When the Birds claimed for Right to Life with Dignity

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

Follow us

It was indeed the wish of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to see the Part III of our Constitution (especially) being interpreted liberally to do justice to the victims of the society. But the question that now remains is that by liberal interpretation, did the apex court mean to stretch those rights beyond the territory of ‘Homo Sapiens’? I guess it should be answered with a ‘Yes’, considering the recent decision given by the Delhi High Court in the case of People For Animals v. Mohd Mohazzim & Anr. Apparently, the High Court has held that the birds have fundamental rights including the right to live with dignity as per Article 21 and they cannot be subjected to cruelty by anyone.

The High court based its decision on the dicta of the Apex court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. In this case, the contention was on the validity of inflicting torture on animals through traditional practices and sports like Jallikkattu etc. The court held that such practices are not falling in line with the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960. Moreover, the court interpreted that animals’ rights are also protected by the Constitution by the directive principles and fundamental duties provided in Article 48 and 51-A(g) respectively.

Going further, the court in this case, interpreted that the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, in our view, “life” means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human-beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honor and dignity. Therefore, the animals are also entitled to right to life and dignity.

Article 21 and for that matter, all the other fundamental rights are provided for legal or natural persons. Animals cannot be regarded as a person under Part III. Moreover, Article 21 of the Constitution stipulates that this fundamental right is for the ‘person’ and his life and property. Animals are considered as a property of a person around the globe. Several countries like Austriahave enacted legislations to include animal welfare in their national Constitutions so as to balance the animal owners’ fundamental rights to property and the animals’ interest in freedom from unnecessary suffering or pain, damage and fear.Even if we fetch this right for the animals – owing to its status as the property of its owner – it still prevents torture by the State only to those animals which are in the ownership of the respective Persons. It cannot be stretched to include every animal.

Moreover, this kind of legal interpretation on the fundamental rights may have huge repercussions in the future. Although, infliction of unnecessary pain and torture on the animals should be curbed, depraving their lives should not be made a violation of fundamental right. This can lead indirectly imply that the slaughter of animals for food would also lead to the violation of the fundamental right. When infliction of pain on the birds by caging them could lead to violation of its fundamental rights, killing birds as food can definitely lead to a ban. This is, in fact, denying the men of their right to choose a non-vegetarian life, if they desire so.

It is to be kept in mind that the Constitution is a living document. The interpretations should be flexible and limited to the changing circumstances. The implications should not be too far-fletched or ambiguous that it may provide leeway to bring about unjustified consequences. Therefore, although, the rights of the animals can be protected through statutory and constitutional rights, it should not be given the fundamental right of life.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -