Open Access Research Article
EXAMINING THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN STRENGTHENING ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
EXAMINING THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
TO ANIMALS ACT: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN STRENGTHENING ANIMAL WELFARE
LAWS IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY - ANUSHA VENUGOPAL
3rd year BA.LL.B
Christ (Deemed to be University),
Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
This paper
explores the current landscape of the animal welfare legislation in India,
highlighting significant gaps and challenges in its implementation. Despite
India's deep-rooted cultural tradition of respecting and worshipping animals,
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 and related laws have fallen
short in addressing modern animal welfare concerns. The study examines key
weaknesses in the legal framework, such as outdated penalties and enforcement
challenges. Through case studies and a comparative analysis of international
standards, this research proposes targeted reforms to strengthen India's animal
welfare laws. These include stricter penalties, more effective enforcement
mechanisms, expanded legal protections for all species, and improved
coordination between state and central regulations. Additionally, the paper
discusses the social, economic, and ethical implications of improving animal
welfare standards, emphasizing that modernized legislation would not only
safeguard animals but also uphold India's constitutional principles and cultural
heritage.
Keywords:
animal welfare, the prevention of cruelty to animals Act 1960, targeted
reforms, stricter penalties
I.
INTRODUCTION
India has
a rich and complex history of animal protection and welfare. From ancient texts
advocating compassion for all creatures to contemporary legal frameworks, that
are still evolving. The nation's dedication to animal rights has undergone
significant evolution over the years. Animal welfare in India is deeply rooted
in history, with its origins found in ancient texts like the Vedas, Upanishads,
Buddhist and Jain scriptures. These teachings strongly advocated for
non-violence (Ahimsa) and the compassionate treatment of all living beings. One
of the earliest instances of formalized animal protection can be seen in the
policies of Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE, where he enacted some of the
first-known wildlife conservation laws, banning the killing of certain species
and promoting veterinary care.[1] Hindu
deities are often associated with animals, further reinforcing their sacred
status in Indian society. Despite these cultural values, contemporary issues
such as animal cruelty, and exploitation in industries like dairy,
entertainment, and testing continue to pose serious threats to animal welfare.
Addressing these challenges requires a legal framework that is both reflective
of India’s historical ethos and responsive to modern concerns.[2]
The British colonial administration
introduced several laws that indirectly addressed animal welfare, mainly through
regulations on transportation, slaughter, and treatment of working animals.
However, these were primarily designed for economic and administrative purposes
rather than ethical considerations. The first major legal step came with the
enactment of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act)[3],
which remains the cornerstone of India’s animal protection laws today. The PCA
Act established the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and laid out
broad protections against cruelty to animals. However, despite its progressive
intent, the law has remained largely unchanged for over six decades. Many of
its provisions, including penalties for violations, are outdated and
insufficient to deter cruelty.
While constitutional provisions, i.e.
the fundamental duty enshrined in Article 51A(g)[4] of
the Indian Constitution mandate compassion toward animals, incidents of
cruelty in industries such as dairy farming, entertainment, and animal
testing continue to persist. Additionally, rapid urbanization and industrial
expansion have further exacerbated the challenges in implementing animal
protection laws.
This study aims to:
- Examine the historical evolution of animal welfare
in India and its cultural significance.
- Analyze the gaps and challenges in the current
legal framework governing animal welfare.
- Compare India's animal protection laws with
international standards and best practices.
- Propose specific reforms to strengthen animal
welfare laws, including stricter penalties, improved enforcement mechanisms,
and enhanced legal protections for all species.
Thesis Statement:
India’s existing animal welfare laws,
despite their strong historical and cultural foundations, are inadequate in
addressing contemporary challenges due to weak enforcement, outdated penalties,
and legal inconsistencies. Strengthening these laws through stricter
penalties, improved regulatory mechanisms, and alignment with global best
practices is essential to ensuring effective animal protection while
upholding India’s constitutional and ethical commitments.
II.
CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A.
