Returning home and being greeted by the wagging tail of a pet animal is the ultimate stress relief. However, as the supposedly superior species, we often fail to reciprocate the love, comfort, and support provided by these beings. Scientific evidence shows that the interaction with animals releases serotonin and dopamine in the human brain, yet we have not done enough to protect their rights. Animal welfare refers to the coexistence and relationship between humans and animals in the world[1]. Despite the existence of rules and laws aimed at protecting animal rights, they often fall short. This paper aims to examine these laws and identify the existing loopholes in the system.

The first part of the paper explores the rights granted to animals and their implementation in the present time. This includes an analysis of fundamental rights and duties related to animal welfare, as well as provisions under the Indian Penal Code. The second part of the paper examines relevant case laws and the evolving positions of Supreme Court over time. Additionally, it highlights instances of animal cruelty in India, ranging from rape to brutal murder, which should shock people. Finally, a critical analysis of the situation is presented, along with potential ways to improve it.

Provisions for the Protection of Animals

Animal protection has been considered a fundamental duty under the Constitution since its inception. Various legislations, such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Wildlife Protection Act, have been passed to ensure the protection and upholding of animal rights. The Indian Penal Code also designates certain offences against animals as punishable offenses. Additionally, courts can provide protection for animals under tort law.

Constitutional Provisions

The Constitution includes several articles aimed at protecting and preserving animal rights. Article 48, under Part IV of the Constitution, allows the State to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines[2]. This provisions aims to introduce reforms that minimize the suffering of animals, particularly reducing the unreasonable slaughter of cows and calves, particularly male calves that do not contribute to the industry. Article 48A focuses on the protection and improvement of the environment, forests and wildlife.[3] It imposes a duty on the State to enact area-specific laws that preserve animals in their natural habitat and prevent poaching and attacks by local communities.

Article 51A (g) of the Constitution declares it a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect animals[4]. This duty requires citizens to make efforts and contribute towards the protection of the natural environment and to show compassion towards all animals. Five important rights must be ensured for animal welfare:

i. Nutrition: Animals should have access to sufficient food and water that is not harmful to their heath and provides proper nourishment[5].

ii. Environment: All animals should be provided with suitable shelter according to their natural wildlife. This is particularly important for pet owners, as it would be considered cruelty to own a double-coat Husky dog breed in the heat of Delhi, even if provided with the best of facilities[6].

iii. Health: Proper treatment should be available for animals, especially those working in circuses or zoos. They should be free from injury and disease and not forced to work when sick.

iv. Behaviour:  Animals should have the freedom to express their natural behaviour and should not be influenced or forced to behave in a particular way. This is especially relevant for caged animals[7].

v. Mental State: Animals should be free from mental fear and suffering, and they should be provided with a peaceful environment to thrive. This is crucial for animals working on farms and in other business programs[8].

However, since these protections are provided under Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Duties, they cannot be directly enforced in Indian Courts. Instead, they serve as the basis for establishing laws and legislations that promote animal welfare at both the central and state levels. Efforts have also been made within the Indian judiciary to incorporate the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution[9], which would be discussed in the subsequent sections.

Other Provisions

In addition to the Constitution, there are provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and specific statutes enacted to protect animal rights. Section 428 of the IPC criminalizes the killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering useless of any animal valued above ten rupees[10]. This offense carries a punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. Similarly, Section 429 of the IPC penalizes the killing or maiming of animals such as camels, horses, bulls, or oxen valued above fifty rupees[11]. This offense carries a punishment of up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. However, both offenses are bailable, cognizable, and non-compoundable, which reduces their effectiveness.

The government has also enacted two main statutes for animal welfare: the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, 1960, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act aims to prevent unnecessary harm and cruelty inflicted on animals[12]. It includes provisions that make it mandatory for animal owners to ensure the fulfilment of the five rights granted to animals[13]. On the other hand, the Wildlife Protection Act focuses on promoting and preserving the lives of wild animals and preventing illegal trade and smuggling of these animals[14]. More details on these provisions will be discussed later in our analysis.

Judicial Pronouncements

Over the years, the Supreme Court has delivered various judgments emphasizing the importance of animal welfare and striving for their strict interpretation. One notable case is Animal Welfare Board of India v Nagaraj and others, in which the Supreme Court explained the operation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act[15]. This judgment specifically pertained to the practice of “Jallikattu”, a bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu, and bullock-cart racing in Maharashtra[16]. It was argued that these practices lacked cultural or religious significance and caused immense pain to the bulls, thus violating provisions of the PCA Act and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court unequivocally stated that animal rights are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution[17]. The right to life encompasses the lives of animals, which extends to a life with dignity, worth and honour. Drawing from this, the Court interpreted the PCA Act in conjunction with Article 21 and Article 51A (g) to assert that animals also have the right to live with dignity and should not be subjected to torture by humans[18]. Based on these findings, the Court declared the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act invalid and deemed the practice of this sport illegal.

In the case of N.R. Nair & Others v Union of India, the Court ruled that legal rights should not be limited to humans alone and should also be extended to animals[19]. Similarly, in the case of Gauri Maulekhi v State of Uttarakhand, the Court declared that inflicting unnecessary suffering or pain on animals solely for the purpose of consuming them later is a violation of Section 11(3)(e) of the PCA Act[20]. The practice of animal sacrifices for religious purposes was addressed in the case of Mohammad Hanif Qureshi v State of Bihar, where the Court determined that the sacrifice of cows is not an essential practice in Islam based on their interpretation of Article 25 of the Constitution[21]. A similar conclusion was reached in the case of Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali[22], where the Court stated that animal sacrifice in a temple is not an essential practice of Hinduism and is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution[23].

In the case of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v Union of India, the Bombay High Court explicitly stated that any film involving the use of animals in their script must obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the Animal Welfare Board of India[24]. This requirement was implemented to ensure that sick or diseased animals are not used for film purposes. In the case of Karnail Singh v State of Haryana, the Court bestowed the position of “Loco Parentis” to the citizens of the country, emphasizing their duty to uphold and protect the rights of animals[25].

Despite the existence of numerous legislations and case laws aimed at safeguarding animal rights and promoting their welfare, it is necessary to examine their real-life implications, which will be discussed in the next part of the paper.

The Reality Around Us

Instances of animal cruelty that send chills down our spine have persisted despite the presence of law and judicial rulings. Cases of gang rape and brutal killings of animals frequently make headlines, with perpetrators often facing minimal consequences. This problem is deeply ingrained, as evident from a sector-wise analysis.

Cruelty in Industries

For centuries, animals have been subjected to inhumane and brutal testing methods for the development of human products[26]. Companies like tide, Vaseline and Colgate, among others, conduct experiments using animals such as rats, mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits to test their new formulae. These animals are often forced to consume large quantities of substances, have chemicals applied to their skin, and many of them die as a result. They are confined in cages that restrict their movement and provided with minimal food for survival. Each year, over 115 million animals worldwide are used for such experiments, and approximately 100 million of them lose their live due to the harsh conditions[27]. Domestic animals like cats, dogs, chimpanzees, and monkeys also fall victim to this cruelty.

The fashion industry is responsible for the slaughter of billions of animals annually. Animals are exploited for their wool, leather, and silk, and they endure horrific conditions throughout the process[28]. Sheep are often beaten and mutilated to obtain their wool, while goats suffer for cashmere and mohair production. Despite the availability of cruelty-free alternatives in the market, they often fail to receive the recognition they deserve[29].

Cruelty for Human Entertainment

The mistreatment of animals for human entertainment has been practiced since ancient times, such as chariot races in Roman times. Although we expect these practices to diminish over time and people to become more compassionate, the reality is far from it. Animals like lions trapped in small circus cages and wild animals stripped of their natural instincts in zoos reflect a continuation of this historical cruelty[30].

Marine parks confine marine mammals such as dolphins and orcas, depriving them of their natural, social and environmental interactions. These animals display signs of psychological distress as they are forced to perform degrading tricks that go against their instincts. Animals trapped by roadside circuses also face exploitation, where they are treated as disposable objects under the pretence of ‘conservation” and “education”[31]. These facilities fail to provide the animals with adequate space and social interactions, leaving them feeling cramped and lonely.

In the entertainment industry, animals are often used as props to enhance the appeal of movies and television shows, disregarding their well-being. Instances of mistreatment, severe injuries, and even deaths have occurred. Animal suppliers for Bollywood productions are not registered with the Animal Welfare Board of India, and the Censor Board has failed to take necessary action to address these issues[32].

The rise of wildlife tourism, fuelled by social media platforms, has made capturing pictures with exotic animals a top priority for many social media influencers. However, what often goes unnoticed behind these picturesque images of dolphins, tigers, or elephants is the blatant torture of animals for monetary gain[33]. These animals are frequently injected with tranquilizers, sedating them to an extent that poses risks to their health, all in the pursuit of capturing the perfect picture.

PETA India conducted extensive research to assess the conditions of animals in several popular circuses across the country. Despite claims of following welfare practices, most of these circuses did not register their animals were made to perform unregistered tricks[34], which often exposed them to hazard such as poking, dragging, and physical abuse in the name of entertainment.

Elephants in these circuses endure severe abuse, including the use of bull hooks and metal-topped instruments, and even burning, to coerce them into performing tricks. People sometimes create deliberate holes in their ears or skin to facilitate their movement. Additionally, circuses often obtain fraudulent certificates to transport sick animals, forcing them to perform on stage to appease the audience.

The inadequacies of current laws in addressing the challenges faced by animals are evident. It is crucial to bring about changes in existing legislations as the mere declaration of animal protection as a fundamental duty often lacks the necessary motivation for many individuals in the country.

Probable Action Plan

While acknowledging the efforts made by the Government of India for animal welfare, it is evident that more comprehensive measures are needed to address the current issues plaguing the country. Stricter regulations should be implemented for animals in zoos, theme parks, circuses, and museums, Special attention must be given to the welfare of stray animals[35], as the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act fails to adequately protect them from inhumane extermination methods.

