Should Animals have legal rights?

AUTHOR: MANASWINI KATARIA, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW ( NUSRL, RANCHI)

Introduction

Mahatma Gandhi rightly said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by how its animals are treated.". Yet, countless animals face cruelty, neglect, and exploitation in the absence of strong legal protections.

Imagine a world where animals are not just treated as property or resources but as sentient beings deserving of care, respect, and justice. It could change the way we, humans and animals, co-exist, recognising their intrinsic worth and giving them the dignity they truly deserve.

Despite growing awareness and activism, animals continue to suffer in silence, unable to plead for their lives or demand justice for the cruelty they endure, they remain voiceless in a world where their pain often goes unseen, their cries unheard. This raises a profound question- should animals have legal rights?

Why Are Animal Rights Important?

Animals are increasingly understood to be able to suffer psychologically, emotionally, and physically. For example, orcas in aquariums are often depressed and bored and need antidepressant drugs. Similarly, animals in zoos are usually suffering from repetitive behaviours due to stress, behaviours that never occur in the wild. As we better understand how our actions and lifestyles harm animals, our responsibility to treat them with care and compassion becomes even clearer.

Another reason animal rights are necessary is the extreme scale of animal exploitation. Daily, about 200 million animals are slaughtered to be consumed by humans. The meat consumption per capita is the highest in Australia, the United States, and most countries in Europe. It is these societies that have created the highest demand for meat. Furthermore, the United States has popularized industrial animal farming, where animals experience enormous suffering throughout their lives.

Recognizing animals' rights will go beyond compassion to finding the root causes of significant harm orchestrated through our choices and establishing a better world.

History of Animal Rights in India

The idea of protecting animals has been around for centuries, even before the idea of giving them legal rights. This is primarily because, in many legal systems, animals have traditionally been treated as property rather than living beings. This is based on Roman law and an archaic view that denies them their inherent value. The more the years pass, the more this view has been challenged, and there is a growing debate about the ethics of treating sentient beings as chattels or property.

Critics argue that rights are defined simply on the basis of a being's ability to think and feel emotions. Animals, as they are also living creatures with sensitivities, can feel pain and fear and rejoice; thus, cannot be dismissed on this ground alone for their limited cognitive capabilities to approximate humanly. This has resulted in an even more widespread discussion about going beyond animal welfare to the claim that animals possess tangible rights.

Traditionally, anti-cruelty and animal conservation laws have been directed toward the welfare of animals in India, looking to safeguard them from cruel practices. However, important strides have been taken towards the rights-based approach. Indian courts, during the course of interpreting these welfare laws, have increasingly looked to constitutional rights and duties to connect them, which pushes forward a shift in perspective.

This judicial interpretation signifies a future where animals might be allowed inalienable rights that humans could not step on without facing the consequences of the law. Such a shift represents not only a moral but also a legal evolution toward a more compassionate and equitable coexistence by humans and animals.

Laws that Protect Animals in India

General Provisions

Article 51(G): The duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and show compassion for living creatures.

Laws Related to Street Animals

Section 428, IPC: Killing, maiming, poisoning, or rendering any animal useless is punishable by imprisonment up to 2 years and a fine or both.
Section 429, IPC: For animals costing above ₹50, the punishment increases to imprisonment up to 5 years and a fine or both.
Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCAA): Beating, kicking, or torturing animals causing unnecessary pain or suffering is punishable by a fine up to ₹50 and for repeated offences: Fine increase or imprisonment for up to 3 months.
Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001: Specific rules for pet and street dogs.

Laws Related to Work Animals/Cattle

Chapter III, PCAA: Prohibits acts of cruelty, including:
Using unfit animals for work (wounded, old, or infirm animals).
Transporting animals in a way that causes pain or suffering.
Keeping animals in confinement that restricts free movement.
Allowing diseased animals to die in public places.
Selling animals suffering from mutilation, starvation, or overcrowding.
Punishment: Fine: ₹25-100 and for repeated offences: Up to 3 months imprisonment.

Laws Related to Wild Animals

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (WLPA): It prohibits: Killing, poaching, trapping, poisoning, or harming wild animals or birds and provides for the establishment of Wildlife Advisory Boards in every state and the creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for aquatic animals. Protection is extended to birds, land animals, and aquatic species.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCAA): Applies to wild animals alongside WLPA.

Laws Related to Zoo Animals

Governed by the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

Laws Related to Pets

Section 11, PCAA: Fine up to ₹100 for cruelty to pets and for repeated offences: Up to 3 months imprisonment.
The Performing Animals Rules, 1973: Animals used for entertainment must be registered under this rule.

Challenges in Granting Animals Legal Rights

The recognition of animals as legal persons and their subsequent rights would eventually create numerous conflicts within the present rights framework. The most immediate issue is that human rights will inevitably conflict with animal rights. For example, constitutional rights for humans, like religious rights, may clash with animal rights and thus lead to tensions that cannot be easily harmonized. Additionally, granting rights to animals would place absolute duties on humans in matters of protection of these rights, at times undermining the welfare of humans in the process. This may lead to a fragile state where human needs and societal interests overlap.

Another important challenge is the practical limitation of implementing a rights-based framework for animals. Rights are traditionally designed to be enforceable entitlements, and their purpose is to serve human interests, allowing individuals to achieve their full potential and enhance their quality of life. However, animals, unlike humans, cannot identify when their rights are violated or seek legal recourse. This makes a rights-based approach ineffective for ensuring their protection, as it fails to provide clear mechanisms for enforcement or accountability.

This is because giving rights to animals can unleash unintended consequences, which can damage the very aim of the cause. Once established, rights can easily expand more than their intentions, which further complicates a legal framework or creates more tangles with the welfare of mankind. At this point, the provision of "weak rights" where the extent varies with the "benefits of humans" to animals risks devaluing the meaning of rights by making them neither universal nor strictly enforceable. This distinction between strong and weak rights becomes difficult in terms of translating them to conflicts between human and animal interests.

One of the most basic criticisms of a rights-based approach for animals is that it is impractical in achieving the ultimate goal of animal protection. Laws focusing on animal welfare are specifically designed to limit human actions that cause harm to animals. A rights-based system would not clarify how animals could be protected either and would entail an unstable scheme of entitlement that cannot be feasibly managed; the conflicts so engendered would more commonly result in human rights taking precedence over a corresponding animal right, failing that way to beget the effects desired for improved animal welfare.

This also fails to account for the existence of more practicable and feasible alternatives. The duty-based approach, where a person is obligated to protect and care for animals, maybe the more sustainable approach. This falls in line with the inherent nature of laws directed at reducing the harm caused by human activities to animals without the associated complexities and conflicts of a rights-based framework. By focusing on duties rather than entitlements, we can create a more balanced and functional system to safeguard animal welfare without compromising human interests.

Conclusion

The debate over legal rights for animals requires us to change our whole concept of what non-human beings are and what interaction we could have with them. Animals may keep on facing hardships due to exploitation and even negligence, so there is more reason to establish ethical and sensitive considerations for animal welfare. Giving them legal rights may raise their status from being property to sentient beings who deserve justice, but it also introduces complexities, such as conflicts with human rights and the practicalities of enforcing such rights.

This notwithstanding, stronger legal protections for animals are a sine qua non in facilitating a more humane and equitable society. Emphasis on duty-based approaches and legislative reforms will herald a new approach to finding an appropriate balance between protecting the welfare of animals and human needs. It is a shift in perspective that forms not just a law but reiterates the moral improvement in society.