With the use of important rulings, this paper examines Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution to determine whether it protects animals' right to life or not. If
that is the case, what official actions did the legislature take to carry out
the provisions for the welfare of animals under
Article 21? It also tries to shed light on the moral guidelines India should
follow when considering animal testing and Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs). Animals have played an important role in human history,
whether as a companion, modes of transportation, or tools for clearing fields,
among other things.
Animals were treasured, revered, and worshipped throughout
the Vedic era. However, as time goes on, the condition of animals is
deteriorating. Through incorporated legislative safeguards under the Indian
constitution, rules, guidelines, and other statutory legislation, the government
machinery has been vigilantly moving over time to improve the circumstances of
this vulnerable species of society.
The Constitution of India prosaically silents on animal rights nevertheless,
Article 51A(g) of the Constitution tacitly states that it is the fundamental
duty of every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. However, The
Supreme Court of India explicitly included animal rights to life in the case of
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.1, also Jallikattu case,
Supreme Court in this landmark judgment banned Jallikattu, a traditional
bull-fighting practice. Article 51 A (g) of the Indian Constitution, was held as
the "magna carta of animal rights," and guaranteed security of life under
Article 21. It underscored the significance of safeguarding animals from
redundant pain meted out by humans. This verdict paved the path for the
advancement of animal protection legal philosophy in India and accentuated the
court's allegiance to secure the liberties and well-being of animals.
of the right to life has always been multifarious and refuted gist. From the
outset, the right to life was ruminated as a fundamental human right for
securing whimsical eviscerate of life. But the trajectory of Art. 21 is not
exclusive to humans, it extends to animals also. It has always been a subject of
discussion based on their competence to endure and experience wretchedness,
euphoria, and melancholy due to ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism.
Proponents of the utilitarian view of animal rights say animals have feelings
like humans possess, and should not be considered merchandise or chattels.
Contrariwise, antagonists of the utilitarian view argue that human beings have a
unique moral status due to their higher cognitive abilities and capacities for
moral reasoning. Although they support respect and compassionate behaviour for
animals but also contemplate that entitling them to legal rights would sabotage
human rights and put unreasonable liability on citizens2.
Meaning of "animal rights" v. "animal welfare"
Animal welfare advocates to avert futile agony. On the contrary, the animal
rights approach aims to lift animals out of the way of human use all around by
granting animals the hold on their own lives and bodies3. Animal rights
activists want animals to be free to live as they wish without any encroachment,
without being abuse, or exploitation.4
Animal's best interests must be put
ahead, regardless of the fact that whether it is "adorable," useful to humans,
wild species, and any human cares about them at all or not. Animals cannot be an
object and playthings of human hands and sources of food, clothing, or
experimentation.5"Corporations, consumers, veterinarians, politicians, and
others utilize animal welfare extensively.6 The World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) states that "Animal welfare refers to the physical and
psychological well-being of an animal".
The concept of animal welfare includes three elements:
- Biological state - ensuring that the animal is healthy and
- Emotional state- the absence of negative emotions, such as pain, stress,
and chronic fear
- Ability to express certain normal behaviours.
Animal welfare is a science and has led to the development of several
methodologies, including frameworks such as the "Five Domains Model".
This science-based Five Domains framework is evolved by David Mellor, it focuses
on the mental attitude of an animal. It emphasizes that animals have nutrition,
environment, health, behaviour, and mental state. It states that animals should
have the right to safe food and water, a clean environment free from pollution,
timely medical treatment, the right to express natural behaviour, positive
mental health, and so on.7
The Right to Life of Animals
Article 21, says
No person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except as per the
procedure established by law. The word "life" has been given a broader
connotation and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes animal
life in all forms of life, under Article 21will be amounted to a violation of
the principles of the Constitution.8
Article 21 protects the Right to Life as a Fundamental Right. Enjoyment of life
and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses
within its ambit, the protection and preservation of the environment, ecological
balance free from pollution of air, water, and sanitation without which life
cannot be enjoyed - K. M Chinnappa v. Union of India9
Directive Elements of Government Policy
Article 48 Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry - The State must
work to organize agriculture and animal husbandry along contemporary, scientific
lines. In particular, the State must take action to protect and improve breeds
and forbid the killing of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle.10
Article 48A - Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of
forests and wildlife - The State shall strive to safeguard the nation's forests
and wildlife as well as to maintain and develop the environment.11
In contrast to fundamental rights, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
are inoperative in any court. But it is the responsibility of the States to use
them in crafting thoughtful constitutional legislation.12
It was debated amongst the Constituent Assembly of the Constitution regarding
whether Article 48 should be included as a Fundamental Right or not. Ultimately,
the Constituent Assembly accepted the provision as a DPSP.13
The 42nd Amendment of 1976 included this article, which obliges the State to
safeguard the natural world and wildlife. Article 48A may become enforceable
under the scope of the right to life under Article 21 even if it is not yet
judicially enforceable. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,14 The Supreme Court
heard a public interest litigation about Delhi's air pollution.
