Author: Poornesha Palanivelan, a student of Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli
TO THE POINT
The constitutional dilemma between safeguarding human life under Article 21 and ensuring animal welfare under Articles 48A and 51A(g) demands a nuanced judicial balancing. Courts in India repeatedly confront conflicts involving dangerous animals, stray dog management, wildlife conservation, and religious or cultural practices involving animals. The legal challenge is to reconcile two seemingly competing rights within a rights-based constitutional framework.
ABSTRACT
This article analyses the constitutional balancing required between Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty and the constitutional mandates for animal welfare enshrined in Articles 48A and 51A(g). Indian jurisprudence has evolved from a purely anthropocentric approach to a more eco-centric model. However, where human safety is at stake—such as during incidents of stray dog aggression, wildlife attacks, or zoonotic concerns—courts apply proportionality and harmonious construction to prevent derogation of human rights. This article examines key precedents, judicial tests, and principles guiding the balancing process and concludes with recommendations for a constitutionally consistent solution.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The legal discourse on human safety versus animal welfare invokes several jurisprudential doctrines, including Harmonious Construction, Doctrine of Proportionality, Compelling State Interest, Parens Patriae, and Constitutional Morality. Article 21’s expansive interpretation incorporates dignity, bodily integrity, and public safety, forming the basis for State intervention against threats posed by animals. Articles 48A and 51A(g) reflect an eco-centric constitutional philosophy, mandating compassion and environmental preservation. However, these provisions lack enforceability, generating doctrinal conflicts when juxtaposed with enforceable fundamental rights. This results in a constitutional hierarchy where Article 21 prevails, yet animal interests remain constitutionally protected, requiring nuanced judicial balancing
THE PROOF
India’s constitutional ethos recognizes both:
Human safety and dignity – implicit in Article 21.Animal protection – embedded in Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties (Articles 48A and 51A(g)). Yet, real-world issues—dog bites, man-animal conflicts, cattle attacks, wildlife intrusion, and animal abuse—require the State to balance these obligations without disproportionately harming either interest. Judicial findings show that animal welfare is not a fundamental right, but it is a constitutional obligation imposed on the State and citizens. In contrast, Article 21 is a justiciable and enforceable fundamental right, giving precedence to human life where conflict is irreconcilable.
CASE LAWS
1. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014)
The Supreme Court recognized animals’ right to live with intrinsic worth and honour, effectively expanding constitutional morality to include animal dignity. It relied on Articles 48A and 51A(g), adopting an eco-centric approach. Yet, the Court clarified that animal rights must be read as part of constitutional obligations, not at par with Article 21.
2. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Union of India (2015)
The Court upheld restrictions on films using animals without compliance with guidelines, emphasizing humane treatment. The case underscores the precautionary principle in animal protection but does not elevate animal rights above public safety or health considerations.
3. Karnataka Stray Dog Menace Case – Animal Welfare Board of India v. State of Karnataka (2016)
The Supreme Court addressed increasing dog-bite incidents. It recognized the need to protect human life under Article 21 while also mandating humane population control measures like the ABC (Animal Birth Control) Rules. The Court prohibited indiscriminate culling but admitted that dangerous dogs posing imminent threats could be dealt with per municipal laws.
4. In Re: Feral Dogs in Kerala (2022)
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that human life has primacy under Article 21 but directed States to adopt scientific, humane control methods. The Court held that the State must ensure both—human safety and animal protection—through proportional and non-arbitrary measures.
5. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Forest Conservation Cases)
The Court emphasized ecological balance as an essential component of Article 21. Yet in several wildlife-conflict cases, the Court permitted relocation or controlled elimination of rogue animals to protect human life, illustrating the doctrine of compelling state interest.
6. Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India (1981)
Though not directly about animals, the case is relevant for the doctrine of harmonious construction. The Court held that fundamental rights and directive principles must be harmonized, not placed in opposition. This principle guides the balancing of Article 21 and animal welfare provisions.
CONCLUSION
The Indian Constitution envisions a balanced framework where human life under Article 21 coexists with animal welfare under Articles 48A and 51A(g). Courts have consistently applied the doctrine of proportionality and harmonious construction to ensure that neither human safety nor animal protection is ignored. However, where conflict is unavoidable, Article 21 prevails, as human life and bodily integrity form the core of fundamental rights.
A sustainable solution lies in:
- Strengthening Animal Birth Control (ABC) implementation,
- Enhancing urban wildlife management,
- Encouraging responsible pet ownership,
- Improving waste management to reduce stray populations,
- Formalizing emergency guidelines for rogue or dangerous animals, and
- Public awareness on humane coexistence.
Thus, constitutional balance is not about prioritizing one over the other but ensuring that both human and animal lives are protected in a just, fair, and humane manner.
FAQ
1. Does Article 21 include a right to be protected from dangerous animals?
Yes. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which courts interpret to include bodily safety and freedom from avoidable harm. This creates a positive duty on the State to protect individuals from threats, including dangers posed by aggressive or rabid animals. While animal welfare laws must be respected, human safety can justify proportionate action, such as capturing, isolating, or, in extreme cases, euthanizing dangerous animals.
2. Are animals granted fundamental rights?
No. Animals do not possess fundamental rights under Part III. However, they are accorded constitutional protection through Article 48A, directing the State to safeguard wildlife, and Article 51A (g), requiring citizens to show compassion to living creatures. Courts recognize animals as sentient beings, but this does not elevate them to the status of constitutional rights-holders. Human rights, particularly under Article 21, remain paramount.
3. Can dangerous stray animals be euthanized?
Yes, but only in limited situations as prescribed by the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and judicial guidelines. Euthanasia is allowed when an animal presents an imminent threat to human safety or suffers from an incurable and painful disease. Such actions must be carried out by qualified veterinary authorities and used strictly as a last resort, after considering alternatives like treatment or relocation.
4. Can religious practices involving animals be restricted?
Yes. Religious freedom under Articles 25–26 is subject to public order, morality, health, and statutory compliance. If a religious practice involving animals threatens human safety, causes unnecessary cruelty, or violates welfare laws, courts may regulate or prohibit it to maintain constitutional balance.
5. How do courts balance human rights and animal welfare?
Courts apply doctrines like proportionality, harmonious construction, and constitutional morality. They seek to protect both interests but hold that Article 21 takes precedence in cases of direct conflict, while ensuring animals are not subjected to needless suffering.
