Abstract
Animal rights are rights just like Human rights, considering the concept of rights. Animal rights is a specific moral theory, not a catch-all for pro-animal points of view so we should protect animal right and try to save all animals because they are protective for our environment. As a result, animals have rights in the sense of valid claims that could prove to be actual rights if society and new scientific technology developments allow alternative means for satisfying our essential interests without using animals. Animals have the right to life, liberty, and security against attacks on their physical existence, as well as freedom from movement; communication, subsistence, and relief from suffering. The interest of the animals in life, liberty, survival, and security is important to them; it does not belong to us or anything that we have already acquired through our own nature.
Introduction
The notion that nonhumans deserve the right to live as they want without being subjected to human desires is a moral principle underpinning animal rights. Autonomy, which is also called choice, is a fundamental principle of animal rights. Human rights are enshrined in many countries, protecting certain freedoms such as freedom of expression and access to democracy. These choices are limited, however, to social conditions such as race, caste, and gender, but the fundamental principles that enable humans to live have been protected in general by civil rights. The aim of the animal rights movement is to do just that, for animals other than humans.
Animal rights, which include animals used by humans for a variety of purposes, such as food, experimental objects or even pets, are directly opposed to the exploitation of animals. When humans destroy natural habitats, they may also infringe on animal rights. The ability of animals to live in their natural state, as they choose, is adversely affected.
Do Animals have Rights?
Animal rights have been incorporated into the law in a few countries. But, in India, the USA, and the UK, there is a degree of protection and guidelines on how animals should be treated, but it is also necessary to respect animal welfare. Certain provisions relating to animal rights are laid down in the Indian Constitution. In addition, a number of laws exist in India to protect animals in the wild and at home. There are many important judgments connected with animal rights. In the 2014 case of the Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Others, the Court held that animals also possess honor and dignity, and these characteristics cannot be taken away from them without justification.
Constitutional Protection for Animal Rights
Each citizen of India, as enshrined in our Constitution, is responsible for the protection and conservation of their own country’s natural resources, like its forests, lakes, rivers, or animals. These provisions come in the Directive Principal of State Policies in Article 48A and Fundamental Duties in Article 51A(g), which cannot be enforced unless there is statutory backing.
Moreover, these items in respect of animal rights have been added to the State and concurrent lists. In accordance with State List 14, the States shall be empowered to keep, preserve, and enhance their stocks; avoid animal diseases by ensuring appropriate veterinary training and practice. The concurrent list provides legislation capable of being passed by both the Center and the States.
- “Prevention of animal cruelty,” which is mentioned in item 17,
- “Protection of wild animals and birds” which is mentioned in item 17B,
The Indian Penal Code Devoted to Animal Protection
According to Section 249 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering useless any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow, or ox, whatever the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, is guilty of an offence under this section, and they will be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to 5 years, with a fine, or with both.
And in Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering useless any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees or upwards is an offense under this section, and they will be punished with imprisonment of either description for the term, which may extend to two years, or with a fine or with both.
Judicial Intervention for the Protection of Animals:
In relation to animal protection, many important judgments have been rendered by the Supreme Court of India. Some of them are as follows:
- Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Others (2014)
- State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors (2005)
In The Case Of Animal Welfare Board Of India V. Nagaraja And Others
It’s called the Jallikattu case, too. This is a PIL case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Said that Everyone has the right to life and personal liberty, and neither may be taken away from them without a court order, as stated in Article 21. The Supreme Court expressly adopted Article 21 in favour of animals in the case of the Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Others in 2014. Before we know about this case we should know about Jallikattu. What is the cultural significance of Jallikattu? And why are some groups calling for a ban on Jallikattu?
Facts of the Case
What is Jallikattu?
Jallikattu is a 2,000-year-old competitive bull-taming sport in which contestants attempt to tame a bull for a prize; if they fail, the bull owner wins the prize. It’s worshipped across the regions of Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Theni, Pudukottai, and Dindigul in Tamil Nadu. Jallikattu has a belt named after it.
It’s celebrated in the second week of January, at the time of the Pongal harvest festival, and it’s a symbolic event to honour the owners of the bulls that rear them for mating. Essentially, it has become a traditional way for the agriculturist community to preserve their pure-breed native bulls, which are otherwise used only for meat or ploughing the fields.