observations were made by the Court on Article 48A and public health: Articles
39, 47, and 48A individually and collectively impose obligations on the State to
safeguard citizens' health, advance public health, and preserve and improve the
environment. In Sachidanand Pandey & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.,15
The Supreme Court ruled that when a case involving the preservation of the
environment is brought before the Court, Article 48A must be borne in mind.
Article 51A (Part IV-A) of the Constitution outlines the Fundamental Duties of
Indian citizens. The 42nd Amendment, which was passed in 1976, also inserted the
provision in order to implement Article 29(1) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The relevant provisions of Article 51A in relation to animal
rights are as follows: Every citizen has an obligation to:
(g) maintain and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes,
rivers, and wildlife
(h) cultivate a scientific mindset, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and
change. Indian citizens are required by Article 51A (g) to preserve and enhance
the natural environment and to show compassion for all living things.16As
interpreted in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.,16Concern for
the pain and welfare of all living things is part of compassion. In this
decision, the Supreme Court viewed 51A (g) and the requirement to
cultivate a scientific temperament under 51A (h) as the cornerstones of Indian
animal rights law. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat &
Ors.,17 The Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament intended for Article 51A to
be interpreted in conjunction with Articles 48 and 48A in order to uphold the
spirit of the laws.
Allocation of Powers between the Centre and the States:
The subject matter of laws passed by the Parliament and State Legislatures
is defined in Article 246. The Seventh Schedule's three lists devoted to
this topic are as follows:
- The Union List: Only the Parliament has the authority to enact laws
under this list.
- The State List: With regard to the subjects, state legislatures have
the only authority to enact legislation.
- Concurrent List: The ability to pass laws regarding the items on
this list rests with both the Parliament and State Legislatures.
The State and Concurrent List has been assigned the following items in relation
to animal rights. The States have the authority to "preserve, protect and
improve stock and prevent animal diseases and enforce veterinary training and
practice," according to Item 14 of the
The Concurrent List gives both the Center and the States the authority to enact
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
- Item 17: The reduction of animal abuse.
- Item 17B: Safeguarding wildlife and birds.18
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, which outlaws cruelty to
animals, contains the fundamental cruelty law of India. According to the Act, an
"animal" is any living thing that is not a human being.
In accordance with Chapter II of the Act, the Government of India established
the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) with some of the following functions:
- To offer advice to the federal government about how to keep
animals from suffering needlessly when being transported, used
in studies, or kept in captivity
- Promote monetary aid, foster homes, and animal sanctuaries
for elderly animals.
- Giving guidance on regulations and medical care for animal
- Spreading knowledge and awareness about animal welfare.
- Providing general guidance to the federal government on
issues related to animal welfare.
However, the Act does not classify as cruelty the castrating and
dehorning of cattle in accordance with authorized procedures, the annihilation
of stray dogs in prescribed procedures using lethal chambers, or the killing of
any animal carried out by law.19
The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
The legislature passed this comprehensive piece of legislation to protect the
country's wild animal, bird, and plant species in order to guarantee
environmental and ecological stability. Restricting the illegal trade in
wildlife and its derivative parts is the main goal. Among other protected areas,
the Act oversees national parks, zoos, and sanctuaries. The Act also includes
schedules of plants and animals that are subject to varied levels of government
protection and oversight.20
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 428 - Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the value of ten rupees
�Anyone who does mischief by killing, poisoning, injuring, or rendering useless
any animal or animals valued at ten rupees or more faces a sentence of up to two
years in prison, a fine, or a combination of the two. A sentence that might last
up to five years, come with a fine, or come with both.
