ABSTRACT
This research paper explores the constitutional mandates and policy interventions that shape animal welfare in India. It analyzes the relevant constitutional provisions, including Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties, and examines key legislation such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The study highlights significant judicial pronouncements that have expanded the scope of animal rights and discusses the role of institutional mechanisms like the Animal Welfare Board of India. Additionally, the paper addresses the challenges in enforcement and recent policy developments impacting animal welfare. The findings underscore the need for stronger implementation and public awareness to ensure effective protection and compassionate treatment of animals in India.
KEYWORDS- Animal welfare, Animal rights, Wildlife protection act, Judicial interpretation, Prevention of cruelty to animals.
INTRODUCTION
Animal welfare has emerged as a crucial dimension of environmental and ethical concerns worldwide, including India. With the growing recognition of animal sentience and rights, India’s constitutional framework, legal statutes, and policies have gradually evolved to protect animals from cruelty and exploitation. This paper explores the historical and constitutional foundations of animal welfare in India, examines the legislative landscape, and evaluates key judicial interpretations and policy interventions. It also highlights challenges and suggests pathways for reform, aiming to balance cultural practices with ethical animal treatment.
Constitution of India, Art. 48.
Constitution of India, Art. 48A.
Constitution of India, Art. 51A(g).
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547.
Constitutional Architecture
2.1 Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)
Article 48 instructs the State to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and, in particular, to take steps for preserving and improving breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. While non‑justiciable, Art. 48 has concretely shaped State cattle protection laws and administrative priorities.
Article 48A (inserted by the 42nd Amendment) directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife. Though framed broadly, its sweep has allowed courts and governments to fold animal welfare within environmental stewardship.
2.2 Fundamental Duties
Article 51A(g) obliges every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Indian courts increasingly treat 51A(g) as a constitutional value that informs statutory interpretation and the development of judge‑made principles in animal law. Article 51A(h)—to develop scientific temper—has been read alongside 51A(g) to ground evidence‑based, humane policy.
2.3 Distribution of Legislative Power
Under the Seventh Schedule, the Concurrent List (List III, Entry 17) assigns “prevention of cruelty to animals” to joint Union‑State competence, while Entry 17B covers “protection of wild animals and birds.” States also legislate under State List Entry 14 (veterinary training, preventing animal diseases, improving stock). This federal design explains why core animal welfare statutes are central, but many implementing rules, municipal by‑laws, and enforcement practices are local.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 235.
K. Ajith v. Union of India, 2000 SCC OnLine Ker 12.
2.4 Fundamental Rights Interface
Although animals do not hold fundamental rights, Indian courts have read aspects of Article 21 (right to life) to include a human duty to prevent unnecessary pain and to live in harmony with nature, using 51A(g) to mediate conflicts. This “duty‑inflected” reading has justified judicial directions ranging from regulation of animal sports to humane slaughter and transport norms.
3. Legislative Framework
3.1 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA)
The PCA is India’s basic cruelty‑prevention statute. It:
Establishes the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) as the apex advisory body (ss. 4–10) and assigns wide functions, from advising on rules to promoting shelters and humane slaughter design (s. 9).
Defines and penalises acts amounting to cruelty (s. 11), with specific offences (e.g., phooka/dooma) (s. 12) and provisions on destruction of suffering animals (s. 13).
Regulates experimentation on animals and creates the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) (ss. 14–20).
Governs performing animals (ss. 21–27) and empowers rule‑making on transport, markets, breeding, pet shops, etc. (s. 38).
Penalty architecture. A long‑standing critique of the PCA is its historically nominal fines for first‑time cruelty. Successive proposals to modernise penalties and create graded categories (minor, severe, extreme cruelty) have circulated since 2022 but require full legislative passage to bite.
While not an animal welfare code, the Wildlife Act protects wild fauna and regulates trade. The 2022 Amendment rationalised Schedules (two for animals, one for plants, and a new Schedule for CITES‑listed specimens), incorporated a dedicated chapter on international trade compliance, and expanded species listings. These changes strengthen deterrence against poaching and illegal trade while clarifying management authorities and permits.
3.2 Key PCA Rules and Subordinate Legislation
Over time, the Union has notified a suite of rules that operationalise the PCA across contexts:
Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023: Codify a humane, scientific approach—sterilisation and vaccination of community dogs, prohibition on relocation, designated feeding points, and roles for local authorities, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), and NGOs. Provide for grievance redressal, dog‑bite management protocols, and rabies control in a One Health frame.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017: Ensure care and interim custody for animals seized in offences.