Overview of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960
The Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) is India's primary legislation
aimed at preventing cruelty to animals and ensuring their welfare. It was
enacted to replace colonial-era laws and align animal protection with India's
evolving ethical, social, and legal values. The Act established the legal
foundation for safeguarding animals from unnecessary suffering and has been
central to animal welfare regulations in India for over six decades. Experts
and activists in the current century believe that this legislation may have
aligned to the cultural values years back, but fails to align with the current
animal welfare concerns.
B.
Other relevant legislations
1.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
o
Section 325: Criminalizes killing or maiming
animals, prescribing imprisonment and fines.
C.
Constitutional Provisions Related to Animal
Welfare
The Indian Constitution recognizes the importance
of animal welfare through various provisions:
o Article 48: Directs the State to organize
agriculture and animal husbandry on modern scientific lines and prohibit the
slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle.
o Article
51A (g): Establishes a fundamental duty for Indian citizens to show
compassion toward animals.
o Entry 17
(Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule): Allows both central and state
governments to legislate on issues related to animal welfare.
D.
Recent Judicial Interpretations and Landmark
Cases
Indian courts have played a crucial role in
interpreting animal welfare laws and expanding protections through progressive
judgments. Some landmark cases include:
FACTS:
The case
addresses two primary sets of legal challenges related to Jallikattu and
bullock-cart races. The first set involves the Division Bench Judgment of the
Madras High Court, which upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of
Jallikattu Act (TNRJ Act) and dismissed various writ petitions questioning the
Ministry of Environment and Forest's (MoEF) Notification dated 11.07.2011. The
appeal for a ban on Jallikattu dates back to 2006 when a petition was filed
before the Madras High Court seeking permission to conduct the event. While the
single bench initially banned Jallikattu, citing cruelty to animals, the
Division Bench later overturned this decision, allowing the event under
specific conditions. However, these conditions were often disregarded, prompting
the Animal Welfare Board, a statutory body under Section 4 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, to issue a notification prohibiting the use of
bulls as "performing animals."
The second
set of cases involves challenges to the Division Bench Judgment of the Bombay
High Court dated 12.03.2012, which upheld the MoEF Notification and the
Maharashtra Government’s corrigendum that prohibited bullock-cart races, games,
training, and exhibitions. In these cases, the petitioners approached the
Supreme Court, seeking enforcement of the notification. The respondents, on the
other hand, argued against a ban, citing cultural and traditional grounds to
justify the continuation of Jallikattu and similar events.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether the events that are being conducted in the
States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are in violation of Sections 3,
11(1)(a) & (m), 21 and 22 of the PCA
Act read with Articles 51A(g) and (h) of
the Constitution.
2.
Whether provisions of the TNRJ Act,
which is a State Act, is repugnant to the PCA Act, which is a
Central Act, since both the Acts fall under Entry No. 17 in the Concurrent
List.
JUDGEMENT:
The Court
upheld the Animal Welfare Board of India’s (AWBI) stance that events like
Jallikattu and bullock-cart races inherently violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a), and
11(1)(m)(ii) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act. Consequently,
the Central Government’s notification dated 11.07.2011 was upheld, barring the
use of bulls as performing animals in such events across Tamil Nadu,
Maharashtra, and the rest of India. The Court affirmed that the rights
guaranteed to animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act, read with
Articles 51A(g) of the Constitution.
The Court
emphasized the importance of protecting the “five freedoms” of animals within
Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act. It directed the AWBI, central and state
governments, and union territories to ensure the well-being of animals and
prevent unnecessary pain and suffering. Officials in charge of animal care were
mandated to follow measures that safeguard animals’ rights, including
prohibiting their incitement to fight with humans or other animals, as outlined
in Section 11(1)(m)(ii). Even in cases covered under Section 11(3), the Court
directed that scientific methods should be adopted to avoid unnecessary harm to
animals. Further, the AWBI and governments were instructed to educate the
public about humane treatment of animals, in line with Section 9(k) of the PCA
Act and Articles 51A(g) and (h). Parliament was urged to amend the PCA Act to
strengthen penalties and elevate animal rights to constitutional status, as
seen in other countries, ensuring their dignity and honor. Disciplinary
measures were directed for officials failing to comply with the PCA Act and the
Court’s declarations. The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu (TNRJ) Act was
deemed repugnant to the PCA Act and held constitutionally invalid under Article
254(1) of the Constitution, as previously observed in Vijay Kumar Sharma v.
