• by Maria Sosa Thomas (Student at SLSP)

Rethinking India’s Animal Cruelty Laws

Voices of the Voiceless: Rethinking India’s Animal Cruelty Laws

                                                                                                                        By: Maria Sosa Thomas

 

"Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened."- Anatole France

The tradition of India’s philosophy of law and culture has always championed kindness to all living beings. Despite this, the recent reports of brutal treatment of animals, including beatings of street dogs and the illegal transportation and testing of animals, illustrate the chasm between moral aspirations and the rule of law.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) was designed to prevent animals from experiencing "unnecessary pain and suffering." Now, some sixty years later, we must ask ourselves if it is a living act to protect voiceless beings or only a relic of a sensible protector of the conscience.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

India's concern for animal welfare goes very back to even before India got its independence. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890, passed during colonialism, was a limited and weakly enforced law.

After independence, under the leadership of Rukmini Devi Arundale, the first animal rights advocate in India. The Parliament passed the PCA Act of 1960, which was a growing leap for recognizing animals as sentient beings deserving of humane treatment.

The Act also established the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) as India’s first statutory organization in the country for animal welfare, which was also the first of its kind in the world.

The 1960 law was a big step forward. It said that animals can feel pain and they’re sentient, that people must treat them kindly and humanely.

But that was more than 60 years ago. Today, we are still absolutely horrified by videos of animal abuse. This raises the question: Is this old law actual protection for animals or is it simply an outdated piece of paper nobody cares about?

 

Limitations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The biggest Problem: The punishments

Section 11: This section lists many cruel acts like, beating, overloading, neglecting, abandoning, confining in small spaces, using unfit animals for work, or killing them cruelly.

But what’s the punishment?

• For the 1^st crime: A fine as less as 10rs and no more than 50rs
• For the 2^nd crime: A fine upto 100rs or Jail upto 3 months

In 2025, ₹50 for a fine is basically nothing. A cup of coffee costs more than that, parking your vehicle costs more than that. The point being, who in their right mind could think a fine of ₹50 would stop anyone from hurting an animal? There is no severe punishment for that type of behaviour.

If that were not bad enough all of these offences are "bailable" (The accused has the right to get bail.) and "non-cognizable" (Police cannot arrest without a warrant and cannot start an investigation without the permission of a magistrate.)

Additionally, the law comes with "exceptions" that make it weaker: 

• Science: The law allows for the use of animals in science experiments and allows the rules to be broken.
• Religion: Section 28 of the law states it is acceptable to kill an animal if it is "required by the religion of any community", so some forms of killing are allowed even if cruel.
• Vague wordings: The law says you can't cause "unnecessary pain." But what is "unnecessary"? It's very hard to prove in court.

Key Court Cases:

1. The Stray Dogs vs Human Safety Issues:

The most recent Supreme Court case in this matter shows how India tries to find a balance between keeping people safe and taking care of animals. Because of the increased stray dog attacks, particularly on child victims, the Court decided to examine the status of implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. These rules make it mandatory to sterilise, vaccinate, and return stray dogs to their place of origin, rather than killing or permanently relocating them.

In August 2025, the Court directed that all stray dogs in Delhi be captured and placed in shelters, due to the increased concern about protecting the public and children from stray dog attacks. This drew fierce opposition from animal welfare groups and advocates, who argued that:

There are not enough municipal shelters to humanely hold thousands of stray dogs, nor can the existing ones even keep up due to funding and space issues; even the existing facilities are currently underfunded and overcrowded. Tens of thousands of dogs being placed in mass confinement can lead to starvation, disease, and cruelty. These practices will violate the very principles contained in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. To remove dogs from their occupied territories would be to disrupt the procedure of the ABC programme, as sterilized dogs (as originally presented) reduce and prevent new unsterilized dogs from entering the territory. Because of these worries, the Supreme Court changed its order later in August 2025. It now allows healthy, sterilized dogs to be released to their homes after they have been vaccinated, but rabid or aggressive dogs must stay in care during the release. The Court also said that people couldn't feed stray dogs in public places. Instead, they had to feed them in designated feeding areas. Municipal institutions were told to make these feeding areas a priority and keep an eye on them.

 

2. The Big One: The "Jallikattu" Case (2014):

It is one of the most important cases regarding animal cruelty

Case: Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., (2014) 7 S.C.C. 547 (India).

