“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition.” Contrary to the above stated proposition, the duty of humanity so enforced is not conceived by the law as a duty towards beasts, but merely as a duty in respect of them. There is no bond of ‘Litigation’ between mankind and them. The only interest between the two are the ‘Tight 'which the law recognises in such, a case is the interest and right of society as a -whole in the welfare of the animals belonging to it.

1. LEGAL RIGHTS OF ANIMALS
Legal rights and legal duties cannot be conceived without the holder of the rights and the
duties, and the holder, in legal theory, is the 'person'.
Salmond in his book on Jurisprudence (11TH Edition) at pages 350-351 states that,
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of
rights or duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no
being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances
of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess
juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives
legal recognition.”
Contrary to the above stated proposition, the duty of humanity so enforced is not conceived by
the law as a duty towards beasts, but merely as a duty in respect of them. There is no bond of
‘Litigation’ between mankind and them. The only interest between the two are the ‘Tight
'which the law recognises in such, a case is the interest and right of society as a -whole in the
welfare of the animals belonging to it.
In case of a child who violates a duty and the individual who owes it to the child, and a right
which is vested in him. But he who ill-treats a dog breaks no vinculum juris between him and
dog, though lie disregards the obligation of humane conduct which be -owes to society or the
state, and the correlative right; which society or the state possesses. Similarly a man's interests
may obtain legal protection as against himself, as when drunkenness or suicide is made a crime.
But he not for this reason has a legal right against himself. The duty to refrain from drunkenness
is not conceived by the law as a duty owing by a man to himself, but as one owing by (him to
the community. The only interest which receives legal recognition is that, of the society in the
sobriety of its members. The law seeks to establish a relationship between an individual and a
society. The main aim is to afford protection from infringement of rights by anyone in the
society. The acts in consonance of the laws are valid.
The word ‘person’ is derived from Greek word ‘persona’ which meant the mast worn by the
actors playing different roles in drama. Though if construed narrowly it means a subject or
bearer of right. But the law has also conferred right and duties upon bodies other than humans
by conferring legal fiction upon them. Thus, artificial legal personality deals with rights and
duties conferred upon other than human beings. Initially animals were not accorded legal status

2. as there was difficulty in the admissibility of evidence as may be contended by the opposite
party. As the animals couldn't be cross questioned in the court of law by the counsel. There
have been some instances in the past where the rats had been punished for destroying the fields
of human beings.
Law in many cases will grant non-human entities legal personhood. So in ancient times lower
animals and beasts were punished for any wrong done by them. However, with times our
thinking and the law both have evolved. In modern law, animals are not considered legal
persons. They are objects since they do not enjoy rights or have duties. In modern law, we hold
the master responsible for the acts of his pets and beasts. So he will be liable for any damage
done by these animals under his care where he was negligent in their care and control. Also,
the harm done to an animal will be considered as harm done to its owner or the society at large.
Also, modern law does recognize the need to protect animals of all kinds. So Indian law has
made provisions for the well-being and maintenance of animals.
Section 11 (1) (a) to (o) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prescribes and
enumerates the forms of cruelty mentioned hereunder:
a) Beating, Kicking, Over-riding, Over-driving, Over-loading, Torturing, Causing
unnecessary pain or suffering to any animals;
b) Employing any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease, unfit to be so
employed, and still making it work or labour or for any purpose;
c) Wilfully and unreasonably administering any injurious drug or injurious substance;
d) Conveying or carrying, either in or upon any vehicle in such a manner as to subject it
to unnecessary pain or suffering;
e) Keeping or confining any animal in any cage or any receptacle, which does not measure
sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity
for movement;
f) Keeping for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably
heavy chain or chord;
g) Being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog
habitually chained up or kept in close confinement;
h) Being the owner of any animal fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink
or shelter;

3. i) Being the owner, without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances,
which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst;
j) Wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner to go at large in any street while
the animal is affected with a contagious or infectious disease, or without reasonable
excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner, to die in any
street;
k) Offers for sale or without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is
suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-
treatment
l) Mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of
strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner;
m) Solely with a view to providing entertainment -
i. Confines or causes to be confined any animals (including tying of an animal as bait in
a tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal;
ii. Incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal.
n) Organizes, keeps, uses or acts in the management of any place for animal fighting or
for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or
receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any
such purposes;
o) Promotes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are
released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting.
The Basic protection granted for the animals living in the territory on India derives from the
supreme source of law in our country, i.e., the Constitution of India which through Article 51
(G) states the following:
“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures."
The other legislative provisions which are stated in various laws prevailing in our country for
the protection of animals and giving legal rights to them include as follows:
 Killing, poisoning, maiming or torturing an animal is a cognizable offence under
Section 428 and Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment for such an act
is rigorous imprisonment which may extend for up to 2 years or a fine or both.