State of Karnataka. AWBI was directed to collaborate with the Society for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to enforce the PCA Act effectively,
submit periodic reports, and ensure appropriate follow-up actions to remedy
violations. The judgment underscored the legislative and executive
responsibilities in upholding animal welfare.
2. People for
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. Union of India (2016)[6] – Ban
on Circus Animals
FACTS:
Article 51
(a)(g) of the constitution of India encompasses a fundamental duty on all
citizens to show compassion towards living beings. The Performing Animals (Registration)
Rules, 2001 was incorporated under the Prevention of crueltyCruelty
to animalsAnimals
Act,1960 and these rules were provided to safeguard performing animals from any
kind of abuse and also to improve their conditions of training and expression.
The Petitioner alleged that the mandatory provisions provided in these rules
were being violated in the realm of cinematography which also included
commercial advertisements. They pledged to the Union of India, To provide for a
NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE from the Animal Welfare Board of India. They pledged
to the Union of India, to implement the compulsory compliance of a no-objection
certificate from the Animal Welfare Board of India in consonance with the
censor board for depiction of animals in any cinematographic film.
ISSUES:
Whether
the mandatory provisions of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001,
are being observed in the depiction of animals in cinematographic films, and
whether the certification rules framed under the Cinematographic Act, 1952,
must be harmonized with the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001, to
protect the welfare of animals.
LAW:
Rule 3,7,8
and 16 of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 provide for the
application of registration for hiring or lending performing animals used in
the shooting of a cinematographic movie in India.
JUDGEMENT:
The
Supreme Court, as reiterated in multiple landmark judgements held that the
welfare of animals is a stated constitutional goal and the Performing Animals
(Registration) Rules, 2001 must be adhered to with strict compliance and must
be in harmonization with the certification rules to achieve the ultimate goal
of ensuring welfare for animals. The court directed the Union of India and the
Censor Board of India to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Animal
Welfare board of India certifying compliance with the Rules before certifying films
for public exhibition. The Court also directed films for public exhibition to
obtain a declaration that no cruelty was caused to the animals during the
shooting of a film produced in India.
While
India has a strong legal and constitutional framework for animal
protection, weak enforcement, outdated penalties, and jurisdictional
conflicts continue to undermine its effectiveness. The judiciary has
played an active role in strengthening animal rights, but legal reforms are
necessary to modernize existing laws and ensure stronger protections for all
species.
CRITICAL
ANALYSIS OF THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960
1.
Outdated Penalties:
The
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 being an age-old tradition has
outdated penalties, as low as twenty five rupees which significantly undermine
its effectiveness. For perspective, when the Act was passed in 1960, Rs. 50
represented a significant sum; today, it is inconsequential for most offenders,
particularly commercial establishments or businesses profiting from animal
exploitation. This gap between the severity of animal cruelty offenses and
their punishment creates a system where violators often view fines as merely a
minor cost of doing business.
2.
Enforcement Challenges and Institutional
Weaknesses
This act
faces significant implementation challenges due to limited capacity of
enforcing such laws. The AWBI established under the Act, remains underfunded
and understaffed relative to its nationwide mandate. Police officials, who are
primarily responsible for enforcing the Act, often lack specialized training in
animal welfare laws and may assign lower priority to animal cruelty cases
compared to other crimes. Furthermore, the Act grants only limited authority
to animal welfare organizations and inspectors, hindering their ability to
effectively address cases of cruelty. The lack of a specialized enforcement
unit dedicated to animal welfare violations exacerbates these difficulties.
3.
