Abstract
The Constitution of India, which is referred to as a dynamic instrument that constantly evolves through judicial interpretation to reflect new social values and ethics, has seen many changes to Article 21 on account of expanding the meaning of “right to life”. This particular right, apart from its literal meaning of ensuring the right to life and personal liberty, was interpreted to include concepts of human dignity, means of livelihood, good health, and an unpolluted environment. This paper seeks to examine whether an extended concept of “right to life” can apply to animals, either directly or indirectly. While it needs to be highlighted that the animals do not have any fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, there are provisions such as Articles 48A and 51A(g), which reflect the constitutional concern towards preserving the environment and showing compassion towards living beings. In a landmark judgment delivered in a case[1], the court has recognized animals as sentient creatures with essential value that deserve dignity. These developments represent the shift of judicial approach from being anthropocentric to ecocentric. In any case, there has been no significant development on the legal status of animals in India, even after progressive judicial interpretations. Animals are still regarded as property by statute, and their protection depends entirely on the enforcement of the welfare obligation on the part of humans, specifically as mandated under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. Hence, there lies an irony in the fact that animals are recognized as sentient but denied legal rights to protect themselves from harm. This research compares several jurisdictions, including Germany, United Kingdom, and Switzerland, as other examples where these values have been integrated into their legal systems through various means to establish what an appropriate legal system for India should be. Based on the research findings in this area, it is clear that it is possible and important for a jurisdiction to adopt a coherent and hybrid legal framework incorporating both the concepts of dignity, duty of care, and even constitutional recognition of animals. It is concluded that while it is not realistic to grant fundamental rights to animals in its totality in India, it is possible to provide derivative protection to animals within Article 21.
Keywords- life, dignity, law, rights, animals
1.INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India is a living document which continuously develops and evolves to become better with time, as evident from various landmark judgements of Indian legal history. The judgments such as Kesavananda Bharti[2] and Maneka Gandhi[3] judgement, revolutionized the development process of the Indian constitution. The need to keep changing with society and the modern perspectives keep the soul of Constitution alive and that’s why it is called a living document. The constitution framers while framing the Constitution were farsighted enough to formulate the mechanisms and functioning to cope with the coming societal changes.
With time the Constitution developed like a tree expands its branches as it grew with the citizens of the country and the scope of Constitution widened which can be seen evident through various judgements and amendments. These judgements and amendments expanded the scope of applicability of the constitution with the increasing dimensions and sectors which get multiple benefits from them.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has undergone significant expansion over time through judicial interpretation and precedent. Initially confined to the protection of life and personal liberty—stating that no person shall be deprived of these rights except according to procedure established by law—the provision has been progressively interpreted in a more dynamic manner by the judiciary. As a result, it now encompasses a wide range of essential rights, including the right to livelihood, health, education, a clean environment, shelter, free legal aid, human dignity, and privacy. These evolving interpretations raise an important question: even though animals are not recognized as holders of rights, can they be considered within the broader scope of Article 21?
The issue of animal welfare requires greater attention from all organs of the State. The Constitution of India reflects concern for animals through Article 51A(g), which places a duty on citizens to show compassion towards all living creatures. Similarly, Article 48A imposes an obligation on the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard wildlife. Although animals are not granted fundamental rights, these constitutional provisions clearly demonstrate a deep-rooted concern for their protection. They also highlight the foresight of the framers of the Constitution, whose vision continues to remain relevant in contemporary times.
One of the progressive moves or shift can be observed in the Supreme Court judgement of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja in which court held that “Animals possess intrinsic worth and are entitled to live with dignity. The word life which was stressed by the Court is under Article 21 and should not be interpreted narrowly and that it encompasses more than mere survival. The court did not expressly declare animals as holders of fundamental rights but improved the status and vulnerable conditions of animals by addressing their right to be free from pain and suffering. This decision reflects the change of anthropocentric legal framework to a more eco-centric and compassionate approach.
The progressive and dynamic nature of developments does ensure a rigid position of animal rights. Animals are still being treated as property under various statutes and the protection majorly depends on human enforcement of welfare and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 is an example of that. The consideration of animals as sentient beings deserving dignity and yet no specific rights create tensionwithin the legal system. It basically creates a doubt about the sufficiency of the existing laws and raises the question that if we need more coherent rights-based laws.
Challenging the traditional notions of society and its relation with animals whether examining the animals under the purview of Article 21 is both relevant and necessary. This study seeks whether the purview of Article 21 can be extended to Article 21 and if yes then what outcomes can be seen in future of animal welfare jurisprudence in a country like India.
[1] Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 (SC)
[2] AIR 1973 SC 1461
[3] AIR 1978 SC 597