewide animal protection measures. In 2017, California became the first state to pass a statewide  retail pet sale ban.  Under this law, retail establishments like pet stores may only sell cats, dogs and rabbits coming from shelters and rescue groups—and not from commercial breeders. Maryland passed its own statewide retail pet sale ban in 2018, becoming the second state with this type of law.

The  28 Hour Law : This law, enacted in 1873, requires vehicles transporting certain animals for slaughter to stop every 28 hours to allow the animals exercise, food and water. The law does not apply if the vehicle in which animals are being transported contains access to food or water, and there are many other exceptions as well. Birds like chickens and turkeys, which are the most-farmed animals in the United States, are considered exempt by the federal government.

Hot car laws  criminalize leaving an animal in a vehicle in extreme weather, and some hot car laws allow these animals to be rescued from vehicles in certain circumstances and make the rescuer immune from civil or criminal liability. Anti-tethering laws limiting how long pets can be tied up or chained outside, especially in extreme weather, are also growing in popularity, as are laws allowing pets to be included in domestic violence protective orders.

A Five Year Plan to better solve the stray dog problem was proposed by this proposal. In 2007, the U.S. Congress passed a Federal law against interstate dog fighting activities.(Animal welfare Act 2006)42. According to a filing in U.S. District Court in Richmond by Federal investigators in Virginia, which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and published by the Baltimore Sun on July 6, 2007, a losing dog or one whose potential is considered unacceptable faces  being put to death by drowning, strangulation, hanging, gun shot, electrocution or some other method, and even bait animals are used to check fighting instinct of dogs.

These activities are highly immoral and inhumane in nature and should be prohibited strictly sooner as every life is precious. The Animal Welfare Act is a piece of legislation which aims to ensure that animals are not mistreated by humans, whether through improper care or sheer cruelty.(Animal welfare Act 2006)43.

Illinois state house passed a law that would force divorce courts not just to share pets up between their  parents  in a custody battle, but to think about their well being, too.  It sort of starts treating your animal more like children,  says Illinois State Senator Linda Holmes, the legislation’s sponsor. (Suzanne Monyak 2018)44. Dogs are peopling too, alike humans they can feel pain and happiness. Gregory Berns, a professor of neuro economics 45.

Defects under the primary animal welfare legislation in India
1. Increasing the fifty-rupee penalty
The criminal penalties for offences must be imposed depending on the intensity and the objective of punishing the offence. With respect to justice in punishment, Immanuel Kant had opined   (Retributive theory of punishment)46 Presently, the maximum punishment of fifty rupees is not even close to being considered of a harsh nature. Therefore, from the perspective of the offender, it cannot be said that the liability imposed is unfair, But, by scaling the proportionality of PCA, with respect to the society, Fairness towards society is required since commission of a crime in criminal law jurisprudence is considered to be a crime against the society as a whole.

(he Penal System an Introduction 2nd. ed., 1997- 47 Proportionality between the crime committed and the punishment imposed in case of societal perspective is scaled based on the objects and the aims with which the law was made. The object and aim of a law can determine the extent to which it is supposed to be imposed and what mischief it aims at curbs.

The prevention of cruelty to animals Act 1960:
Statement of Object and Reasons)48. Such an aim was envisaged after the old PCA of 1890, so as to ensure that PCA is consistently amended such that at given point of time, the law is fashioned in a manner that it adequately prevents cruelty towards animals. American jurisprudence that dominates the literature on prevention of cruelty on animals, dictates a high penalty to the tune of ten to twenty thousand dollars. The aims provided by the legislature and the judiciary would require that the laws should have the capacity to successfully prevent the infliction of cruelty on to animals. This would be possible only by making the present penalties adequate to the harm inflicted.

2. Non Cognisibility of offences
A complaint against a person, who has committed an offence under the PCA, can be made to the police, by any person who has knowledge of commission of such act that amounts to an offence under the PCA. However, it is pertinent to note that, only S-11(1) (l),(n) and (o) and S-12 of the PCA are the cognizable offences, while all other offences under S-11 are non-cognizable offences.(The Prevention of cruelty against animal Act,1960 S-3)49. The cognisibility status to offences is typically given to offences, which are graver in comparison to other offences, and demand immediate attention from the law enforcement.