Lack of Explicit Recognition of Animal
Sentience
The Act
was enacted before significant scientific advancements in understanding animal
cognition and sentience. Although it emphasizes preventing unnecessary pain and
suffering, it does not explicitly acknowledge animals as sentient beings with
emotions and intrinsic value. This conceptual gap influences how the Act is
interpreted and applied, potentially limiting its effectiveness in safeguarding
animals when their psychological well-being, rather than just their physical state,
is at risk.[7]
4.
Challenges in Accessing Justice
The
legal framework for addressing animal cruelty under the Act poses considerable
obstacles to effective enforcement. Registering cases, collecting evidence, and
pursuing prosecution are often time-consuming and complex.[8]
The responsibility of proving cruelty typically falls on animal welfare
organizations or concerned individuals, who may lack sufficient resources. Additionally,
the Act does not mandate expedited hearings for such cases, leading to
prolonged legal proceedings. As a result, animals involved may continue to
suffer or, in many instances, perish before a resolution is achieved.
5.
Insufficient Alignment with Global
Standards
India’s
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not fully align with modern
international best practices in animal welfare. Although it was considered
progressive when enacted in 1960, it has not been comprehensively updated to
reflect global advancements in animal protection. Key areas where the Act falls
behind include regulations on farm animal welfare, the promotion of
alternatives to animal testing, detailed guidelines for the transportation of
animals, and standardized requirements for animal housing and care across
different settings.
III.
A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
ON ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS: INDIA VS. OTHER NATIONS
The Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) was an important milestone in
India’s animal welfare legislation at the time of its enactment. However, it
has not been comprehensively revised to align with evolving global standards on
animal protection. In contrast, several other countries have
recognized animal sentience, increased penalties for cruelty, and
established specialized enforcement agencies, highlighting the gaps in India’s
regulatory framework.
A major
distinction between India’s PCA Act and international laws is the legal
acknowledgment of animal sentience. The Treaty of Lisbon (2009) of
the European Union (EU) explicitly defines animals as sentient beings,
requiring member states to integrate animal welfare considerations into policy
decisions.[9] Similarly, New
Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act (1999) affirms that animals can experience pain
and distress, thus mandating legal protection for their mental
well-being. Countries such as Canada and Australia have also
integrated scientific findings on animal cognition into their legal frameworks.
Conversely, the PCA Act lacks explicit recognition of animal sentience,
which narrows the scope of legal protection against cases of neglect, psychological
distress, and confinement.
Another
critical shortcoming of India’s animal welfare law is its inadequate
penalties for cruelty. For instance, the United Kingdom’s Animal Welfare
Act (2006) imposes up to five years of imprisonment and
unlimited fines for severe cruelty.[10] (Animal
Welfare Act 2006, c. 45 (U.K.)). In Germany, penalties for animal
abuse can reach €25,000, and courts may impose lifelong bans on
animal ownership for offenders.[11] The United
States strengthened its laws in 2019 with the Preventing Animal
Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT Act), making extreme acts of animal cruelty
a federal felony punishable by up to seven years in prison.[12]
In stark contrast, Section 11 of India’s PCA Act sets a maximum fine
of ?50 for first-time offenses and ?100 for repeat offenses, which
is insufficient to serve as a deterrent.[13]
Another
area where India falls behind is the enforcement of animal cruelty laws.
Many nations, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia,
have dedicated animal welfare enforcement agencies, with trained officers
to investigate and prosecute cases. In India, however, enforcement
responsibilities fall under the general police force, which often lacks
the specialized training required to handle animal cruelty cases. Moreover,
there is no dedicated department or authority specifically focused on
animal welfare violations, resulting in delays in investigation, poor case
resolution, and a low conviction rate. Without proper enforcement,
even existing animal protection laws remain largely ineffective.
Finally, India’s
approach to animal testing regulations remains outdated. Countries such as
the EU, Norway, and Israel have completely banned cosmetic testing on
animals, promoting cruelty-free alternatives. While India has prohibited
cosmetic testing on animals, it does not have a comprehensive framework to
encourage alternatives in pharmaceutical and industrial chemical testing.
This regulatory gap results in continued animal suffering in research
facilities, whereas international laws have progressively shifted toward humane
testing methods.
IV.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
A.