Section 429 - Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any
animal of the value of fifty rupees.� Any person who causes trouble by killing,
poisoning, injuring, or rendering useless an elephant, camel, horse, mule,
buffalo, bull, cow, or ox, regardless of its value, or any other animal worth at
least fifty rupees, will be punished with either type of imprisonment for a term
that may reach five years, a fine, or both.21
The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978
It manages animal transportation in India in order to stop cruelty and guarantee
the welfare of the animals while in transit. regardless of the breed, whether
traveling by rail, road, inland canal, sea, or air. For the transportation of
animals, there are criteria such as the need for room, ventilation, and other
circumstances. A fine of up to 500 rupees a sentence of up to three months, or
both, are possible penalties under the law. Punishment may be increased if a
crime is committed repeatedly. The regulations control animal transportation and
guarantee the animals' welfare while doing so.22
The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001
It controls the raising and usage of performing animals in India and guarantees
that they are treated humanely at all times. It outlines rules for the
construction, upkeep, and circumstances of slaughterhouses. It must be roomy,
well-ventilated, and equipped with appropriate lighting and a drainage system.
It offers several techniques, tactics, and processes that must be used to lessen
suffering and anguish during the slaughter of the animal. To engage in the
training or display of performing animals, individuals or organizations must
register with the relevant authority.23
The Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules,
1998- It controls the breeding of animals used in experiments and makes sure
that experiments on animals are done in an ethical and compassionate way. The
Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA)
requires that breeders and establishments register with it and adhere to its
regulations. It regulates and oversees the care and use of animals in research,
including cage size and condition, animal feeding and watering schedules, and
the administration of anesthesia and analgesia.24
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018
It runs a chain of pet stores in India and oversees the welfare of the animals
bought and sold there. The proprietors of the pet store must register with the
appropriate authority and follow all rules. It prescribes the size and condition
of cages, the frequency of feeding, and watering, and the supply of veterinary
treatment, as well as the housing, care, and sale of animals in pet stores.25
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Aquarium and Fish Tank Animals Shop)
It controls how aquarium and fish tank pet stores operate in India and
guarantees the well-being of the animals sold in these businesses. It outlines
requirements for tank size and condition, water quality, and temperature, as
well as the provision of suitable food and care for aquarium and fish tank
animals for sale.26
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies
for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001
It controls how societies for the prevention of animal cruelty operate and are
established in India. It requires state governments to provide enough land and
other resources for the construction of animal shelters and hospitals. It
lessens the suffering of animals and establishes penalties for those who violate
this law. In terms of legislation and reducing the use of animals in
experimentation, India has made some progress. In order to prevent animal
testing and promote alternatives, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and
Climate Change released guidelines in 2014. The regulations demand that thorough
justifications for animal experiments be submitted, and they promote the
adoption of non-animal substitutes whenever practical.27
The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change issued guidelines in
2014 India has made some headway in limiting and regulating the use of animals
in testing and encouraging alternate techniques when it is practical. It
requires thorough justifications for animal experimentation to be submitted.
Since concerns about ethical treatment in animal experiments have existed.28
Ethics of animal testing and factory farming in India
Animal farming that is done intensively, or "factory farming," might have moral
implications. In order to maximize production efficiency, it includes the
growing of numerous animals in protected areas. This is criticized because it
has a bad effect on public health, environmental sustainability, and animal
welfare. India has a lower prevalence of animal rearing than other countries.
The Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) is
a statutory organization created under Section 15(1) of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The body's main objective is to protect animals
from unnecessary suffering or abuse. In 1998, regulations governing breeding and
experimentation were established. The committee can carry out its functions
according to its protocol. Committees may occasionally receive funding from the
government. Additionally, anyone may make a gift, contribution, bequest, or
other similar gesture to the committee's coffers. To control scientific
experimentation, the Ministry of Environment and Forests developed a set of
ethical guidelines in June 2007 that the CPCSEA must abide by. These guidelines
Functions of CPCSEA:
- Purpose behind carrying out the experiments
Only the following justifications may be used to conduct animal experiments:
- To procure knowledge for improving, saving, or prolonging human life;
- To gain significantly in ensuring well well-being of the people; and
- To find a cure for a disease of plants, animals, or human beings.
- Avoid animal experimentation if an alternative exists
Animal experiments should only be performed on the least intelligent creatures.
The proper justification for using animals in experiments must be provided when
there is an alternative yet the experiment was nonetheless carried out on them.
- Appropriate sedation and anesthesia
It is necessary to employ a minimally painful object throughout an experiment.
If an experiment's discomfort would endure longer than a brief period of time,
the animal would need to be given anesthesia or the proper level of sedative.
- Euthanasia, when allowed?
