ANIMAL WELFARE LAW

MS. ADITI SINGH KAVIA. A N I M A L WELFARE LAW. POSITION OF ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

ANGELA MARY JOHN 2150145 EMY ELIZABETH 215 0154 KUNAPALLI HARSHIT KUMAR 2150122 JAYAN 2150115.

The Earth is what we all have in common.. WENDELL BERRY.

INTRODUCTION. T H E C O NS T I T U T I O N O F I N D I A I S T H E P R EE M I N E N T L A W O F.

The Constitutional Framework of creature security in India is included in the accompanying parts:.

1. Fundamental Rights. The Fundamental Rights of India are revered in Part III (Articles 12 to 35 ) of the Constitution. They set down widespread, unavoidably ensured privileges fundamental for the presence and improvement of all people like the Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right against Exploitation, and so on Any break of Fundamental Rights is viewed as serious and the Supreme Court of India can be moved toward straightforwardly under Article 32 for protected cures. Pertinent to creature government assistance is the key Right to Life under Article 21 ..

Article 21. Article 21 sets out the Right to Life, expressing that: No individual will be denied of his life or individual freedom besides as per methodology laid out by regulation. The Article has been portrayed as the "procedural magna carta defensive of life and freedom." The Supreme Court of India has embraced an extensive perusing of the right to life, including under it the right to food and safe house, right to instruction, and so on With regards to basic entitlements, the Supreme Court has brought a few basic entitlements under the ambit of the right to life through an extensive perusing on account of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. (the Jallikattu case)..

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors..

The Right to Life of Animals. As to Article 21 , the Supreme Court outstandingly held: Each specie has a privilege to life and security, dependent upon the rule that everyone must follow, which incorporates denying its life, out of human need. Article 21 of the Constitution, while defending the freedoms of people, safeguards life and "life" has been given an extended definition and any aggravation from the essential climate which incorporates all types of life, including creature life, which are vital for human existence, fall inside the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution. Most definitely, in our view "life" signifies more than simple endurance or presence or instrumental incentive for people, however to lead an existence with some inherent worth, honor and respect.".

2. Directive Principles of State Policy. THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY (DPSP) ARE 15 PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED IN PART IV (ARTICLE 36 - 51 ) OF THE CONSTITUTION FORMING THE BASIS ON WHICH STATES FRAME LAWS AND POLICIES. UNLIKE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, THE DPSP AREN’T ENFORCEABLE IN ANY COURT. HOWEVER, IT IS THE DUTY OF STATES TO APPLY THEM IN MAKING LAWS FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF A JUST SOCIETY. THREE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES FORM THE FOUNDATION OF STATE POLICIES ON ANIMAL WELFARE IN INDIA, ENSHRINED IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES: ARTICLE 48 ARTICLE 48 A.

Article 48. ARTICLE 48 LAYS DOWN THAT: The State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. Cattle slaughter, especially cow slaughter, is a deeply contentious issue in India because of the sacred value held by cows to sects of Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, and Buddhist. There was debate amongst the Constituent Assembly of the Constitution regarding whether Article 48 ought to be included as a Fundamental Right. In order to prevent forcing non-Hindus from accepting a certain thing against their will and stating that fundamental rights deal with human beings only and not animals, the Constituent Assembly ultimately accepted the provision as a DPSP instead..

FEELINGS. EVE H RY A O S NE.

Judicial developments in cow slaughter. ABDUL HAKIM QURESHI V. STATE OF BIHAR ( 1961 ), In the case of Abdul Hakim Qureshi v. State of Bihar ( 1961 ), the Supreme Court heard a petition regarding the constitutionality of cow slaughter ban laws in Bihar. The Petitioner contended that the laws breached the fundamental right to freedom of religion (under Article 25 ) of Muslims by preventing them from freely practicing traditions of their religion such as sacrificing cows on Bakr-Id Day. The Supreme Court of India upheld that none of the Islamic texts like the Hidaya or the Quran mandated cow slaughter and they allowed for a goat or camel to be sacrificed instead. Therefore, according to the Court a total ban on cow slaughter did not infringe on the religious freedom of Muslims. In the context of Article 48 , the Court held that directive only applies to cows, calves and other animals which have the potential of yielding milk or have the capacity to work as drought. Therefore, Article 48 does not envisage a prohibition on the slaughter of all cows or cattle..

Article 48A. ARTICLE 48 A LAYS DOWN THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE FOR PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SAFEGUARDING OF FORESTS AND WILDLIFE. IT READS AS: THE STATE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO SAFEGUARD THE FORESTS AND WILDLIFE OF THE COUNTRY. THIS ARTICLE WAS ADDED BY THE 42 ND AMENDMENT, 1976 AND PLACES AN OBLIGATION ON THE STATE TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND WILDLIFE. WHILE NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE, ARTICLE 48 A MAY BECOME ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21 ..

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002). In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ( 2002 ), the Supreme Court heard a public interest litigation in the matter of air pollution in Delhi. The Court made the following observations regarding Article 48 A and public health: Articles 39 , 47 and 48 A by themselves and collectively cast a duty on the State to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment..

NUMBER OF TIGERS TODAY. NEARLY 120 TIGERS ARE BEING KILLED EAch year in india.

3. Fundamental Duties. THE FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF INDIA ARE ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 51 A (PART IV-A) OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE ARTICLE WAS BROUGHT IN BY WAY OF THE 42 ND AMENDMENT OF 1976 TO BRING THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 29 ( 1 ) OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. WHILE FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES ARE UNENFORCEABLE IN COURTS, THEY ARE OFTEN RESORTED TO IN THE INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS. In the context of animal rights, the relevant clauses of Article 51 A read as follows: It shall be the duty of every citizen of India: . . . (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures; (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform . . ..

ARTICLE 51A. ARTICLE 51 A (G) PLACES A DUTY ON THE CITIZENS OF INDIA TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND HAVE COMPASSION FOR ALL LIVING CREATURES. AS INTERPRETED IN ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA V. A. NAGARAJA & ORS. ( 2014 ), COMPASSION FOR ALL LIVING CREATURES INCLUDES CONCERN FOR THEIR SUFFERING AND WELL-BEING. IN THE CASE, THE SUPREME COURT REGARDED 51 A (G) ALONGSIDE THE DUTY TO DEVELOP SCIENTIFIC TEMPERAMENT UNDER 51 A (H) AS THE MAGNA CARTA OF ANIMAL RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA..