Animal Ethics in Indian Law and Governance

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is India’s main law against animal cruelty. It is Act No. 59 of 1960. The theory behind it is covered in the Animal Ethics lesson already on this site.

The Act bans specific acts of cruelty. Section 11(1) lists acts such as beating, kicking, over-driving and over-loading an animal.

What does this look like in daily life?

A cart owner who works a bullock past exhaustion breaks this Act. So does a shopkeeper who beats a stray for scavenging.

Who watches over the law?

The Act set up the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). The Board was formed in 1962 under section 4 of the Act. Its founder Chairperson was Rukmini Devi Arundale.

The AWBI is a statutory body. That means a law created it. It advises the government and funds animal shelters. It also monitors how welfare rules are followed across the country. The Board is reconstituted once every three years.

They are very weak. Section 11 sets the punishment for cruelty. As amended in 1982, a first offence carries only a fine of Rs 10 to Rs 50.

A repeat offence within three years costs more. The fine is Rs 25 to Rs 100. The court can also give up to three months in jail, or both.

Is there a tougher law for killing an animal?

Yes. Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) covers it. The BNS is India’s new main criminal code. It came into force on 1 July 2024.

Section 325 punishes “mischief” against an animal. Mischief here means killing, poisoning, maiming or making an animal useless. The penalty is up to five years in jail, or a fine, or both.

What reform is pending?

The Centre released a draft PCA Amendment Bill on 20 November 2022. It proposed 61 changes to the Act.

• A new section 3A would add the five freedoms of animals. These include freedom from hunger and thirst, and from fear and distress.
• Killing an animal could bring up to five years in jail.
• It would also carry a minimum fine of Rs 75,000.

The bill has not been finalised. On 18 March 2025, the government told the Lok Sabha that no timeline was fixed. It had received over 7,000 suggestions from stakeholders.

The Act does not ban every use of animals. It targets unnecessary pain and suffering. Several common practices are left outside it.

• Farm practices: section 11(3) exempts dehorning cattle. It also exempts castration, branding and nose-roping done in the prescribed manner.
• Food: killing an animal for food is not cruelty under the Act. The exception ends if the killing causes unnecessary pain.
• Religion: section 28 says killing an animal in a way required by a community’s religion is not an offence.

Does the Act cover science and shows?

Yes. Section 15 lets the Central Government form a committee to control animal experiments. Chapter V deals with performing animals, such as animals trained for shows.

What is the common mistake?

Many students think the Act makes all killing of animals a crime. It does not. It is a welfare law. It controls how animals are used, not whether they are used.

In 2014, the Supreme Court banned Jallikattu, a bull-taming sport, and similar events. The case was Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), already covered on this site.

The case also covered the bullock cart race in Maharashtra. A two-judge bench heard it.

Why did the Court ban the sport?

The Court ruled that these practices caused clear animal suffering. It held that they broke sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the PCA Act.

Did it give animals constitutional rights?

Not as a binding rule. The judgment read the Act with Article 51A(g) and (h). It said animals’ rights under the Act are only statutory rights, meaning rights given by a law. It suggested these should be raised to fundamental rights.

A later five-judge bench explained this point in 2023. It said Nagaraja left this idea “at the advisory level”. It was a judicial suggestion, not a holding.

Jallikattu came back through new State laws. On 18 May 2023, a five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld those laws.

How did the sport return?

• 7 January 2016: a Union notification made an exception for bull events.
• 2017: Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka amended the PCA Act for their States. Each amendment got the President’s assent.

Karnataka’s law covered Kambala, a race with male buffaloes.

What did the 2023 bench hold?

This case was titled Animal Welfare Board of India vs Union of India. Justice Aniruddha Bose wrote the judgment.

• The Tamil Nadu law is not colourable legislation. That means a law that hides its real purpose to dodge limits on a State’s powers.
• In pith and substance, meaning its true nature, it falls under Entry 17 of the Concurrent List.
• It does not violate Articles 14, 21, 51A(g) or 51A(h).
• It cannot be tied to Article 48, which deals with cattle breeds.
• The new law and its Rules overcame the defects found in Nagaraja.
• The Maharashtra and Karnataka laws were also upheld.