According to Rule 9(cc), the investigator is responsible for the animal in
question's aftercare. Only in the following situations can the researcher decide
to put an animal to death:
- If the animal proves to be incapable of functioning physically or
- If the animal experiences pain following an experimental procedure;
- If the non-termination of animals used in experiments puts human lives
- Suitable living conditions
Animals should live in habitats that are appropriate for their species. Animals
used in biomedical research must be managed by qualified scientists or
Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998
(enforced in 1982)
- Granting licenses to establishments that conduct experiments on animals.
- Nominee selection for Institutional Animal Ethics Committee of the registered institutions.
- Based on reports of inspections conducted by CPCSEA, approving animal facilities shown fit for housing animals by the report.
- Granting permission for experiments that involve animals.
- Recommending the import of animals for usage in experiments.
- In case of violation by establishments, CPCSEA has the authority to take any action.
The rules embody the principles and make registration with CPCSEA a necessity
amongst other essentials. The important rules have been discussed below:
Definition of the term 'Experiment'
Rule 2(e) states that an experiment is either a program or a project that
involves the use of animals. Such usage is undertaken for acquiring knowledge
related to biology, physiology, or ethology or is of a chemical or physical
nature. The animals can be further used:
Any activity taken up for fulfilling objects would qualify as an 'experiment'.
Rule 10: Procurement of Animals
It states that:
- In the production of reagents, antibodies, or antigens,
- For procedures related to diagnostics and testing, establishing
transgenic stock, and saving and alleviating lives;
- In an activity that will result in a significant gain in the well-being
of people of the country; and that will help come up with a cure for a
disease related to human beings, plants, or animals.
- Animals for experimentation can be acquired from 'registered'
- Alternative legal sources are used in the case of non-availability
of registered breeders.
- In case of procurement from legal sources, written permission from
the appropriate authority should have been sought.
Rule 14: Suspension of Registration of an Establishment by CPCSEA When can
CPCSEA suspend or revoke a registration of an establishment:
- If the report of the Member Secretary or the authorized officer,
proves that the rules are not being followed by the establishment or
a breeder and the directions given by the Committee.
- The breeder or the establishment has the right to be heard.
- Minor violations will not cause revocation or suspension. These
acts don't have any direct effect on the well-being of the animal or
that doesn't lead to pain, suffering, any other adverse health
disorder, or death of the animal.
- Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC)
The creation of the IAEC to oversee the operations of the establishment during
an experiment is covered by Rule 13 of the Breeding of and Experiments on
Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules 1998. The case is sent to CPCSEA for
large animal experimentation. University Grants Commission
The UGC prohibits the use, dissection, and experimentation of animals in
colleges teaching courses on zoology, physiology, anatomy, etc. for
undergraduate and postgraduate students and must adhere to the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972, and the PCA Act, 196029.
Medical Council of India
In its circular, the MCI had said that they would keep up the clinical
components of their instruction while also having central or departmental animal
facilities. In order to maintain the animal houses, all colleges affiliated with
the MCI have secured a CPCSEA license. Pharmacy Council of India
A general ban on using animals for any reason was imposed after PCI mandated
that institutions cease animal dissection at the graduation level. Additionally,
research on animals could be carried out following a careful review of the
evidence and receiving approval from the Institutional Animals Ethics Committee.
Animal testing for the cosmetics sector was outlawed by the Bureau of Indian
Standards in 2013, and artificial and computer simulations were supposed to take
its place. 2016 saw the inclusion of the soap and detergent sectors in the
ban.29 In the 2018 case of Narayan Dutt
Bhatt v. Union of India
,30 the Uttarakhand High Court rendered a significant
decision on the legal status of animals, stating that they have "extended the
rights of a person."
- State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Baig, 31
According to the Supreme Court's ruling in this case, hunting elephants is
forbidden because they are included in the list and range of creatures covered
by Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972.
- Tilak Bahadur Rai Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh,32
Killing the tiger for self-defense can be considered some self-defense and is
acceptable. Additionally, it was made clear in this ruling that any animal
killed or injured by a person acting in self-defense becomes the government's
property. The person who shot the animal has no right to it once it is killed or
- People for Ethical Treatment of Animals Vs. Union of
A significant decision by the Bombay High Court in 2006 mandates that any film
intended for public viewing that uses or films animals obtain a certificate from
the Animal Welfare Board of India certifying that the requirements of the
Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 have been properly met. This law
protects animals against exploitation and cruel treatment when being used in the
filming of movies. The judgment forbids, among other abuses, subjecting animals
to loud, unusual noises, beating them, or depriving them of food and water.
