Excellent post and well worth a full read. Here’s the introduction
The following is a guest post by Tariq Ahmad, a foreign law specialist in the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress. Tariq has previously contributed posts on Islamic Law in Pakistan – Global Legal Collection Highlights, the Law Library’s 2013 Panel Discussion on Islamic Law, Sedition Law in India, New Report from the Law Library of Congress On The Regulation of Hemp Around the World, and FALQ posts on Proposals to Reform Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws, Article 370 and the Removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s Special Status, and The Controversy Over Marriage and Anti-Conversion Laws in India.
The debate about whether animals should be treated as legal persons has been a growing controversial issue in many jurisdictions around the world. Rather than treating them simply as legal property, some argue that granting animals legal personality with their own rights, duties, and liabilities, and capacity to sue and be sued in court, could provide them with greater legal protection against cruelty and abuse than typically provided by traditional animal protection laws. Despite the reluctance of most jurisdictions around the world to grant such explicit rights, several landmark court judgments and ongoing cases in India and Pakistan have recognized the rights of animals and some have even granted them legal personality. In this region, animals are widely used for labor, transportation, religious, and entertainment purposes. The focus of these cases has been to prevent animal cruelty in circumstances such as the mistreatment of animals in captivity or zoos, the use of animals in cultural competitions and religious ceremonies, and the overloading and transportation of animals.
In India, the current case law on legal personality for animals relies on a landmark decision issued by the Supreme Court in 2014 in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Ors. The case involved the Jallikattu bull taming competition in Tamil Nadu, in which a bull is released into a crowd where multiple participants attempt to tame and pacify it. The Court held that the competition violated the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. According to the Court, while Article 21 (the Right of Life) of the Indian Constitution safeguards the rights of humans, it also “protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Articles 21 of the Constitution.” (Nagaraja case, para. 62.) The Court recognized that animals have the right to live with “honour and dignity which cannot be arbitrarily deprived of and its rights and privacy have to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks.” (Id. para. 51). However, the Court did not explicitly extend legal personality to animals. However, this landmark decision was overturned very recently on May 18, 2023, by a larger bench of the Court, where it upheld state-level amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, which allowed bull-taming sports like Jalikattu. In regards to the application of article 21 to animals, the Court held that while a “person” has protection under article 21, “we do not think it will be prudent for us to venture into a judicial adventurism to bring bulls within the said protected mechanism.” (The Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Union of India, para. 24.)
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/08/legal-personality-for-animals-in-india-and-pakistan/?loclr=eaiclb