Moin Basha Kurnooli v. State of Karnataka 50. Due to the classification of most offences as non-cognizable, and additional procedural barriers involved with such classification, effective actions cannot be taken against the accused that commit these offences.(The Times of India, July 5,2016)51. Such a status of the majority of the S-11 offences of the PCA results in the non-achievement of the objectives or the purposes of the Act.

The PCA was enacted with the intention that unnecessary harm would not be committed towards animals, (The prevention of cruelty against animal Act 1960: Statement of object and reasons)52. But due to the non-cognizable status of S-11 offences, it has been proven difficult for several animal activists to bring the accused persons to justice.

For instance, whenever an animal cruelty case is reported at the police station, actions are rarely undertaken due to the non-cognisibility of the offences. at the same time. An offence involving actual physical harm to an animal is not given the same status. Thus, it has become imperative to change the cognisibility status of certain S-11 offences of the PCA based on the gravity of offences for the protection of animals from in human behavior.

3. Easy grant of bail
The offences that are maintained under S-11 of the PCA are predominantly are categorized as boilable offences. Further, due to the low penalty it is easier to obtain bail for these offences. Bail was introduced as a remedy for avoiding pre-trial imprisonment. Moreover, with the advancement of the criminal justice system, it has been considered that bail is reserved only for those crimes, which are not as grave as the others. This is a furtherance of the interpretation of the deterrence theory. India follows a similar standard of granting bail only to those offences, which are classified as severe in nature.( Prahlad Singh Dhati V. NCT, Delhi)53. But due to the lack of distinction between the various offences maintained under §11 of the PCA, it cannot be determined as to what offence qualifies as either grave or ordinary. And therefore, bail is granted to all offences alike under the PCA, effectively nullifying the purpose of deterrence factor. Ideally, bail should be granted only for those §11 offences of the PCA, which can be considered to be ‘not grave’, but not offences which can qualify as serious in nature.

4. Imposition and Application of Civil Liability
The need for making the PCA more stringent, researcher realize the need for a more effective means of preventing or dealing with animal rights offence. Researcher suggest that any subsequent amendment to the PCA, which is long overdue, must provide for the imposition of civil liability as well.

Civil liability has not been imposed in case addressing animal cruelty nor has it been suggested before by any of the proposed amendments to the PCA. Liability as an option has been considered by certain animal welfare scholars like David Favre ( Marquette law review, 2010)54 and Cass Sunstein ( John M.olin Program in Law and Economics, 2006)55. Researcher suggest that civil liability should to be imposed simultaneously, and not as a substitute for criminal liability, which shall be imposed by the same Act. A similar practice can be employed under the PCA as well, wherein the criminal liability is addressed through S-11 of the PCA penalties and civil liability through the S-9 of the Act regarding powers of AWBI.

Concluding Remarks
In the course of this paper researcher have attempted to analyse the existing deficiencies in the animal welfare provisions of our country. Researcher have also attempted to suggest the need of the situation to amend the current punishment in PCA Act for violation of the rights of animals, in legislations protecting the rights of animals.

First, the status of animals under indian constitution and its interpretation by various courts has been examined, only to conclude that the provisions of the primary animal welfare legislation in India (that is the PCA), are toothless and the penalties prescribed by it neither offer adequate protection to animals, nor deter acts of cruelty. However, it has also been identified that the judiciary is increasingly attempting to accord rights to animals under the Constitution and also impose duties upon citizens to protect such rights.

This recognition of animals rights and our corresponding duty to not only prevent any infringement of such rights but also to protect their rights, paves the way for recognizing a legal duty to base civil liability upon.

Thereafter, the reasons for improving the PCA have been discussed, in light of defects such as deficient penalties, non-cognisibility of offences, statutory limitations, and easy grant of bail. Based on the flaws highlighted, possible amendments have been proposed, so that the defects identified may be removed. These changes include imposing higher penalties, and ensuring differential treatment of offences, so as to ensure proportionality of punishments and effective deterrence.

But since improving the position of criminal sanctions may not be a sufficient enough action, imposition of civil liability for offences committed against animals is critical as it is a matter of life and death. There is a need to do away with ‘specialism which characterises most policies and laws, aimed at protecting animals and thus, researcher suggest the imposition if civil liability which will allow citizens to bring suits for harm done to animals.

For this it is necessary to recognize the status of animals as legal persons, so as to enable the bringing of civil suits on their behalf, through the acknowledgement of the States position as trustee or guardian of animals under the doctrine of parens patriae and the Public Trust Doctrine and by giving animals ‘equitable self-ownership title’. Due to the inadequacy of the legislations, which seek to protect animals’ rights and the Parliaments effiency to recognize the rights of animals and prescribe any effective measures to protect basic rights; change in the law is necessary. Three amendments to the PCA have already been proposed. However, they are yet to be passed by the parliament.