In this respect, certain native breeds of cattle reared in the state for jallikattu are Kangayam, Pulikulam, Umbalachery, Bargur, and Malai Maadu.
What is the Cultural Significance of Jallikattu?
The term Jallikattu is a union of two words: ‘Calli’ (coins) and ‘Kattu’ (tie), which denotes a bundle of coins tied to the bull’s horns. Practitioners believe that the sport cultivates and represents a friendly relationship between men and animals, in which the owner seeks to build an emotional connection with his bull through long periods of rearing.
The sport has been in existence for hundreds of years. Indeed, one of the seals found in Mohenjodaro dates from about 2,500 to 1,800 BC and is believed to be its earliest reference. Back then, it was called Eru Thazuval, meaning “embracing the bull.”
In addition, there is a mention of the Jallikattu in Sildikappaaram, one of the major Tamil epics which flourished during Sangam times and has led some to believe that cattle are sacred and holy.
Why are some groups calling for a Ban on Jallikattu?
Since the beginning of the 2000s, animal rights activists and groups have long been fighting a legal battle for a nationwide ban on Jallikattu. In its plea to the Supreme Court, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) argued that the continuation of the practice of Jallikattu is immoral and contrary to the humane treatment of animals in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
In a report submitted in court in 2011, the AWBI contended that the animals face “unimaginable torture” in preparations for the sport, ranging from tails twisted and fractured, chemicals poured into eyes, ears mutilated, and sharp-edged weapons used to poke the animal.
Furthermore, besides animal fatalities, parties seeking a ban have also argued that violent sport often results in manhandling of animals as well as several human deaths and injuries.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the challenged Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly conflicts with the ruling in the A Nagaraja case and the review judgment rendered on November 16, 2016, in the same case, and can it be said that the Tamil Nadu Legislature has remedied the issues raised in the aforementioned two judgments by passing the challenged Tamil Nadu Amendment Act,
- Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act written in such a way as to guarantee the existence and welfare of the local breed of bulls?
- Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III ( Prevention of cruelty to animals in the Concurrent List), in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or does it further cruelty to animals?
Argument Before Court
Petitioner
In particular, the defense counsel argued that the practice of Jallikattu constitutes a significant part of the cultural heritage of the State and that it should be granted constitutional protection as a fundamental and collective cultural right in accordance with Article 29 of the Constitution. According to that provision, the right to preserve the same shall be conferred on any section of citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script, or culture of their own.
In addition, the defense argued that, in accordance with Article 48 of the Constitution, which calls on the State to promote the organization of agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines, the rearing of purebred bulls supports the conservation of animal breeds.
Respondent
Then the State government said that Jallikattu is “a practice that is centuries-old and symbolic of a community’s identity that can be regulated and reformed as the human race evolves rather than being completely obliterated.”
Moreover, practitioners and bull owners also appeal to the harmonious relationship the sport helps foster between man and animal, deeming it as ethical from a conservationist standpoint. The necessary security measures, in order to prevent unforeseen events, have also been highlighted. For example, the Press Trust of India quoted two Jallikattu trainers, Mani and Vinoth, as saying that many Jallikattu bulls do not have feet and that the idea is to avoid injuries to men if they are kicked.
Court Observation
In this case, the court observed that the amendments, made in 2017, were “valid legislation,” and it said that the jallikattu issue was “debatable”, and must ultimately be decided by the parliament (Lok Sabha). Making this decision requires social and cultural analysis in greater detail, and such an exercise “cannot be undertaken by the judiciary”. And the court said that the act is not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution. The incidental impact may fall upon certain types of bulls affecting agricultural activity, but it is referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Judgement
A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the amendments made by the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka to The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, allowing bull-taming sports like jallikattu, kambala, and bullock-cart races and overruled the view taken by a two-judge Bench of the court in its 2014 ruling in ‘Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja’, banning such sports including jallikattu.
Conclusion
As with neglecting to report any crime against people, it is criminal to witness animal cruelty and not report it. We’re supposed to treat animals with kindness. Although witnessing animal cruelty may seem unpleasant, it is necessary to prepare for a response that will protect the animal from further harm. Contacting the appropriate authorities and teaching children and adults about animal cruelty can help reduce it.
References
- Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960
- The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009
- The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 2017
- Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others (2014), 7 SCC 547
- State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors. (2005), 8 SCC 534
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- The Constitution of India.
