Abstract

In Gandhi's words, "the grandeur of a country may be evaluated by the treatment of its animals." Humans have long had a strong belief that they are the superior or more "advanced" race on the planet. They've established a government and, for the most part, a state of their own. Societies that value civility and compassion extend these values to their animals in the same way that they do to their inhabitants. One of the most significant developments in the field of animal rights has been the extension of fundamental rights to non-human animals. This article analyses the role of judicial pronouncements in recent years in declaring and upholding fundamental rights for non-human animals. The inclusion of non-human animals under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not justified for several reasons, including the fact that rights cannot exist in isolation from duties and that non-human animals cannot be entitled to “personhood”. Granting fundamental rights to animals has a plethora of social, religious and legal implications. The need to protect animal rights and prevent animal cruelty is duly acknowledged, but the means to do this would be by strengthening existing legislation and provisions rather than guaranteeing them fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.

Keywords