Cannot Declare Entire Animal Kingdom As Legal Entity With Same Rights As Humans: SC

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a plea seeking for declaration of the entire animal kingdom as “legal entities” having a distinct persona with corresponding rights of a living person.

A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing a petition filed by an Allahabad-based NGO called People’s Charioteer Organization (PCO) seeking to prevent animal cruelty by strengthening the country’s animal protection laws.

“Lately, a couple of cases of cruelty towards animals have come to light in the past few months which have raised questions as to how humans have absolutely no respect for animals’ lives and how can they can be absolutely devoid of sympathy. Such incidents have further enraged many and made one ponder as to whether the laws in existence are sufficient enough to protect animals from possible abuse and cruelty,” the plea states in the backdrop of Kerala’s Elephant Tragedy, sale of dog-meat in Nagaland, etc,” the petition stated.

It had therefore urged the Court to declare all the Citizens of India as “persons in loco parentis” for the protection of animals from cruelty and abuse and to ensure their welfare.

Dismissing the petition, the bench stated that it could not entertain the petition in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

“we find that the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India”, the order reads.

The Petitioner further drew the Court’s attention to the lack of official data or any public record in India to track incidences of Animal Abuse and Cruelty.

On this point, it was requested that the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) be directed to report and publish data and statistics relating to animal cruelty/crimes against animals in the Yearly NCRB reports, including cases reported and convictions ordered thereon, under various penal statutes.

Finally, the Petitioner voiced great concerns about the expected “sadistic evolution” of animal cruelty criminals, claiming that they are extremely likely to harm humans as well.

“Animal cruelty is sometimes suggestive of a severe mental disorder, and animal abusers frequently progress to harming humans. The link between animal mistreatment and more aggressive behavior is firmly established by a psychological illness known as “Zoosadism,” in which a person receives pleasure from inflicting cruelty on animals. … In such cases, regulations imposing a Rupees 50 fine will not even teach the perpetrator a lesson, let alone deter others from acting in the same manner. Such light rules are not only destructive to our culture and animals, but they also have legal ramifications,” the Petitioner claimed.