Although the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 were introduced to control dog population through sterilization rather than mass culling[36], it took time to realize that a more compassionate approach was necessary[37]. Mass killing cannot be a solution for any animal; they deserve better treatment.

One alternative approach is to establish a dedicated welfare body responsible for enforcing the rules of the Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act. This organization would adopt a three-stage approach to address the issues at hand. The first stage involves a centralized body under each district’s local government, monitoring animals, managing welfare funds, and allocating resources accordingly. The second stage includes zonal offices in each town and city, connected to local gram sabhas or panchayats. These offices would conduct regular checks to ensure compliance with animal welfare regulations, monitor the needs of stray animals, and coordinate with registered pet shops for the relocation of abandoned animals. They would also oversee local dairies and poultry farms to prevent illegal practices disguised as legitimate businesses. The third and final stage focuses on raising awareness among the public. Without the vigilance and active participation of local residents, the efforts of the central and zonal bodies would not succeed. People need to be informed and accountable for their surroundings, promptly reporting any incidents or issues to the authorities.

Overall, a comprehensive approach involving proper regulation, enforcement, and public awareness is crucial to effectively address animal welfare concerns in India.

Conclusion

Despite the recognition of animals’ rights and the inclusion of their protections as a fundamental duty in the Constitution, there is still much work to be done in practice. While the judiciary has declared the right of animals to be protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is important to acknowledge that mere declaration of rights are not sufficient. Animals are vulnerable beings who cannot advocate for themselves, making it the responsibility of citizens to take action for their welfare. While various organizations and NGOs are making efforts towards animal well-being, individual commitment is crucial in making a significant difference.

Amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should be considered to serve as a deterrent against heinous acts committed against animals. Additionally, law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, need to adopt a stricter and more proactive approach in dealing with such crimes, deviating from the lenient stance currently observed. As the self-proclaimed most intelligent species, our superiority should manifest in our responsible stewardship for the environment and the welfare of all its inhabitants, including animals. It is essential to transcend self-centeredness and prioritize the well-being of the ecosystem we coexist in.

---

[1] What is animal welfare and why does it matter?, Animal Welfare, 29–50 (2022), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203539064-13.

[2] The Indian Constitution, Article 48.

[3] The Indian Constitution, Article 48 A.

[4] The Indian Constitution, Article 51 A (g).

[5] Humans are nowhere near as special as we like to think; yes, humans are unique in the animal kingdom, but not superior BBC-Earth [Preprint] (2015), https://doi.org/animalsasia.org. 

[6] Samoyed Dog Breed – Facts and personality traits, Hill’s pet Hill’s Pet Nutrition, https://www.hillspet.com/dog-care/dog-breeds/samoyed?lightboxfired=true#.

[7] Rajendra Kumar v. Union of India, (1998) AIR 1998 Raj 165.

[8] Id

[9] Matthew, J. & Sidhar, I., Granting Animals Rights under the Constitution: a misplaced approach? An Analysis in light of Animal Welfare Board of India v. a. Nagaraj, Manupatra (2016).

[10] Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 428.

[11] Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 429.

[12] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

[13] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.

[14] The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

[15] Animal Welfare Board of India v Nagaraj (2014) 7 SCC 547.

[16] Ramakrishnan, T., Explained | Jallikattu: cultural practice or cruelty? The Hindu, 2023.  

[17] Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja,, (2014) 7 SCC 547, ¶5.

[18] Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja,, (2014) 7 SCC 547, ¶62.

[19] N.R. Nair and Others v Union of India and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 84.

[20] Gauri Maulekhi v State of Uttarakhand and Others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2010.

[21] Mohammad Hanif Qureshi & Others v The State of Bihar, (1959) SCR 629.

[22] Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali AIR (1961) SC 1402.

[23] Shubash Bhhattacharjee v State of Tripura (2019).

[24] People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v Union of India, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2490 of 2004.

[25] Karnail Singh v State of Haryana (2019).

[26] Toxic and Tragic: Testing on Animals, PETA Asia (2016), https://www.petaasia.com/issues/experimentation/testing/.

[27] Animals Used for Clothing | Animal Cruelty Exposure Fund, Animal Cruelty Exposure Fund (2020), https://www.animalcrueltyexposurefund.org/animals-used-for-clothing/.

[28] Carrington, D, Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds, The Guardian, May 19, 2019.

[29] Supra note 27.

[30] Mahajan and Prashant, Negative effects of zoos on animals (2020).

[31] Id.

[32] Cruelty to animals in movies remains unchecked: Activists, Hindustan Times, 2002.

[33] Daly, N., Suffering unseen: The dark truth behind wildlife tourism, National Geographic (2019), https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/06/global-wildlife-tourism-social-media-causes-animal-suffering/.

[34] Animals in Indian Circuses: A PETA Investigative Report, PETA India(2013),  https://www.petaindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/IndiaCircusReport_A4_72.pdf.

[35] Animal protection index, World Animal Protection, Animal Protection Index (2022), https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/.   

[36] Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.

[37] M, M., Justice for Sexually Assaulted Animals– Has India Failed?, IndianFolk, January 12, 2019.

---

Author: Sneha Smriti

---