- Mr. Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. New Sarvodaya Chs,34
A resident complained that the co-op society in which he resided had passed a
resolution preventing dogs from making use of the building's lifts. The society
passed this resolution on the basis that the dog was not a consumer and his
usage of the lift could result in the spread of diseases and hence could be
disallowed from using the society's facilities. To this, the consumer court
declared that the owner, being a member of the coop housing society, was a
consumer and hence, was well within his rights to bring his complaint to the
Consumer Court. In addition, the dog bore a valid Kennel Club of India license,
was registered with the Municipal Corporation, and had been issued a Health
Certificate by the Bombay Veterinary College. This ruling reiterated that
residents couldn't be prevented from having pets and those pets were not to be
banned from using lifts.
- Ozair Hussain Vs. Union of India, 35
The Delhi High Court ruled that the packaging of goods such as food, drugs
(except those that are life-saving), and cosmetics must contain information
regarding the items' vegetarian or non-vegetarian origins, taking into account
the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution
and Article 10(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Any food item that comprises an animal in whole or in part but does not include
milk or milk products as an ingredient must be marked with a brown circle inside
of a square. Similar to this, all vegetarian meals must have a green circle
inside of a green square to be recognized as such. This decision's justification
was that a citizen's freedom of expression also extended to his/her food choice.
- State of U.P Vs. Mustakeem and Ors, 36
An FIR was filed against the owner in the state of Uttar Pradesh after it was
discovered that goats were being transported for slaughter in a cruel way (they
were firmly chained to one another, which was against the prohibitions of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960). While the case was in court, the UP
High Court gave the owner back custody of the animals. Following an appeal, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the animals should be taken away from their
owner and kept in a gaushala under the supervision of the state government,
which was given custody of them for the duration of the legal proceeding. With
this decision, the Court adequately clarified that if an animal was removed from
a person's care on grounds of cruelty to his/her charge, the animal would not be
returned until the case was resolved.
- Gauri Maulekhi Vs. Union of India and Ors, 37
When the Supreme Court banned the practice of Jallikattu in 2014, it alluded to
various sections of the PCA Act, 1960, which addresses the unnecessary suffering
of animals. Alluding to Section 3 and Section 11, the Hon'ble Court declared
that all animal fights incited by humans are illegal, even those carried out
under the guise of tradition and culture. The Court also listed various
recommendations, among them an overhaul of the penalties and punishments in the
PCA Act, 1960, so as to allow it to function effectively as a deterrent in cases
related to animal cruelty.
The agony faced by helpless animals has been somewhat lessened by all of these
Recent animal survey report:
According to a report collected by the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations and All Creatures Great and Small, between 2010- 2020, an
aggregate of brutes were victims of crimes committed by humans. It includes 720,
741, 588, 88, and 258 cases of crime against road animals, working animals,
companion animals, ranch animals, and wild animals respectively.
and purposeful acts of violence led to the animal's death or irrecoverable
detriment. The report named,' In Their Own Right - Calling for Equality in Law
for Animal Victims of Crimes', is a report of brutality humans have committed on
animals such as rape, murder, remonstrating, beating, attacking with sticks and
monuments. Some others are of a canine ravished with a screwdriver in Goa, a
langur hung and beaten to death in Telangana, and a road canine beaten, tied to
a scooter, and also thrown off in Ludhiana. Of the 1,000 assault cases that were
proved, 82 cases were of sexual abuse, 266 cases of cold-thoroughbred murder,
and over 400 cases were of violent attacks of beating, remonstrating, torturing,
throwing acid or boiling water, mutilating a part of the body, attacking with a
cutter or a blunt object.
What's more horrifying is that 20 of these proven
cases were of assault by children. According to the report, the time 2019 saw
the loftiest number of cases of crimes against animals (700 cases)- nearly,
4,230 dogs have been killed by mass culling drives across the country in the
once five times alone. According to the findings, road animals including
slapdash dogs are one of the biggest victims of animal abuse, which includes
There are proven cases of mass killing of road animals from the
following 21 nations Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha, Assam,
Meghalaya, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh,
Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The data discloses varied styles of killing animals being
buried alive, beaten to death, burned alive, poisoned, fitted with chemicals,
shot, strangled with ropes and acerbic cables, suffocated, sharpened, and left
to die with their mouths and branches tied," it said "the cases proved the
report revealed violence against animals, and yet these are only the tip of the
icicle- most cases are not reported. Because they're animals, people tend to
play the violence by calling it atrocity.
