“God sleeps in the mineral, awakens in the vegetable, walks in the animal and thinks in man.” Kathryn Breese
Introduction
According to Aristotle there is a hierarchy within living beings. He believed that, human beings are superior to animals because of having capacity for using reason. If one being is higher than another on the food chain, then it is natural for that being to use the other.
Another argument suggests that our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity, we have to be good to animals, because harming nature and animals will in consequence harm humanity.
Whether harming or misusing animals remains wrong independently of a subsequent indirect gain? And acknowledgement of fact that the “act is cruel” and there is an obvious “indifference to suffering” makes it sufficient to not allow the same? The sanctity given to the concept of “inalienable rights” within the framework of rule of law, whether it extends to animal life other than humans?
The Law
The Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (2014) 7 SCC 547 expanded the scope of Article 21 and said that Article doesn’t only apply to humans but applies to animals also. Our legal conscience forbids ill-treatment of animals, be it domestic or wild. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (“PCA Act”) is one proof of this “dharma” of commiseration, but it has not been amended since 1960 to keep up with the times.
The noble directives in Article 51A of The Constitution of India 1949, which says: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India … 51A (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture; 51A (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures; 51A (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform; 51A (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.”
Further Article 48A of the Constitution of India imposes a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife and to have compassion for the living creatures.
In “Asiatic Wild Buffalo and Red Sanders case” – T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 277, this Hon’ble Court held that “environmental justice can only be achieved if we shift our focus from anthropocentric to “ecocentric”. As per the “ecocentric” approach we must protect all animals that are there in nature and not just those who have a certain monetary value”.
Critical analysis of the application of Law Couple of recent examples:
The Centre approved the culling of wild animals such as nilgai and wild boar in Bihar and rhesus monkey in Himachal Pradesh by declaring them ‘vermin’, under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, in December 2015, following requests from the respective States as they cause harm to the resident population and agriculture.
On the other hand there was affirmative action where cetaceans were declared as ‘nonhuman persons,’ by the government , now these animals could be endowed with the same protections that humans enjoy, including the right to not be experimented upon, confined, murdered, or made to perform against their will.
”It has to be kept in mind that laws are man-made; hence there is likelihood of anthropocentric bias towards man. Rights of wild animals often tend to be of secondary importance, human rights approach to environmental protection in case of conflict, is often based on anthropocentricity. Most of the times Man-animal conflict often results not because animals encroach human territories but vice-versa1 . It should be our endeavour to understand and secure legal rights for animals.”(2012) 3 SCC 277
The pertinent questions which need to be discussed here are:
What kinds of habitats must we create and maintain for all the rights bearing animals in India, especially the example of culling of monkeys begs the question whether such highly sentient beings can be declared as vermin when they pose inconvenience to humans?
Does human convenience have any weight in deciding what rights an animal has?
When human rights and animal rights collide, do human rights have priority, and if so, why?
Can we raise animals for food, regardless of how they are treated and how they are killed?
And what is to be done when animal rights collide with each other, as they do with laws that by protecting wolves you endanger sheep?
Must entire species of animals be “segregated “from each other and from human beings, and, if so, what does “separate but equal “mean in this context?
May we “discriminate” against animals, and if so, how much?
Do species have “rights,” or just individual animals, and if the latter, does this mean that according special legal protection for endangered species is a denial of equal protection?
What is meant by liberating animals and giving them the rights of human beings?
Is capacity to feel pain sufficient to entitle an animal to at least the most elementary human rights?
Conclusion
It is a mistake to claim that animals have an indirect moral status or an unequal status, and to then infer that animals cannot have any rights. Animals have the same moral status as human beings; furthermore, that moral status is grounded on rights to avoid suffering and not on Utilitarian principles2 . The power to use an “animal life” as a means to our ends and not treating them as ends in themselves cannot be sanctioned by the Sovereign, as it undermines the principle of “inalienable right” of life under the Rule of Law. These rights are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as food, clothing and sacrificial subjects.
LawUmbrella 