Every day, there are new cases of animal cruelty being written about and spoken of. In light of the situation, solutions to mitigate the suffering of animals have to be found. Therefore, proposed changes are required to the PCA, such as civil liability being imposed on those who violate the rights of animals, for their failure to perform their duty of protecting the rights of animals. The provision for imposing civil liability, can be included in the PCA, because of the intrinsic worth of animals and their ability to feel pain as sentient beings. Animals do not merely exist for human benefit. Thus, we must stop place them to an inferior position and must offer them adequate safeguards and rights, since it is our duty to do so.

Animals cannot speak, but can you and I not speak for them and represent them? Let us all feel their silent cry of agony and let us all help that cry to be heard in the world. ( Rukmini Devi Arundale, Animal Activist).

References:

1. Geeta Seshamani, Animal Rights activist
2. The prevention of cruelty animals Act ,1960
3. Gauri Maulekhi, Animal Rights activist
4. A.John Dryden, 2001
5. India times, Jun 11, 2019
6. Sai Vignesh Animal rights activist and president of Almighty animal care trust
7. IndiaToday,July16,2019
8. India TV News, July 31, 2019.
9. NDTV, July 12, 2019)
10. TimesofIndia, March22,2016
11. NDTV, Aug31,2016
12. Gauri Maulekhi, animal rights activist, from People For Animals
13. B.N. Mani Tripathi, Jurisprudence the legal theory, 2015
14. Article-48(A) and 51(A)(g) of Indian constitution 1950
15. Article 51 (A)
16. Article 51 A (h)
17. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and ors
18. N.R.Nair V. Union of India
19. S.kanna v. The commissioner of police
20. Animal welfare board of India v. A. Nagaraja
21. People for Animals v. Md. Mohazzim
22. Animal welfare board of India v. A. Nagaraja
23. N.R. Nair v. Union of India
24. N.R. Nair v. Union of India
25. India Today, Sep 16, 2017
26. Animal welfare board of India v. A. Nagaraja
27. For instance, under the PCA, 1980, wilful administration of injurious drugs to animals and failure to provide sufficient food, drink and shelter were not offences which are offences under S-11 of the PCA, 1960. Under the current Act, the owner of an animal is required to provide such animal with adequate food and drink, under S-11(h). However, under the PCA, 1890, the only requirement was that such animal may not suffer by reason of thirst or starvation. This shows that while animals under the current Act are required to be adequately and sufficiently nourished, under the previous Act, only starvation due to absolute neglect, would have amounted to cruelty.
28. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890. The penalties for any of the offences outlined by it did not exceed 100 rupees or a prison term, duration of which was one month or a maximum of three months in cases of subsequent offences
29. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, S-14-20.
30. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, S-4(1).
31. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, S-9
32. The Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act, 1960, S11(1).
33. The Prevention of Cruelty to against Animals Act, 1960, S-11(1).
34. Express News, Jan 19, 2018).
35. (Abbey-Lambertz K, 2013
36. Wild Education, Directory of Wild Experts, 2015
37. Jessica, 2015
38. Hodgson, K., Barton, L., Darling, M., Antao, V., Kim, F. A., & Monavvari, A,2015
39. (Nancy R. Gee, James A. Griffin, Penny Mccardle,2017)
40. Headey BW, Fu Na, Zheng R 2008
41. India Today, March 18, 2017
42. Animal welfare Act 2006
43. Animal welfare Act 2006
44. Suzanne Monyak 2018
45. Gregory Berns, a professor of neuroeconomics
46. Retributive theory of punishment The Penal System an Introduction 2nd. ed., 1997
47. The prevention of cruelty to animals Act 1960: Statement of Object and Reasons.
48. The prevention of cruelty to against
49. The Prevention of cruelty against animal Act,1960 S-3
50. Moin Basha Kurnooli v. State of Karnataka
51. The Times of India, July 5,2016
52. The prevention of cruelty against animal Act 1960: Statement of object and reasons
53. Prahlad Singh Dhati v. NCT, Delhi
54. Marquette law review, 2010
55. John M.olin Program in Law and Economics, 2006
    
    Written By : Kriti Kumari Aggarwal