But it's further than atrocity. It's
physical abuse; it's cerebral abuse; it's rape; it's murder. Severe crimes
against animals must be treated as a felony," Varda Mehrotra, Executive
Director, FIAPO said, the report estimates that a normal of 5 animals die every
day. But because of lack of reporting, the factual numbers could be at least 10
times advanced, which means 50 beast deaths every day - amounting to at least 2
animals being killed every hour in India. This doesn't include animal deaths in
slaughterhouses, zoos, and laboratories, and deaths by accidents or mortal
Citing the findings of their report, FIAPO, and ACGS have appealed
to the government to set up a devoted ministry to oversee aspects of beast weal,
protection, and rights as the (AWBI) being under the Ministry of Animal
Husbandry and Fisheries is a clear conflict of interest. The report also argues
for a public record of crimes against animals to be published by the NCRB. Also,
it recommends that crimes against animals must be meetly graded, and discipline
must be handed to them according to the inflexibility of the crime.38
Obstructions in a way
There are several bars to implement laws relating to animal rights under the
right to life and ethics of animal testing and factory farming in India.
Here are some suggestions:
People oppose and persist in challenging the legitimacy of fundamental animal rights due to their faith and underlying financial benefits.
- Legal impediments:
Lack of enforcement of the law and public ignorance of ethical treatment are factors contributing to animal suffering.
- Weaker enforceability of laws:
India has made progress in actively defending animal rights while upholding the interests of all parties involved in the process.
39 It is regrettable that India still conducts business with nations and funds organizations where egregious abuses continue to occur, even after the PETA-uncovered incident in 1999. Even though there have been fewer violations since 2015, there is still a lack of transparency in the system because it was discovered that 90% of the animals were absent from the records kept by labs for compiling data on the animal subjects because they were brought into the facilities illegally. These figures are still able to appear because of systemic flaws.40
- Overcome myths:
People believe that since animals are tools by nature, humans can utilize them any way they like. People find it challenging to shed their outdated perspectives.
- Cultural and traditional barriers:
People's memories of practices like offering sacred blood from sacrificed animals to God in order to fulfill their wishes are deeply ingrained. They don't want to abandon the long-standing customs and cultural practices that they adhere to.
- Effective animal protection laws and implementation:
More efficient legal mechanisms are required, along with severe legal enforcement on the side of the government, to stop the horrific suffering of animals.
The issue can be addressed through hosting fundraising events, organizing educational events making informational pamphlets, advocacy campaigns, awareness-raising programs, and mass media etc.
- Incite Ethical Farming Practices:
The expansion of animal farming has raised ethical concerns. This can be accomplished by encouraging farmers by rewarding those who adopt moral behaviour and penalizing those who engage in unethical behaviour.
- Encourage Alternatives to Animal Testing:
To lessen the number of animals used in tests and lessen their suffering, promote alternatives to animal testing in India, such as computer modeling and in vitro testing.
John Feldmann says "I believe animals should be respected as citizens of this
earth. They should have the right to their own freedom, their own families, and
their own life".43 Animals were revered and treated as heavenly figures in the
past when they were thought of as embodiments of God. In certain instances, they
are still taken into account.
Animals are treated with moral decency. However, this faith is fading more and
more every day. It is heartbreaking to witness people treating animals
arbitrarily in ways such as poaching, exploiting them for profit, using them in
experiments, beheading them as a form of religious sacrifice, and so on.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, of 1960, on the other hand, sets up
regulations for the moral conduct of research with animals and levies fines for
violating these regulations. To safeguard the well-being of animals in India, we
must ensure gentle treatment and protection from cruel actions. To do this, we
need competent rules and effective implementation.
Written By: Pallvi Thakur
- 1595 (2014) 7 SCC
- Ben Davies, De Ethica. A Journal of Philosophical, Theological and Applied Ethics Vol. 3:3 (2016), Utilitarianism and Animal Cruelty: Further Doubts, https://philarchive.org/archive/BENUAA
- Ozy Frantz, The history Of animal rights In India, https://faunalytics.org/the-history-of-animal-rights-in-india/
- (2002) INSC 453
- Supra note 9
- 1987 SCR (1) 819
- 1987 SCR (2) 223
- Supra note 1
- AIR 1998 Guj 220
- Supra note 17
- AIR 2002 SC 724.
- 2018 SCC On Line Utt 645
- AIR 1989 SC 1
- 1979 Cri LJ 1404
- Writ Petition (PIL) (Lodging) No. 2490 of 2004
- First Appeal No. 676 of 2009
- Civil Writ Petition No. 837 of 2001
- 1999 (3) ACR 2668
- Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2010