The Curious Case of Nagaraja in India: Are Animals Still Regarded as “Property” With No Claim Rights?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, No. 59 of 1960, India Code (1982), available at http://bamu.ac.in/dept/zoology/1.%20Prevention%20of%20cruelty%20to%20animals%20act.%201960.pdf.

2 Id. sec. 2(a).

3 Id. sec. 3. The PCA was interpreted in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 6 SCALE 468, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39696860/. The court concluded that: “To experience the suffering, [against which PCA offers protection] the animal needs an awareness of its environment, the ability to develop moods that coordinate a behavioral response, and the capacity to change adverse situation or avoid them.” Id. at para. 30.

4 India Const. art. 51A.

5 Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, 23 Yale L.J. 16, 49 (1913). Rights are judicial correlatives of duties.

6 See infra for a discussion on legal personhood.

7 Abdulkadar Mohama Azam Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2011) manu. 0504 (Gujarat H.C.), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/440140/.

8 Central Zoo Authority of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Policy on Establishment of Dolphinarium, Circular No. 20-1/2010-CZA(M)/2840 (2013), available at http://envfor.nic.in/assets/ban%20on%20dolphanariums.pdf.

9 The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, No. 52 of 1972, India Code (1993), available at http://envfor.nic.in/legis/wildlife/wildlife1.html. As per Section 38H of the WPA, every zoo requires prior approval and recognition from the Central Zoo Authority to be established and to start its operations. Section 38H(4), Central Zoo Authority grants recognition to zoos only when it is in the interest of protection and conservation of wildlife. Id. sec. 38H.

10 The Helsinki Group, Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: Whales and Dolphins (2010), available at http://www.cetaceanrights.org/pdf_bin/helsinki-group.pdf.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. Union of India (2013) 8 SCC 234, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27900105/.

14 Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 6 SCALE 468, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39696860/.

15 Id.

16 Rene Descartes, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences (Project Gutenberg Ebook 2008) (1637), available at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm.

17 Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 2: The Eternal Reality of the Soul's Immortality, http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/chapter-02.html (last visited June 8, 2016); see also Iskcon, Reincarnation and Samsara, The Heart of Hinduism, http://hinduism.iskcon.org/concepts/102.htm (last visited June 8, 2016).

18 Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics 240 (Louis Infield trans.1963).

19 Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation 225 (Batoche Books 2000) (1781), available at http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bentham/morals.pdf.

20 Gary L. Francione, Animals: Property or Persons?, in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions 108, 118–119 (Cass R. Sunstein & Martha C. Nussbaum eds., 2004), available at http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21.

21 Id. at 122.

22 Id. at 123–126.

23 Id. at 130.

24 Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (1975).

25 Scott D. Wilson, Animals and Ethics, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/ (last visited January 21, 2016).

26 Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, in In Defense of Animals 13, 22 (Peter Singer ed., 1985), available at http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.pdf.

27 Id. at 18–21.

28 Centre for Environment Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013) 8 SCC 234, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27900105/.

29 Id. at para. 39.

30 Id. (echoing the “public trust” doctrine as laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388).

31 Steven M. Wise, Legal Personhood and the Nonhuman Rights Project, 17 Animal L. 1 (2010).

32 Id.

33 David Favre, Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System, 93 Marq. L. Rev. 1021 (2010).

34 Wise, supra note 31.

35 Max Radin, The Endless Problem of Corporate Personality, 32 Colum. L. Rev. 643 (1932).

36 Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, 23 Yale L.J. 16 (1913).

37 Wise, supra note 31.

38 For judicial recognition of legal personhood of slaves, see Somerset v. Stewart, 98 Eng. Rep. 499 (1772) (holding that human slavery was incompatible with the common law of England), available at http://www.commonlii.org/int/cases/EngR/1772/57.pdf; see also Steven M. Wise, Though the Heavens May Fall: The Landmark Trial That Led to the End of Human Slavery (2006) [hereinafter Wise, Though the Heavens May Fall]. For judicial recognition of legal personhood of idols, see Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925) 27 BOMLR 1064, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/290902/; Kartick Maheshwari & Vishnu Vardhan Shankar, Stone Gods and Earthly Interests: The Jural Relations and Consequence of Attributing Legal Personality to Hindu Idols, 16 Nat'l L. Sch. of India U., Bangalore 46 (2004).

39 Wise, supra note 31.

40 Id.

41 Id.

42 Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. Union of India (2013) 8 SCC 234 (India), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27900105/.

43 Id.

44 Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 6 SCALE 468 (India) [hereinafter Nagaraja], available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39696860/.

45 Id. at para. 2.

46 Id. at paras. 8–9.

47 Id. at paras. 15–34.

48 Id. at para. 12; see Centre for Environment Law, 8 SCC 234, at para. 49 (stating that “[t]he cardinal issue is … the preservation of an endangered species for which we have to apply the ‘species best interest standard[.]’ Our approach should not be human-centric or family-centric but eco-centric”).

49 Nagaraja, at para. 12.

50 Id. at paras. 26–57.

51 Id. at paras. 27–28.

52 Id. at para. 53.

53 Id. at para. 30.

54 Id. at para. 28.

55 Id. at para. 46.

56 Id. at paras. 52–54.

57 Id. at para. 54.

58 Id. at para. 56.

59 Id. at para. 62.

60 Id. at paras. 31–33.

61 Id. at para. 55. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act 1978, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, which recognized the right to property as a fundamental right, were repealed. In their place, Article 300A was inserted, which recognizes the right to property as a legal/constitutional right, unenforceable as a fundamental right.

62 Centre for Environment Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013) 8 SCC 234, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27900105/.

63 See Favre, supra note 32.

64 Wise, supra note 31.

65 Favre, supra note 32, at 1033.

66 Regan, supra note 26.

67 See Kant, supra note 18; Bentham, supra note 19; Francione, supra note 20; Singer, supra note 24.

68 See Nagaraja, at paras. 54–56.

69 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) AIR 420 (India); M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 256 (India); Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577, 580 (India).

70 Nagaraja, at para. 62.

71 Id.

72 Centre for Environment Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013) 8 SCC 234, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27900105/.

73 Nagaraja, at para. 32.

74 “Court has also a duty under the doctrine of parens patriae to take care of the rights of animals, since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings.” Id. at para. 26.

75 See Prani Raksha Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 56 MPHT 169 (Madhya Pradesh H.C.).

76 See id.

77 (1987) AIR. 1109, SC 2 (India).

78 India Const. art. 226; see Prani Raksha Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 56 M.P.H.T. 169 (Madhya Pradesh H.C.).

79 (2016) W.P. (Civil) No. 24, slip op., available at http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2016-01-12_1452599675.pdf.

80 Id. at 11.

81 Id.

82 See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985) AIR 652 (India); Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) A.I.R. 1446 (India); M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2001) A.I.R. 1948 (India); Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) A.I.R. 2715 (India); see contra Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) AIR 420 (India).

83 See Prani Raksha Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 56 MPHT 169 (Madhya Pradesh H.C.).

84 Id.

85 (2016) W.P. (Civil) No. 24.