Phased Approach to Reform
Strengthening animal welfare laws in India,
particularly the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, necessitates a
gradual and structured implementation strategy. The process should begin with a
detailed evaluation of the current enforcement landscape across different
states, identifying regional inconsistencies and pinpointing specific
obstacles. This initial phase would involve gathering data on how effectively
laws are being enforced, analyzing case resolution rates, and identifying
procedural delays or inefficiencies. Following this assessment, a pilot
initiative could be launched in selected districts that reflect varied geographical
and socio-economic conditions to test revised protocols and enforcement
mechanisms.
In the second stage, successful strategies from the
pilot program should be expanded to a broader scale, incorporating insights
gained from the initial implementation. Adjustments should be made based on
regional feedback, ensuring that the approach remains adaptable to local
challenges. During this phase, legal frameworks should be gradually revised to
eliminate loopholes and address emerging concerns. The final stage would
involve nationwide standardization, establishing a uniform set of enforcement
protocols while allowing for some flexibility to accommodate region-specific
needs. Throughout this process, regular performance assessments and strategic
refinements would ensure that the reforms remain effective and responsive to
evolving circumstances.
B.
Capacity Building for Enforcement
Agencies
For the successful implementation of animal welfare
laws, enforcement authorities must undergo significant capacity enhancement.
This should start with specialized training for police personnel,
veterinarians, and members of the judiciary on legal provisions related to
animal welfare, proper procedures for gathering evidence in cruelty cases, and
ethical handling of rescued animals. These training programs must blend
theoretical knowledge of the legal framework with practical, scenario-based
exercises to enhance real-world application.
Additionally, infrastructure improvements are
crucial. Dedicated animal welfare units should be established within police
departments in key districts, equipped with essential resources such as
transport vehicles for animals, temporary shelter facilities, and forensic
tools for evidence collection in cruelty cases. Moreover, the technological
capacity of enforcement agencies should be strengthened through digital case
management systems and advanced forensic analysis methods. Collaboration among
agencies—including law enforcement, veterinary services, animal welfare boards,
and NGOs—must be streamlined through formal coordination mechanisms, ensuring
clear procedures for reporting, investigating, and prosecuting cases of animal
cruelty.
C. Stakeholder
Engagement and Public Awareness
Broad stakeholder participation and public
awareness campaigns play a vital role in the effective enforcement of animal
welfare laws. It is essential to establish formal consultative platforms that
include government bodies, animal welfare groups, veterinary associations,
farming communities, and local representatives. These platforms would provide a
space for ongoing discussions on implementation challenges and the development
of practical, balanced solutions that account for multiple perspectives.
To enhance public awareness, targeted campaigns
should be designed to reach diverse audiences through appropriate communication
channels. While social media and digital outreach can be effective in urban
areas, community-driven initiatives such as local workshops and village
meetings should be prioritized in rural settings. Integrating educational
content on animal welfare into school curricula can instill compassion for
animals from an early age. Additionally, establishing community-based reporting
systems, such as mobile apps, dedicated helplines, and trained volunteer
networks, would empower citizens to actively report and intervene in cases of
animal cruelty. Engaging religious and cultural leaders is also important, as
they can promote traditional values of compassion toward animals while
discouraging harmful practices under the guise of culture or tradition.
D. Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks
A strong monitoring and evaluation system is
essential to ensure that animal welfare laws are effectively enforced and
consistently improved. This requires the development of clear performance
indicators that assess both procedural efficiency (e.g., number of cases filed,
speed of investigations, and conviction rates) and overall impact (e.g.,
reductions in cruelty incidents and improvements in animal health standards).
To ensure consistency in reporting, standardized data collection protocols should
be adopted across all jurisdictions.
Regular independent audits by multidisciplinary
teams—including legal experts, animal welfare advocates, and public policy
specialists—should be conducted to evaluate implementation quality and identify
systemic gaps. These evaluations should feed into a continuous improvement
framework, where policy refinements and procedural enhancements are directly
informed by audit findings. Furthermore, stakeholder feedback loops should be
integrated into the monitoring system, allowing frontline enforcement officers,
NGOs, and community members to share their experiences and suggest improvements.
