WHY INDIA’S OUTDATED ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS FAIL TO PROTECT THE DEFENCELESS?

INTRODUCTION

India is a country where animals are worshiped. Everyday people do feed street animals and make shelter for them; this is although out of human compassion but is a fundamental duty as under Article 51-A(g). Individuals exist in our society who have a cruel intention towards the speechless animals. Harms and abuse against animals have become a common daily news headline, where Indian age old values preach ‘non-violence’; our laws are failing to protect animals.

Our Judiciary through precedents has recognized several rights of animals, as they are also a part of our community. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) was passed in 1960 as a central legislation to make it illegal to torture and abuse animals. While society has developed and so our understanding of animal sentience has advanced; the legal penalties for harming animals remains the same despite of growing animal cruelty. This article will explore Section 11 of PCA Act, how our Judiciary has recognised animal rights and where the legislature lags behind?

UNDERSTANDING SECTION 11 OF PCA, 1960

The legislature of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted to curb the misconduct of suffering and unnecessary pain on animals. The Section 11 of this Act defines as what constitutes as cruelty against animals: If any person-

1. beats, kicks, tortures, over-loads, over-drives or cause any unnecessary pain and suffering to animals.
2. employs work or labour on any animal for which it is unfit as per its age, health wound or disease.
3. willfully and unreasonably administers injurious drugs or any substance on any animal, threatening its life.
4. conveys or carries animal in a vehicle subjecting it to pain and suffering.
5. confines any animal in a cage which does not fit them, inappropriate to its height and weight also preventing it from any movement.
6. Keeps chain and tethered for unreasonable time.
7. being the owner neglects or cause a dog habitually chained up
8. being the owner of animal does not provide food, water and shelter
9. without reasonable cause abandons animal
10. owner willfully permits any affected or contagious or infectious animal to go at a street or without reasonable excuse let animal die in any street.
11. offers for sale; or cause pain to animal by mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or ill treatment.
12. mutilates any animal or kill animal (including stray) with the use of strychnine injection.
13. uses animal for entertainment purpose. As object of prey or incite animal fight.
14. organises, keeps, uses or acts the management of any place related to animal baiting or fighting or permits or offers any place to be used for same.
15. promotes or takes part in animal shooting or captivating.

Further the Section 11 mentions that any such person shall be punishable with fine upto ten rupees to fifty rupees; for repeat offence within three years would lead to fine not less than twenty five rupees and extend upto hundred rupees or with imprisonment upto three months. The Section 11 has recognised crime against animal as non-cognizable offences.

In present India crimes and abuse against animals have increased. The punishment still remains the same, fine of not more than hundred rupees and imprisonment, which is rarely ever used. In today’s economy fifty rupee fine is practically zero punishment. One can easily commit crime and go away with such mere fine punishments. Such punishment acts as an open invitation to commit crime and rather than prevent crime.  Thus, practically crime against animals has no actual punishment.

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in its Section 325 has criminalized mischief of killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal. Punishment includes imprisonment of upto 5 years.

THE JUDICIAL REFORMS AND LEGAL LOOPHOLES

As of now, India has seen several judgement recognizing the torture and pain that animals go through.  Indian courts have explicitly recognised “Five Freedoms” of animals: Freedom from (a) hunger, thirst and malnutrition; (b) physical and thermal discomfort; ( c) pain, injury and disease; (d) fear and distress; ( e) to express normal patterns of behaviour. 

In the landmark judgement of Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja: The Supreme Court stated that animals have an inherent right to live with dignity and free from human-inflicted pain. The Parliament is urged to strengthen penalties under PCA Act and elevate animal rights to constitutional status. This decision also placed animal welfare above cultural and entertainment purposes. Finally, it recognised statutory rights of animals and incorporated “Five Freedoms” into Indian jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court elevated animal rights to the level of Article 21 (Right to Life).

In the exceptional judgement of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana: The Court held that animals and birds have legal rights, just as humans. It further declared citizens as ‘guardians of the animal kingdom’ with duty to ensure welfare and protection. Justice Rajiv Sharma said that “All the animals have honour and dignity. Every species has an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by law. The Corporations, Hindu idols, holy rivers, scriptures have been declared legal entities and thus, in order to protect and promote greater welfare of animals including avian and aquatic, animals are required to be conferred with legal entity. They are entitled to justice and and animals cannot be treated as object or property.”