Dog Breeding and Marketing Rules, 2017 and Pet Shop Rules, 2018: Mandate registration, welfare standards, veterinary care, record‑keeping, and inspections to curb unscrupulous breeding and trade.Regulation of Livestock Markets Rules, 2017: Provide market‑level safeguards and due process (noting controversy and subsequent clarifications/withdrawals in parts; on the ground, States regulate cattle markets via a mosaic of norms).
Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 (amended in 2001 & 2009): Prescribe species‑specific conditions (space, rest, water, partitioning, ceilings on numbers; prohibitions on late‐pregnant/very young animals) and penal consequences for non‑compliance.
Performing Animals (Registration) Rules and allied notifications: Govern use of animals in entertainment and exhibitions.
CPCSEA rules and guidelines: The Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998, with amendments (2001, 2006) and updated administrative rules (2023), set standards on the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement), Institutional Animal Ethics Committees (IAECs), after‑care/rehabilitation costs, sourcing, and euthanasia parameters.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Dogs, (2016) 10 SCC 523.
Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 (as amended 2001, 2009).
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017.
3.3 Public Health Programs with Animal Welfare Interfaces
India’s National Action Plan for dog‑mediated human rabies elimination (NAPRE), launched in 2021, embeds sterilisation‑vaccination of dogs, human post‑exposure prophylaxis, and inter‑sectoral coordination (health, animal husbandry, urban bodies) to achieve zero human rabies deaths by 2030. NAPRE explicitly relies on ABC program principles and a One Health approach.
4. Judicial Trends: From Compassion to Calibration
4.1 AWBI v. A. Nagaraja (2014)
In a watershed verdict, the Supreme Court banned jallikattu and similar bull‑taming practices, holding that the events inflicted “unnecessary pain and suffering.” Reading 51A(g) and 51A(h) together with the PCA, the Court amplified compassion as a constitutional value, emphasised that cultural practices cannot trump welfare mandates, and applied the 5‑freedoms/3Rs ethos to interpret statutory duties.
4.2 Constitution Bench on Jallikattu, Kambala & Bullock‑cart Racing (2023)
After State amendments in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra sought to permit regulated traditional events, a five‑judge bench upheld their constitutional validity, finding the amendments operated within the Concurrent List Entry 17 (prevention of cruelty) rather than undermining it, and that safeguards in the amended frameworks mitigated cruelty to a constitutionally acceptable threshold. The ruling reframed the debate from absolutist bans to calibrated regulation of culturally embedded practices subject to welfare guardrails.
4.3 Personhood Experiments in the High Courts (2018–2019)
The Uttarakhand High Court and, later, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued striking declarations recognising animals as legal entities with corresponding rights/duties, and citizens as guardians in loco parentis. While doctrinally bold (and not yet endorsed by the Supreme Court), these experiments have influenced administrative vigilance (e.g., on transport cruelty) and supplied a rhetorical push for dignitarian language in animal law.
4.4 Stray Dogs and ABC: Judicial Back‑and‑Forth
Courts across India have consistently endorsed sterilisation‑vaccination as the lawful, humane mode of population control and rabies reduction under the ABC framework, discouraging mass culling or relocation. In 2023–2024, several orders reaffirmed non‑relocation and community feeding protocols. In mid‑2025, however, a high‑profile proceeding concerning Delhi‑NCR witnessed an unusual directive calling for large‑scale removal of stray dogs to shelters—triggering intense debate over its coherence with the ABC Rules, feasibility, shelter capacity, and public health consequences. As of August 2025, this area remains in flux, underscoring how rapidly judicial signals can reshape municipal practice and public discourse.
5. Policy Interventions by Domain
5.1 Community/Stray Dogs
Policy instruments. The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, issued under the PCA Act, constitute the principal legal framework for management of stray dogs in India. These rules replaced earlier 2001 guidelines and mandate sterilization and immunization as the only lawful methods of population control. Euthanasia is permitted strictly in cases of incurable disease or rabies, and must be conducted humanely. Municipal authorities, in coordination with the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), bear statutory responsibility to implement sterilization programs through registered Animal Birth Control organizations.