Did the Court say Jallikattu is part of Tamil culture?

It left that question to the legislature. The bench said the judiciary cannot settle it. But it also disagreed with Nagaraja’s view that Jallikattu is not part of Tamil Nadu’s heritage.

The Court made District Magistrates responsible for strict enforcement of the safety rules.

No. The 2023 bench said there is no precedent for giving fundamental rights to animals. It also said Nagaraja does not lay down that animals have them.

What about Article 21?

Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty. The bench said it would not be prudent to bring bulls within it. It also said an animal cannot invoke Article 14 as a person.

Instead, a human or an organisation can go to court for animals. The Court left the wider question to the legislature.

Can courts declare animals legal persons?

The Supreme Court refused to do so in March 2023. A public interest petition asked it to declare the whole animal kingdom a legal entity. A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath dismissed it. It said such a prayer could not be granted under Article 32.

Wildlife is protected on a separate track. The main law is the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

It focuses on conserving endangered species and their habitats. It is not mainly about cruelty to single animals.

What is a simple comparison?

A poacher who kills a tiger is charged under the Wildlife Act. The crime is harming a protected species. The PCA Act instead handles everyday cruelty to ordinary animals, like livestock or pets.

What did the 2022 amendment change?

The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 came into force on 1 April 2023.

• The amending Bill cut the Schedules from six to four. It removed the Schedule for vermin, meaning small animals that carry disease or destroy food.
• It added a Schedule for species listed under CITES. This is a global treaty on trade in wild animals and plants.
• The Centre must name a Management Authority and a Scientific Authority for this trade.
• The Bill raised the fine for a general violation from Rs 25,000 to Rs 1,00,000.

Rules notified on 28 February 2024 apply to people who keep living CITES-listed animals. They must register them through the PARIVESH 2.0 portal.

Animal testing can bring real medical benefits for people. But it raises the same welfare questions covered in the Animal Ethics lesson.

What is a simple example?

A new vaccine tested on animals before human trials is widely accepted as necessary. A new lipstick shade tested the same way is banned in India. The benefit no longer outweighs the harm.

Who controls animal experiments?

The CCSEA does. Its full name is the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals. It is a statutory committee under section 15 of the PCA Act.

• It framed the Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998.
• Research institutions must register with the CCSEA.
• Each must set up an Institutional Animal Ethics Committee.
• On 31 December 2024, 1,697 establishments were registered with the CCSEA.

India banned cosmetic testing on animals in 2014. The ban came through an amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

It was notified as G.S.R. 346(E) on 21 May 2014. It added Rule 148-C. The rule says no person shall use any animal for testing cosmetics.

Why does this matter?

It is a clear policy choice. Animal welfare was put above a lower-priority business convenience.

Through birth control, not removal. Stray animal management, of dogs and cattle in particular, is a recurring governance issue in India. It mixes animal welfare, public safety and public health. These three interests do not always point the same way.

What do the ABC Rules say?

The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 were notified as G.S.R. 193(E) on 10 March 2023. They replaced the ABC (Dog) Rules, 2001.

• Local bodies carry out sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs.
• Only organisations recognised by the AWBI may run ABC programmes.
• Dogs may not be relocated to another area.

The steps below show the usual cycle.

Why not just remove the dogs?

A city that sterilises and vaccinates strays is trying to serve all three interests at once. Simply removing the animals would not do that.

Who pays for it?

Animal husbandry is a State subject. Article 243W lets States give local bodies such duties. So local bodies are responsible for stray dogs.

AWBI grants for dog birth control fell from Rs 24.4 lakh in 2018-19 to nil in 2021-24. Local bodies or State governments now pay directly.

Courts use it to read other laws more strongly. Courts have cited Article 51A(g), already covered on this site.

Article 51A(g) asks every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. Courts cite it in cases of cruelty to street animals. They also cite it on the treatment of working and draught animals.

Can a court enforce it directly?