These judgements opened a broader view by giving animals rights and legal status. As of yet, the punishment for crimes against animals remain the same, showing lack of responsibility in governing systems. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have also stepped in to protect animals but the Legislature has failed to act accordingly.

CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT V. GROUND REALITY

The Indian Constitution in Part IVA Article 51-A(g) has recognized “fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment and to have compassion for all.” The court has also held, Article 51A(g) as, ‘magna carta of animal rights.’

Part IV of  the Constitution deals with DPSPs (Directive Principle for State Policy) in which Article 48 and 48A mentions that the state must protect and improve species; and the state to preserve and the environment and wildlife of our country. 

The reality

The Constitutional provisions are Directive Principles or Fundamental Duties. They are morally binding but not directly enforceable in local courts. The acute area of concern is the management of stray dogs and cattle. Policies for Animal Birth Control are poorly implemented. The Supreme Court in  a recent judgment on stray dogs birth control to prevent rabies and other nuisance. The implementing order was  without proper infrastructure and neglect the risk of animal suffering. The question is no longer about implementing humane stray dog management solution. Humane methods in slaughtering houses and farms are ignored and there’s no judicial remedy for it. Despite regulations and acts animals in zoo, circuses and film shooting do suffer harshly.

The Constitution has given rights and equally duty to every citizen but unfortunately, implementation remains poor and so does the punishment. The punishment which remains out of pace with today’s economic standards.

The gap exists because laws only protect animals to the extent that it does not inconvenience humans, where humans are harsh on animals.

 PENDING REFORMS AND GLOBAL STANDARD

Animal laws in present India need a strict and humane approached reform. The Draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill, introduces three distinct categories of cruelty: minor injury, major injury and ‘gruesome cruelty’, such as intentional killing or permanent maiming. This draft bill proposed hikes to the penal structure, increasing the fines upto 50,000 rupees to 75,000 rupees and also introduces strict imprisonment from 1 to 5 years for killing animals. Several severe animal right crimes are made ‘cognizable.’ The draft bill also clearly outlines the basic rights of animals including the “Five Freedoms”.

Contrary to India in United Kingdom, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act allows sentences of upto 5 years in prison for animal cruelty. Also recognizing types of offences: unnecessary suffering, mutilation, abandonment and animal fighting. In United Kingdom animal protection laws are based on “5 Welfare Needs”. This shows how they protect speechless animals and equally punish the criminals.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, animal cruelty prevention in India has laws, relevant precedents, but what lags is proper punishment for the criminals. As animals cruelty in society is not actually seen as crime but rather a normal act. Not only wild animals but in present India stray animals and cattles also deserve equal protection. India now, needs to strategically implement Animal Birth Control keeping in mind animal emotions and the compassion towards them. 

Strong laws do not compromise human interests instead balance all members of community including animals. The six-decade old legislative PCA Act, needs an evolution into a truly humane and civilized constitutional democracy.  

REFERENCE(S): 

CASE LAWS:

1. Animal Welfare Board v A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
2. Karnail Singh v State of Haryana CRR-533-2013 (PH, 31 May 2019)

LEGISLATIVE ACTS:

1. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts 1960
2. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
3. Constitution of India

SECONDARY SOURCES AND WEB DOCUMENTS

1. Shreya Singh, ‘The Evolving Jurisprudence of Animal Rights in India’ (2024) 7(2) International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 1 https://ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Evolving-Jurisprudence-of-Animal-Rights-in-India.pdf?pdf=1
2. Anukriti Poddar and Nandini Sureka, ‘Animal Laws: Rights-Based Or Duty-Based Approach’ (Chanakya National Law University 2025) https://www.cnlu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Animal-Laws-Rights-Based-Or-Duty-Based-Approach-by-Anukriti-Poddar-Nandini-Sureka.pdf
3. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, ‘Public Notice: Draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill, 2022’ (PRS Legislative Research 2022) https://prsindia.org/files/parliamentry-announcement/2022-12-07/Public%20notice-Draft%20PCA%20bill-2022.pdf
4. Michigan State University College of Law, ‘Karnail Singh and Others v. State of Haryana’ (Animal Legal & Historical Center 2019) https://www.animallaw.info/case/karnail-singh-and-others-v-state-haryana.