INTRODUCTION :
For decades Constitutional has been assumed as a framework created by humans, for humans. Fundamental rights, duties and liberties were imagined as exclusive human entitlements, and in the shadow of such assumptions, various systems across the globe treated animals not as living beings but as things that belong to people – voiceless objects with no rights. Whether it is being used as a source of entertainment, deliberate abuse, inadequate shelters, factory farming, exploitation or systemic neglect, animals have had it all.
However, Indian Constitutional jurisprudence has undergone a quiet, subtle change over the last few decades. Courts have increasingly questioned whether a Constitution that is based on equality, justice, sustainability, life and dignity can extend those aspects to non-human lives or remain indifferent to their sufferings.
This change in the Indian Constitutional jurisprudence did not happen overnight, or because of new laws; it happened because our judges used their creativity to interpret the Constitution by combining old Indian beliefs with modern values. Before learning about this change, it becomes important to learn what exactly an anthropocentric or an eco-centric approach actually is.
ANTHROPOCENTRIC AND ECO-CENTRIC APPROACH :
Anthropocentrism is an ethics completely centred on the interests of human beings. Anthropocentrism is a theory that believes humans are the centre of the universe. Its essence is that everything is centred on humans or evaluated by human measures and serves human interests, and starts from human interests. [1]Thus, in simple terms, an anthropocentric approach is a philosophical viewpoint that considers human beings at the centre of moral consideration and keeps nature and all other species as having value only in their ability to serve human needs.
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. [2] Thus, eco-centrism is a philosophy that places nature, rather than humans, at the centre of moral values, arguing that human beings are merely one part of a larger, interconnected ecological system.
CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION: THE BUILDING BLOCKS :
Indian Constitutional jurisprudence has developed over time only because it had a strong Constitutional foundation guaranteeing equality and dignity to all living beings.
- Article 21: Article 21 guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his right to life or personal liberty according to procedure established by law”.[3] Though not explicitly including the term ‘animals’, various judicial interpretations have made sure that the scope of this Article extends up to animals as well. The Supreme Court of India in Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India has explicitly stated that Article 21 must be liberally and purposively interpreted, not narrowly and restrictively. [4]
Keeping this in view, the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India V/S A. Nagaraja ruled that Article 21 encompasses animal rights, declaring that every species has a right to life and security and that animals possess ‘honour and dignity.’ The Court ruled that animals have a “right to get protection from human beings” and a “right against disturbance to their basic environment”. [5]
- Article 48 A and 51A(g): Article 48A, Directive Principle of State Policy, which states that “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”[6] and Article 51 A(g), which imposes a Fundamental Duty on every citizen to “protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”[7] These are often dismissed as non – justiciable ideals, as they aren’t enforceable by law, but the courts have repeatedly used them to expand the scope of Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan V/S State of Andhra Pradesh held that Directive Principles of State Policy can be read into and supplement Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 21. The court held that the Constitution must be read as an integrated whole, not as compartmentalised sections.[8]
Thus, the Indian Constitution has a strong Constitutional foundation that encourages its citizens to have compassion for animals and also protects their dignity and welfare. Article 21, Article 48A and Article 51A(g) create a triangulation that creates enforceable animal rights.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK: BUILDING ECO-CENTRIC JURISPRUDENCE
Over the last few decades, India has built a strong legal framework for the protection and promotion of animal rights. These frameworks include :
- The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: This Act prohibits various forms of cruelty, including beating, overloading, confining in insufficient cages, and depriving animals of food and water. [9] This Act also enumerates specific acts of cruelty, including administering injurious drugs or substances, organising or inciting animal fights and employing unfit animals for work.[10]
It also places a duty on the person (s) in charge of animals to ensure their well-being and prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. [11]
This Act empowers police to seize animals subjected to cruelty, with provisions for their care and infirmaries[12] and imposes fines and potential imprisonment for first-time and subsequent offenders.[13]
- Wildlife Protection Act 1972: This Act provides comprehensive wildlife conservation by establishing protected areas, prohibiting hunting and regulating wildlife trade, all while maintaining ecological balance, and empowers authorised. It empowers authorised officers to search, arrest and detain individuals without a warrant.[14]
The Act provides the highest protection with the strictest penalties for offences, especially against tigers, snow leopards, and Asiatic cheetahs.[15]. It also covers protected species with strict penalties[16] and lists animals that may be hunted.
RISE OF ECO-CENTRISM AND NECCESSITY OF SHIFT :
One of the most compelling developments in Indian Constitutional law is the doctrine of constitutional morality, i.e. the idea that constitutional values must prevail over social practices and popular sentiment.
The anthropocentric approach harms our wildlife more than we can imagine. The joint report between the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and WWF titled ‘A future for all – the need for human-wildlife coexistence‘, reveals that globally, conflict-related killing affects more than 75% of the world’s wild cat species, as well as many other terrestrial and marine carnivore species such as polar bears and Mediterranean monk seals, and large herbivores such as elephants.[17] “Within a human lifetime, we have already seen extraordinary and unparalleled changes to our planet. Global wildlife populations have fallen an average of 68 per cent since 1970,” says Margaret Kinnaird, Global Wildlife Practice Leader at WWF International.[18]
With such numbers, it becomes very important for us as humans to move toward an eco-centric approach, by not prioritising human beings for moral evaluation but also taking concrete steps to integrate nature, wildlife and all non-human living beings into consideration. The recognition of animals as legal persons places India alongside New Zealand, which recognises the Whangaui River as a legal person[19], and Ecuador, which enshrined rights of nature in its Constitution, in pioneering eco-centric frameworks[20].
CONCLUSION :
India’s Constitutional Jurisprudence, through its robust foundational framework of Article 21, Article 48A and Article 51A(g), along with strong legislative frameworks like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and broad judicial interpretations, has recognised animals as sentient beings having honour and dignity. The theme that animal lives are no longer invisible becomes clear.
The evolution of the journey of Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence from anthropocentrism to eco-centrism, is indicative of the fact that Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence is one that listens.
Author(s) Name: Ojaswini Jaswal (Shoolini University)
References:
[1] ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT – Vol. II – Anthropocentric Ethical Theories: Relations With Nonhuman Beings – Mouchang Yu, Yi Lei
[2] Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There (Oxford University Press, 1949)
[3] Constitution of India 1950, Article 21
[4] AIR 1978 SC 597
[5] (2014)7 SCC 547
[6] Constitution of India 1950, Article 48A
[7] Constitution of India 1950, Article 51A(g)
[8] (1993)1 SCC 645
[9] The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Sec 11
[10] ibid
[11] The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Sec 3
[12] The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Sec 34, Sec35
[13] infra 9
[14] Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Sec 50
[15] Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Schedule I and Schedule II
[16] Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Schedule III and IV
[17] A future for all – the need for human-wildlife coexistence https://www.unep.org/resources/report/future-all-need-human-wildlife-coexistence
[18] United Nations Environment Programme, ‘Human–Wildlife Conflict: One of the Greatest Threats to Wildlife Species’ (UNEP, 2021) https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/human-wildlife-conflict-one-greatest-threats-wildlife-species
[19] Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (NZ)
[20] Constitución de la República del Ecuador 2008, Article 71-74C