Not on its own. Article 51A(g) is a Fundamental Duty, not a Fundamental Right. So it is not directly enforceable. See whether Fundamental Duties are enforceable in court.

Courts instead use it to interpret and strengthen rulings under other laws. In 2023, the Supreme Court tested the Jallikattu law against Articles 51A(g) and (h). It found no conflict.

Because jobs and welfare pull in different directions. Livestock and slaughterhouse rules weigh economic livelihoods against animal welfare. The dairy, meat and leather industries all depend on animals.

This is a practical case of the ethics-versus-economics tension already covered on this site. The dairy and livestock sector shows the economic side.

What is the scale?

Slaughterhouse welfare rules are politically contested.

Recall the PCA Act’s food exception from card 3. Killing for food is allowed, unless it causes unnecessary pain.

Not at the national level. The claim that India gave animals legal personhood is overstated.

What did the High Courts do?

Some High Courts have gone further than the Supreme Court. They have treated an animal’s interest as a legal matter, not just a moral one.

But the Supreme Court has not followed this path. In March 2023, it refused to declare animals legal entities. In May 2023, it declined to give animals fundamental rights.

What is welfare versus rights?

This is a common exam theme.

• Animal welfare law controls how animals may be used.
• Animal rights would treat some uses as simply off-limits.

India’s legal framework stays firmly welfare-based. That holds even in its more animal-friendly rulings.

What is the enforcement gap?

Enforcement is often the real gap, not the absence of a law. The PCA Act is often criticised for outdated, very low penalties. A fine of Rs 10 to Rs 50 does little to deter cruelty in practice.

On 19 May 2026, the Supreme Court gave its final judgment on stray dogs. Dogs picked up from hospitals, schools, bus stands and similar premises must be sheltered. They are not to be released back there after sterilisation.

What are the key points of the judgment?

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria gave it.

• Institutions: dogs in schools, hospitals, airports, bus stands and railway stations are not “street dogs” under Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules.
• No re-release: such dogs have no absolute right to be returned there under Rule 11(19).
• Feeding: groups that feed dogs inside an institution must file an affidavit of liability with its Head.
• Officials: those who do not comply face contempt or disciplinary action.
• Euthanasia: allowed in cases of rabid, incurably ill or clearly dangerous dogs. Qualified vets must assess each case first.
• Article 21: the right to life includes moving in public spaces without constant fear of attack.

The ruling puts human safety first under Article 21. The PCA Act and the ABC Rules stay fully in force.

How did the case reach this point?

Here are the main steps, newest first.

• 19 May 2026: final judgment, as above.
• 7 November 2025: the Court ordered fencing and nodal officers for institutional areas. It asked the AWBI for a standard procedure within four weeks.
• 28 July 2025: the Court took up the issue on its own. A news report on the death of a six-year-old girl after a dog attack started it.

So what?

This is a live example of the stray-animal tension from card 10. Welfare, public safety and public health all pull on one decision. The threat of contempt of court backs the compliance orders.

Exams test the gap between welfare and rights, and recent rulings. The timeline below puts the key dates in order.

How should you build an answer?

1. Name the law: the PCA Act, the BNS or the Wildlife Act.
2. Say what it protects, and what it still allows.
3. Add the latest ruling, such as the 2023 Jallikattu case.
4. Show the tension: welfare, safety, livelihood or culture.
5. End with the enforcement gap and the pending reform.

Check each pair against this list.

1. PCA Act vs Wildlife Act. The PCA Act covers cruelty to any animal. The Wildlife Act protects listed species and habitats.
2. Nagaraja vs the 2023 bench. Nagaraja banned Jallikattu in 2014. The 2023 bench upheld the 2017 State laws.
3. Statutory vs fundamental rights. Animals have rights under the PCA Act. Courts have declined to give them fundamental rights.
4. AWBI vs CCSEA. The AWBI is the general welfare board. The CCSEA controls animal experiments.
5. Duty vs right. Article 51A(g) is a duty, so it is not directly enforceable.
6. Sterilise and return vs shelter. The ABC Rules return dogs. The 2026 judgment keeps institutional areas free of re-release.