4.  According to Animal Birth Control Rules 2001, under Section 38 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, dogs can be sterilized only when they've attained the age
of at least 4 months and not before that.
 As per the Govt. of India, Animal Birth Control Rules 2001, no sterilised dogs can be
relocated from their area. If the dog is not sterilised, the society can ask an animal
welfare organization to sterilise and vaccinate it, but they cannot relocate them.
 Section 11 (i) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 says that abandoning an
animal, leaving it in a situation that it suffers pain due to starvation or thirst, is a
punishable offence.
 Keeping, or confining any animal chained for long hours with a heavy chain or chord
amounts to cruelty on the animal and punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 3
months or both.
 Teasing, molesting, injuring, feeding or causing disturbance to any animal by noise or
otherwise is prohibited according to the section 38(j) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Anyone found guilty of this offence may face an imprisonment of up to 3 years or a
fine of up to Rs 25,000 or both.
 If an owner fails to provide its pet with sufficient food, drink or shelter, he/she shall be
liable for punishment according to section 11 (1) (h) of The Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 is a punishable offence.
 Section 16 (c) of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 also makes it unlawful to injure,
destroy wild birds or reptiles, damaging their eggs or disturbing their eggs or nests. The
person found guilty can be punished with an imprisonment of 3 to 7 years and a fine of
Rs 25,000.
 It's illegal to slaughter animals at places, like temples and streets that are not licensed
to do so. The act of animal sacrifices is covered under Local Municipal Corporation
Acts, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
Indian Penal Code (IPC).
 According to section 98 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, animals should be
healthy and in good condition while transporting them. Any animal that's diseased,
fatigued or unfit for transport should not be transported. Furthermore, pregnant and very
young animals should be transported separately.
As declared by the Punjab and Haryana High Court treating all animals are living persons and
have their own set of rights. He further stated that animals can’t be treated as objects and

5. property and must be given justice. However the court has accorded dignity and honour for
animals. The Court was of the belief that every animal’s life is followed by the right to enjoy
it thus every provision to enjoy that dignity must be ensured and every infringement of their
right must be discouraged. The bench further in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Nagaraja
of the view extended the scope of Article 21 to include the right to life of animals too. Further
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act has substantiated the rights of the animals.
The Landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court in animal rights include as follows:
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals Vs. Union of India- In 2006, the Bombay High Court
passed an important ruling, wherein any film meant for public viewing, in which an animal is
used and/or filmed, has to obtain a certificate from the Animal Welfare Board of India, stating
that the provisions of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 have been duly met.
This ruling safeguards animals from being exploited or ill-treated during the period of film
making, which can extend across several hours.
Shri. Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. New Sarvodaya CHS Ltd- The Consumer Court ruled in
favour of a resident who complained that the co-op society in which he resided had passed a
resolution preventing dogs from making use of the building’s lifts. The society passed this
resolution on the basis that the dog was not a consumer and his usage of the lift could result in
the spread of diseases and hence could be disallowed from using the society’s facilities. To
this, the Court declared that the owner, being a member of the co-op housing society, was a
consumer and hence, was well within his rights to bring his complaint to the Consumer Court.
In addition, the dog bore a valid Kennel Club of India licence, was registered with the
Municipal Corporation and had been issued a Health Certificate by the Bombay Veterinary
College.
Ozair Hussain Vs. Union of India- Taking cognizance of the freedom of expression as
enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Article 10(2) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Delhi High Court declared that the
packaging of products including food, drugs (except those that are life-saving) and cosmetics
must contain information regarding the items’ vegetarian or non-vegetarian origins. Any article
of food that contains whole or part of an animal, but not including milk or milk products as an
ingredient, must be identified by a brown circle within a square outline.
State of U.P Vs. Mustakeem and Ors- the Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that the animals
were supposed to be confiscated from the owner and housed in a gaushala, under the care of

6. the state government who was given their charge for the duration of the case. With this ruling,
the Court made it amply clear that once an animal was removed from a person’s care on
grounds of cruelty to his/her charge, the animal would not be returned until the case was
resolved.
Gauri Maulekhi vs. Union of India and Ors- In 2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court banned the
illegal transport of cattle to Nepal for the Gadhimai festival, which played an important role in
bringing down the number of animals sacrificed that year. Prior to this, the Sahastra Seema Bal
worked with the petitioner to draft a set of regulations related to animal markets, cattle markets
and creating infrastructure for cattle, thus creating a set of recommendations that the court
certified.
Nair, N.R. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors- the Kerala High Court upheld a notification
by the Ministry of Environment and Forests stating that bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and
lions shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals. When the notification was
challenged in the Supreme Court, the court declared that animals suffer cruelty as they are
abused and caged to make them perform, and therefore, this contravenes the PCA Act, 1960.
Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A Nagaraja and Others- When the Supreme Court banned
the practice of Jallikattu in 2014, it alluded to various sections of the PCA Act, 1960, which
addresses unnecessary suffering of animals. Alluding to Section 3 and Section 11, the Hon’ble
Court declared that all animal fights incited by humans are illegal, even those carried out under
the guise of tradition and culture. The Court also listed various recommendations, among them
an overhaul of the penalties and punishments in the PCA Act, 1960, so as to allow it to function
effectively as a deterrent in cases related to animal cruelty.