The ABC Rules, 2023 emphasize a “One Health” approach by linking dog population management with rabies control. This aligns with the National Action Plan for Dog Mediated Rabies Elimination (NAPRE), 2021–2030, which seeks to eliminate dog-mediated human rabies by 2030 through mass vaccination campaigns, surveillance, and public awareness. The rules also introduce a grievance-redressal mechanism requiring State Animal Welfare Boards to resolve disputes regarding dog-bites, relocation, and sterilization camps.
In addition, judicial interventions have shaped policy implementation. The Supreme Court has consistently directed that stray dogs cannot be culled en masse, affirming sterilization and vaccination as lawful policy tools. High Courts, such as in Karnataka v. People for Elimination of Stray Dogs (2016), reinforced the constitutional protection of dogs under Article 51A(g) and the PCA Act, balancing public safety with animal rights.
Despite these frameworks, implementation challenges persist. Urban local bodies often lack adequate infrastructure, funding, and trained personnel to carry out sterilization at scale. Moreover, conflicts between residents, dog feeders, and municipal authorities highlight social tensions around community dogs. In this context, policy reforms increasingly stress community participation, scientific monitoring of dog populations, and stronger municipal accountability to meet national rabies-elimination targets.
5.2 Livestock Transport and Markets
Policy instruments. The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 (with later amendments) prescribe species-specific requirements for moving cattle, poultry, pigs, sheep, and goats. These include limits on the number of animals per vehicle, provisions for food and water, rest intervals, and mandatory veterinary fitness certificates. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 supplement these by ensuring interim custody and welfare of animals seized during transport or in markets.
Implementation challenges. Enforcement remains weak, with frequent reports of overcrowding, lack of partitions, long-distance transport without rest, and transport of very young or pregnant animals. Local police and veterinary officers often lack resources for inspections. Additionally, the informal nature of cattle markets and the socio-economic dependence on animal trade make regulatory enforcement politically sensitive.
Policy responses. Some states have experimented with linking transport permits to e-way bills, creating dedicated inspection teams, and mandating CCTV in animal markets. The AWBI has also issued standard operating procedures for humane handling in livestock markets. Policy focus is gradually shifting towards digital monitoring, training for law enforcement, and better coordination with transport authorities.
Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998 (as amended 2006).
Bureau of Indian Standards, Guidelines for Laboratory Animal Care, 2015.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Chapters III–VI
5.3 Companion Animal Breeding and Trade
Policy instruments. The Dog Breeding and Marketing Rules, 2017 and the Pet Shop Rules, 2018 introduced a licensing regime for breeders and sellers of companion animals. These require adequate housing, veterinary care, maintenance of records, prohibition of harmful practices like ear-cropping and tail-docking, and periodic inspections by state authorities
Implementation challenges. Many pet shops and breeders continue to operate illegally without registration. Lack of trained inspectors and poor public awareness undermine compliance. Online sale of animals further complicates monitoring, as most e-commerce platforms lack mechanisms for verifying breeder licenses.
Policy responses. Digital breeder registries, public reporting mechanisms, and greater involvement of State Animal Welfare Boards have been proposed. Civil society organizations play an important role by investigating illegal breeders and filing complaints. Public awareness campaigns on adopting rather than buying pets also complement regulatory interventions.
5.4 Animals in Research and Education
Policy instruments. The Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) regulates the use of animals in research under the PCA Act. Its rules emphasize the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) and mandate establishment of Institutional Animal Ethics Committees (IAECs). The Breeding and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998 and later amendments lay down standards for housing, care, anaesthesia, and euthanasia.
Implementation challenges. Though India has a strong regulatory framework, compliance is inconsistent. Reports indicate poor housing facilities in some labs, lack of analgesia during procedures, and limited awareness of alternatives. Additionally, enforcement relies heavily on self-reporting by institutions.
Policy responses. Strengthening inspections, funding research in alternatives such as organ-on-chip technologies, and enhancing transparency through public databases of approved research projects are key interventions. In recent years, the CPCSEA has updated its guidelines to emphasize after-care and rehabilitation of animals used in experiments.
5.5 Wildlife Protection and Trade
Policy instruments. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, strengthened by the 2022 Amendment, governs the protection of wild species and compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The amendment rationalized schedules, created new categories for internationally traded species, and introduced a chapter on permits and enforcement.
