Introduction:
Article 21 of the Constitution of India deals with the right to life and personal liberty. This right to life is destroyed by people by exploiting the nature. The ambit of Article 21 has been broadened by the judiciary and its decisions in India. This right to life indirectly the right to life of nature. As humans derive energy from nature, destroying it is a violation of this right to life.
There is a crucial need to protect the environment and wildlife from becoming extinct, as the survival of human beings is dependent on it. Thus the Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to people has a duty not to deprive other people of this right. Destruction of the environment and wildlife by people deprive others of their rights. Thus the right to life of animals is indirectly mentioned in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether animals can be said to be a legal person or not?
In the case of Karnail Singh & others v State of Haryana, all animals were recognized as legal entities or legal persons. In this case, all animals were recognized including the avian and aquatic. The citizens of the state of Haryana were declared as loco parentis (which means in place of a parent), to act as guardian for all the animals within the state. Courts started adopting eco-centric views on issues related to the protection of animals. After this judgment was passed, animals were considered as legal persons and had to be protected by humans or the citizens as parents.
Legal Personality and Rights of Animals
The present time laws don’t acknowledge animals as persons as a result of which they are not imposed with any rights or liabilities. The acts which are considered as wrongful against animals are actually wrongs against the person who owns the animal or the society. An animal can neither be an owner or a property nor can it transfer property. The master could either be directly or indirectly liable for the wrongs done by the animals. The master will be held liable for keeping animals of ferocious nature and for the wrongs committed by them. The two cases where an animal possesses legal rights are as follows:
- Cruelty towards animals is a criminal offense &
- A trust set up for the benefit of particular classes of animals, as opposed to one for individual animals, is valid and enforceable as public and charitable trust.
A trust is set up to provide maintenance for horses, dogs & other animals who are useful to men as a charitable trust. It is mainly intended for the benefits of the public and for the promotion of mankind.[1]
Animals such as sheep, poultry, and cattle have to be kept under proper control in order to avoid the owner from being held liable for injuries caused by trespass. In England, there is a remedy, called ‘distress damage feasant’, which the aggrieved party can resort to, by impounding any animal or commodity which trespasses on his land and causes damage there. The animal or other thing can be detained till the damage suffered is made good. This detection of the thing or the animal can be effected without any approach to a court of law-even without any action. In India, under the Cattle Trespass Act, the occupier of land on which the cattle have trespassed can have the cattle send to the public cattle pound. Animals have neither rights nor duties and are, therefore incapable of sustaining a legal personality.[2]
Duty Based Approach
A deontologist named Kant is a person whose moral laws and ethics were mainly meant for humans. However, he has stated the relative value of animals or non-humans. According to his ethics, humans should refrain from harming animals so that it doesn’t hinder the moral values of human beings. Later, another deontologist named Regan stated that animals have dignity and that they are living things with preferences, expressions, and feelings. According to him, the autonomy of animals should be respected rightly.
The Constitution of India states the fundamental duty of all the citizens to have compassion for living beings which is mentioned in Article 51-A. According to Article 48-A of the constitution of India, there is a duty upon the State to protect the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. While the Article 48 provides for the protection and safety of cows, calves, other milch and draught cattle, the article 51 A(g) states that it is a fundamental duty of every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. This article is a wider aspect and it includes the aspects of article 48 within it. [3]
As in the judgement passed by the Haryana court in 2018,animals are considered as legal persons and the citizens have to play the role of their parents by protecting and safeguarding them.
Other Provisions in Law
Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 imposes punishment for those who subject animals to pain or suffering. The World Society for the Protection of Animals offers a campaign called the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare provides or states five freedoms for animals. The freedoms are as follows:
(i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;
(ii) freedom from fear and distress;
(iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;
(iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and
(v) freedom to express normal patterns of behavior.
These freedoms are in support of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and these rights are similar to that of the fundamental rights granted to the citizens of India under Part III of the Constitution of India.[4](Shad,2019)
Relevant Case Laws
The decision of the SC in the case of Karnail Singh v State of Haryana was based on the prior decision of Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Ors. This case is also called the Jallikattu case. In this case, it was held that Article 51 A (g) along with Article 51A(h) which is the duty to develop scientific temperament is the Magna Carta of animal rights jurisprudence in India.
Jallikattu is a traditional event or a sport in which the silver or gold coins tied on the bulls’ horns which are to be fetched by the players as an act of bravery. This case was a violation of Section 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 & the Articles 51-A (g), and (h) of the Constitution. All the animals have dignity and honor. All species have an inherent right to live and it is required to be protected by law. The rights and privacy of all the animals are to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks.
The eco-centric principles of law were also applied in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others and in Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund – India v. Union of India and Others.[5]
In the case of Abdul Hakim Qureshi v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that Article 48 applies to animals that have the potential of yielding milk or has the capacity to drought. cows, calves, and other animals that have the potential of yielding milk or have the capacity to work as drought. It does not intend prohibition on the slaughter of all the cows or cattle.
This was overruled in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, the Supreme Court held that the Article 48 intends to put a complete ban on the slaughter of cows and their offsprings. The court also stated that the citizens must show compassion to the animals as they also have certain fundamental rights.[6]
Conclusion
The animal rights are derived from the human rights. The rights of these animals are mentioned in the provisions listed in this article. The humans have the duty to preserve and protect the wildlife as stated in Article 51 A (g) and Article 48 of the Indian Constitution. Many trusts and charitable institutions are set up in order to protect the welfare of some animals and to be beneficial to the humans. The animals also have six fundamental freedoms that are laid down by the World Society for the Protection of Animals(WSPA). Thus all the laws governing the rights, legal personality of animals aim at protecting and safeguarding them.
References:
[1] Kavuri, T. (2020). The Constitutional Scheme of Animal Rights in India | Animal Legal & Historical Center. Www.Animallaw.Info. https://www.animallaw.info/article/constitutional-scheme-animal-rights-india
[2] Myneni, S. R. (2018). Jurisprudence (2nd ed., p. 576). Asia Law House. (Original work published 2004)
[3] Kavuri, T. (2020). The Constitutional Scheme of Animal Rights in India | Animal Legal & Historical Center. Www.Animallaw.Info. https://www.animallaw.info/article/constitutional-scheme-animal-rights-india
[4] Shad, S. (2019, July 10). Indian High Court Recognizes Nonhuman Animals As Legal Entities. Nonhuman Rights Project. https://www.nonhumanrights.org/blog/punjab-haryana-animal-rights/#:~:text=Nagaraja%20and%20Ors%2C%20which%20inter
[5] Amit Verma. (2020, February 27). LEGAL STATUS: ANIMALS, DEAD MEN, AND UNBORN PERSON. FastForward Justice. https://fastforwardjustice.com/legal-status-animals-dead-men-and-unborn-person/
[6] Myneni, S. R. (2018). Jurisprudence (2nd ed., p. 576). Asia Law House. (Original work published 2004)
0 Comments