This Case Challenged accepted practices such as Jallikattu (a bull-fighting event) and bullock cart racing as the practices cause significant pain and suffering and violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the petitioners urged Indian courts to protect animals from unneeded cruelty. The Supreme Court in its landmark opinion cited the petitioners, agreeing that 'animals are sentient beings and experience pain, fear and suffering' and therefore cannot be simply regarded as property. Significantly, the Court connected the protection of animal rights to Article 21 of the Constitution; the right to life with dignity and agency, and not suffer unjustified pain and suffering for the pleasure of humans. In its opinion, the Court identified the 'Five Freedoms': to be free from hunger and thirst, to be free from discomfort, to be free from pain and disease, to be free from fear and distress, and to be free to make natural behaviour. The case marked the first time in India progressed towards providing animals the same right that the Constitution affords humans to protect them from suffering and exploitation.

 

3. The Circus Case:

Case: N.R. Nair v. Union of India, (2000) 2 K.L.T. 725 (Ker.) (India).

The lawsuit concentrated on the use of animals for entertainment purposes in circuses and forcing lions, tigers, bears, and monkeys to perform unnatural activities. Animal welfare activists objected to these practices on the basis that the animals were either untrained for the performance capacities or were put through tricks in a way that caused animals unnecessary pain and suffering, which was a violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Court agreed with the activists, stating that forcing animals to behave unnaturally for human amusement still constitutes cruelty to which visible physical abuse is an unnecessary prerequisite. This judgment clarified the core belief that animal compositions should allow for animals to be animals, while also leading the government to banning most wild animals in circuses.

 

Before Blaming Dogs, Look at Ourselves:

The Supreme Court continues to ask, specifically regarding the problem of stray dogs, "What about the cruelty to human beings?" This is a sincere question and reflects legitimate concerns for public safety. Yet we should also be aware that in many cases when a dog bites, it is often not out of aggression; for example, children throw stones at, chase, or tease stray dogs. It is necessary to teach communities, especially young children, responsible and empathetic actions around animals to be able to reduce the risk of conflict. However, in this debate we should not lose the focus on proportions and priorities. When a country is suffering from symptoms of poverty, unemployment, hunger, and crime, it is appropriate to ask if stray dogs are in fact the country's "highest problem." Furthermore because stray dog control itself requires humane and effective responses, we cannot lose sight of the fact that human life is actually endangered with threats that exist from other humans, not from animals. Statistics have reinforced over and over again that violence, accidents, and human negligence result in more loss of life than that caused from animal attacks..

 

It is also common for people to say that stray dogs add to cities becoming dirty by urinating or defecating on roads. But this argument fails to recognize a much bigger fact that it is human activity that contributes the most to urban pollution. Littered garbage, plastic, open dumping, and even public urination by humans themselves make our streets much dirtier than any animal ever could. It's not right to blame dogs for doing what comes naturally to them while human beings, who are supposed to know better, litter and abuse public space without hesitation. Cleanliness and hygiene are not about taking animals out of sight, but about growing civic duty and effective waste disposal. We should first fault ourselves for the condition of our environment before faulting animals.

 

HOPE FOR THE FUTURE

PROMISE FOR TOMORROW

India's penal laws against cruelty to animals and in particular the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, have not been amended since then and monetary penalties are completely inadequate as a deterrent to allow offenders to continue. But there is increasing recognition, both in law and society, that animals should be afforded more protection. New legislation is being proposed increasing penalties and prison time for cruelty whilst also focusing on education, shelter funding and humane population control. The movement towards recognition of animals as sentient beings holds promise that future laws and policy will combine compassion with responsibility to be in a future society of compassionate humans and keeping animal welfare in mind.

 

CONCLUSION:

Controversies around stray dogs and animal protection laws have little to do with dogs or humans, but what kind of society we want to create. Apart from that, all countries are not only judged by how they treat human beings but also by how they treat their voiceless beings. India is standing at the junction: one way leading to fear, brutality, and callousness, and the other leading to compassion, cohabitation, and coexistence for life. Undeniably, the animal welfare laws in India will be taken to another level altogether by implementing severe punishments and creating compassion through educating and conscious awareness that will bring tangible and sustainable reform in the end. Cruelty to animals or to human beings is a moral failure, not a legal lacuna. The hope for the future is in the system where justice will be for all living beings and where compassion and responsibility cannot be ​‍​‌‍​‍‌separated.