Implementation challenges. India continues to face threats from poaching, illegal wildlife trade, and habitat loss. Enforcement agencies often struggle with limited manpower, porous borders, and cyber-enabled trafficking. Communities living near forests sometimes face conflict with wildlife, particularly elephants and big cats.
Policy responses. Enhanced border vigilance, use of forensic tools such as DNA testing, community-based conflict mitigation, and faster compensation for crop and livestock loss are emphasized. The amendment also strengthens coordination with international enforcement bodies. Conservation NGOs supplement state efforts through training, rapid response units, and awareness campaigns.
6. Institutions and Federal Coordination
6.1 Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI)
Established under the PCA Act, the AWBI is India’s apex advisory body on animal welfare. It advises the government on legislation, promotes animal welfare organizations, and issues guidelines for humane treatment in markets, transport, and shelters. It also provides financial assistance for shelters and sterilization programs. However, limited budgets and staffing constrain its impact, and coordination with State Boards remains uneven.
6.2 Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA)
CPCSEA regulates the use of animals in research and education. It registers institutions, inspects facilities, and approves or rejects experimental protocols through Institutional Animal Ethics Committees (IAECs). While its framework is robust, monitoring capacity and transparency remain weak. Calls for a centralized digital database of approvals and violations have been growing.
6.3 State Animal Welfare Boards and Local Authorities
Most states have constituted Animal Welfare Boards to oversee local enforcement of PCA rules, particularly the ABC Rules and pet shop regulations. Municipal corporations are frontline implementers, tasked with sterilization programs, shelter management, and inspection of markets. However, institutional capacity and budget allocations vary widely, resulting in uneven implementation.
6.4 Inter-ministerial Coordination and One Health Approach
Animal welfare often intersects with human health and agriculture. The Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying leads on PCA rules, while the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change oversees wildlife protection. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, through the NCDC, co-leads rabies elimination strategies under the NAPRE framework. This inter-sectoral coordination reflects a growing recognition of the One Health approach, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health in policymaking.
6.5 Role of Judiciary and Civil Society
The judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting constitutional mandates and expanding the scope of animal welfare. Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have spurred enforcement of ABC programs, restrictions on animal performances, and recognition of animal personhood. Civil society organizations and NGOs act as watchdogs, capacity-builders, and partners in implementation, particularly in sterilization drives, shelter management, and wildlife rescue.
7. Implementation Gaps and Cross-Cutting Issues
7.1 Weak Penalty Structure
The PCA Act prescribes outdated fines, often as low as Rs. 50 for first offences, which do not act as effective deterrents. Although proposals for graded penalties have been introduced, they are yet to be passed into law.
Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
Forest Rights Act, 2006.
7.2 Data Deficits
There is a lack of reliable, standardized data on dog populations, sterilization rates, animal transport violations, and wildlife crimes. Absence of centralized databases limits transparency and accountability.
7.3 Capacity Asymmetries
Rural and semi-urban areas lack sufficient veterinary infrastructure, trained inspectors, and shelters. This hinders implementation of rules across livestock, companion animals, and stray populations.
7.4 Procedural Bottlenecks
Even where statutory protections exist, the process of enforcement and adjudication is often slow and fragmented. Several issues stand out:
Delays in prosecution: Cases under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and related rules typically proceed in lower criminal courts, where trial backlogs mean offenders are rarely punished in a timely fashion. This weakens the deterrent effect of the law.
Low penalties: The PCA Act prescribes very modest fines (as low as ₹10–₹50 for first offences under the original Act), which remain largely unchanged despite proposals for amendment. This creates little incentive for compliance, particularly for commercial offenders involved in transport, breeding, or illegal trade.
Custody and interim care of animals: When animals are seized in cruelty cases, questions about who bears responsibility for their upkeep often stall proceedings. Shelters may refuse to take in large numbers of animals without assured funding, and state authorities may not provide interim arrangements, resulting in animals languishing in poor conditions.
Jurisdictional overlaps: Multiple agencies—police, municipal bodies, state animal husbandry departments, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI)—share responsibility, but coordination is weak. This leads to confusion about who files charges, who maintains evidence, and who manages the animals pending trial.
Lack of trained prosecutors: Many public prosecutors are unfamiliar with the nuances of animal protection law, which reduces the effectiveness of prosecutions and leads to acquittals or minimal sentencing.
SHATAKSHI DUBEY
BANASTHALI VIDYAPITH