Leveraging technology-driven tracking systems can significantly enhance
oversight by providing real-time data on case progress, resource allocation,
and geographical trends in animal welfare violations.
V.
IMPLICATIONS ON THE
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF BETTER LAWS IN THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTLY TO
ANIMALS ACT
The effective
enforcement of strengthened animal welfare laws reflects a commitment to
evolving ethical perspectives while upholding India’s deep-rooted cultural
traditions of compassion for animals. Ancient Indian philosophical schools,
including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism,
emphasize ahimsa (non-violence) and the intrinsic value of all living
beings. Modern reforms to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act,
when implemented effectively, would integrate these age-old ethical
principles with contemporary scientific insights into animal
sentience and cognitive abilities, recognizing animals as sentient beings
capable of suffering rather than mere property.
This ethical
shift has wider societal implications. Studies indicate a link
between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, highlighting how
institutionalizing compassion toward animals contributes to
broader social harmony. The rigorous enforcement of animal protection laws
reinforces collective moral responsibility toward vulnerable beings,
setting a standard for ethical treatment. Furthermore, these legal advancements
align with the growing ethical consciousness of younger generations, who
are increasingly factoring animal welfare into their lifestyle and
consumer decisions. By strengthening animal protection measures
through effective law enforcement, India not only reinforces its
historical commitment to compassionate values but also positions
itself as a global leader in the progressive ethical discourse surrounding
animal rights.
VI.
CONCLUSION
The strengthening and
effective enforcement of animal welfare laws in India, particularly the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, marks a pivotal moment in the country’s legal,
social, and ethical evolution. This study has highlighted that enhancing these
laws goes beyond just safeguarding animals—it also intersects with public
health, environmental sustainability, economic growth, and ethical progress.
The phased approach to reform outlined in this discussion offers a practical
and adaptable strategy, ensuring that improvements account for India’s diverse
socioeconomic landscape while setting the foundation for long-term
advancements. Recognizing that legal provisions alone are insufficient, this
research underscores the importance of capacity-building measures such as
training programs, infrastructure development, and interagency collaboration.
These enhancements will help translate legal mandates into actionable
protections. Additionally, broad stakeholder engagement and public awareness
initiatives play a crucial role in shifting cultural attitudes toward greater
acknowledgment of animal sentience and welfare needs.
As India progresses on
its development path, the way it addresses animal welfare will serve as a
reflection of its broader commitment to sustainability, compassion, and
justice. As Mahatma Gandhi famously said, "The greatness of a
nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are
treated." Strengthening the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
presents an opportunity to position India as a leader in animal welfare
governance, striking a balance between tradition and progress, economic
priorities and ethical considerations, human interests and the protection of
vulnerable animals. Through well-structured reforms and committed enforcement,
India can build a model framework that both honours its rich cultural heritage
and meets evolving global standards for animal welfare.
[1] Chandrashekar, U., SFM.
(n.d.). WILD LIFE PROTECTION
[2] V, J. (2019). The Sacred
Animals of Hinduism. Hinduwebsite.com. https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/sacred-animals-of-hinduism.asp
[3] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, No. 59 of 1960. (1960). https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/11237/1/the_prevention_of_cruelty_to_animals_act%2C_1960.pdf
[4] Gov’t of India, The Constitution
of India, art. 51A(g) (1950),
[6] People for Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) India v. Union of India, (2016) 14 S.C.C. 142 (India).
[7] David J. Mellor, Updating
Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving Beyond the "Five Freedoms" Towards
"A Life Worth Living", 6 Animals 21 (2016), https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/3/21.
[8] Animal Welfare Board of
India, Annual Report on Animal Cruelty Cases in India (2021),
available at https://awbi.gov.in.
[9] Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union art. 13, Feb. 7, 1992, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 47, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT
Article Information
EXAMINING THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN STRENGTHENING ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS IN INDIA
Authors: ANUSHA VENUGOPAL
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/22
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.