INTRODUCTION

As the world develops and human life becomes prosperous, the room for thinking beyond oneself increases as a direct consequence. This fosters an anthropocentric mindset among the world at large, which is slowly adopting eco-centric ideals. The Indian judiciary, following suit, has displayed a proclivity to expand the boundaries of the right to life of animals. The Ramlila Maidan Incident is a famous representation of this inclination wherein the Supreme Court acknowledged that the constitution extends its concern not only to humans but also to animals, rivers, plants, and even hills. However, during the transition process mentioned above, the intent of the judiciary appears to be misplaced as per the standards of their own accord. This article endeavours to elucidate one such area, along with other perplexities. It ultimately directs the reader to the crescendo that will resolve the lack of clarity surrounding where the right to life of an animal stands.

PERPLEXITY

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (Jallikattu Case) held that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution “has been given an expanded definition … which includes all forms of life, including animal life” and subsequently banned the tradition. As a result, to continue the practice of jallikattu, the Tamil Nadu Assembly sought to overrule the case legislatively. This action was approved by the Supreme Court of India in AWBI v. Union of India, stating The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’s (Tamil Nadu Amendment) pith and substance to be in line with Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Thus, the legislature cured the defects pointed out in A. Nagaraja and constitutionally secured the practice of jallikattu. Although allowed, jallikattu, inherently, is animal life sacrificed just for human entertainment and not ‘necessity’, which is undoubtedly cruelty excused for human pleasure.

MISPLACED INTENT

In the 2015 decision of AWBI v. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles, the Apex Court asserted that it intended to strike “a balance between compassion to dogs and the lives of human beings”. The authors would like to point out that it does not juxtapose the life of the animal to the life of the human being, but rather the human’s need to feel compassionate to the animal’s life. Thus, the quote reveals an anthropocentric bias, as the Court’s intention was always to make humans feel better about their actions rather than value animal life intrinsically. Ironically, the same bias was criticised previously in A. Nagaraja, where the Supreme Court stated, “Human life … is not like animal existence, a view having anthropocentric bias, forgetting the fact that animals have also got intrinsic worth and value”. The anthropocentric bias is further evident in the severely limited approval of euthanasia for humans. Antithetically, droves of dogs are euthanised, thanks to the 2017 Supreme Court judgment in AWBI v. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles that provided for “Incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs” as diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian to be euthanised.

The number of stray dogs euthanised in Chennai alone was around 2,790 from2011 to 2015, a number which is only increasing countrywide. Apart from the large number of dogs being culled, one must observe the complications in procedure when it comes to euthanising a human’s life, in contrast to the mere opinion of a qualified veterinarian required to euthanise a dog. In the sparingly few cases of human life permitted to be euthanised, it is only allowed passively. However, adult dogs and puppies are actively administered sodium pentathol and thiopental intraperitoneal, respectively. These conditions persist despite India’s relatively strict animal welfare laws. It signifies that animal life is treated as having no intrinsic worth but is only worth as much as it is convenient to man’s whims and desires.

THE CONJECTURE OF CONSENT

Considering the lack of consent obtained from dogs when administering euthanasia, one must look at Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that whoever “voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished”. The section is framed on the back of three principles, namely: the order of nature, consent, and the right to life. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, one of the ratios for the decriminalisation of homosexuality was that carnal acts performed between consenting adult humans could not be penalised. However, bestiality is not decriminalised as animals can neither form consent nor communicate consent. It remains a crime while homosexuality is not, due to the impossibility of consent in one as opposed to the other.

Paradoxically, the Animal Birth Control Rules (the ABC Rules), 2023 empowers the State to euthanise dogs if they are “incurably ill or mortally wounded ” without their consent. Here, the State ignores the consent it earlier considered crucial in the case of bestiality. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and author of ‘Animal Liberation’, argues, “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty”. The critical factor determining whether this is cruel is the consent of the animal. Since it cannot be obtained, the State appropriately restricts any action on that front. However, the very same consent earlier considered by the State is defenestrated in the case of euthanasia, where the State assumes what the animal wants.

PERPLEXITY RETURNS

It may be appropriate for Indian courts, or any other legal jurisdictions, to consider saving human life at the cost of animal life. However, it must draw a clear line concerning the treatment of animal life to make society believe that animals have intrinsic value. The conundrum is: to what extent animal life can be sacrificed if an anthropocentric bias exists? The answer is especially undecipherable when the Madras High Court has gone on record, stating: “Man occupies a higher spot in the evolutionary hierarchy. But that does not make him superior to others”. This statement is puzzling because the judiciary emphasises animal rights but fails to meet its standards in practice in cases like those of jallikattu and stray dog euthanasia, to name a few.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

The right to life of an animal continues to evolve in Indian jurisprudence, and as more conflicts between man and animal arise, disparities in the Indian position will resolve themselves. In the standoff between stray dogs and humans, the Siri Jagan Committee, with a mandate which is now halted, played a vital role in calculating compensation for victims of stray dog violence and released reports and recommendations that greatly influenced the decisions of the Indian government. Based on these reports, the Indian government realised the need to protect its citizens, as dog-biting incidents have increased from 135,749 in 2017 to 196,552 in the first eight months of 2022. The committee also mentioned that the current policy of sterilisation and vaccination was not an adequate solution in the short term as the dogs were released back into the same locality. Thus, the increase in stray dog violence due to the existing policy is prompting governmental authorities to implement drastic measures, such as liberalising standards for euthanising the stray dog population. In such critical circumstances, the Indian Government will eventually have to pick a side with respect to its policy, as other nations already have.

Certain foreign jurisdictions are leaps and bounds ahead of India regarding an animal’s right to life. For example, the Tanzanian Animal Welfare Act, states that “an animal is a sentient being”. In Denmark, the Animal Welfare Act provides for animals to be respected as sentient beings, as opposed to India, where they are not expressly so. The authors suggest that provisions recognising animal sentience be brought into Indian legislation. A relevant Amendment characterising the intrinsic worth of an animal, or issue of Rules, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, would give the confused judiciary much-needed scope to prevent sacrificing animal life for human caprice. The curious conundrum brought out by this post is that either bestiality should be legalised, or the process to euthanise animals should be made almost impossible in order to cure the inconsistency in existing policy.

The Indian legal system is rife with perplexities, such as those mentioned above, due to a fundamental change in the global mindset. Occidental values, including anthropocentrism, are being reviewed, and a more environment-oriented approach is being adopted. Hence, the Indian Government, in the above-mentioned critical circumstance, must dig deep into its ancient culture and embody vasudhaiva kutumbakam, where every creature is treated like family and not sacrificed for the frolic of another species.

---

(Joshua Joseph Jose, Rajnandan Gadhi & Hari Manohar are law undergraduates at National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi. The authors may be contacted via email at joshuajosephjose1866@nuals.ac.in, rajnandangadhi1834@nuals.ac.in, and harikeshavmanohar1872@nuals.ac.in). They would like to thank Mr. Sumit A.T., librarian at NUALS, for his assistance.

Cite as: Joshua Joseph Jose, Rajnandan Gadhi & Hari Manohar, ‘Everybody’s Suffering Matters: An Animal’s Right to Life’, (The RMLNLU Law Review Blog, 16 October 2023) <https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2023/10/16/everybodys-suffering-matters-an-animals-right-to-life/> date of access.