With the use of important rulings, this paper examines Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to determine whether it protects animals' right to life or not. If that is the case, what official actions did the legislature take to carry out the provisions for the welfare of animals under

Article 21? It also tries to shed light on the moral guidelines India should follow when considering animal testing and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Animals have played an important role in human history, whether as a companion, modes of transportation, or tools for clearing fields, among other things.

Animals were treasured, revered, and worshipped throughout the Vedic era. However, as time goes on, the condition of animals is deteriorating. Through incorporated legislative safeguards under the Indian constitution, rules, guidelines, and other statutory legislation, the government machinery has been vigilantly moving over time to improve the circumstances of this vulnerable species of society.

Introduction
The Constitution of India prosaically silents on animal rights nevertheless, Article 51A(g) of the Constitution tacitly states that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. However, The Supreme Court of India explicitly included animal rights to life in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.1, also Jallikattu case, The Supreme Court in this landmark judgment banned Jallikattu, a traditional

bull-fighting practice. Article 51 A (g) of the Indian Constitution, was held as the "magna carta of animal rights," and guaranteed security of life under Article 21. It underscored the significance of safeguarding animals from redundant pain meted out by humans. This verdict paved the path for the advancement of animal protection legal philosophy in India and accentuated the court's allegiance to secure the liberties and well-being of animals.

The scope of the right to life has always been multifarious and refuted gist. From the outset, the right to life was ruminated as a fundamental human right for securing whimsical eviscerate of life. But the trajectory of Art. 21 is not exclusive to humans, it extends to animals also. It has always been a subject of discussion based on their competence to endure and experience wretchedness, euphoria, and melancholy due to ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism. Proponents of the utilitarian view of animal rights say animals have feelings like humans possess, and should not be considered merchandise or chattels.

Contrariwise, antagonists of the utilitarian view argue that human beings have a unique moral status due to their higher cognitive abilities and capacities for moral reasoning. Although they support respect and compassionate behaviour for animals but also contemplate that entitling them to legal rights would sabotage human rights and put unreasonable liability on citizens2.

Meaning of "animal rights" v. "animal welfare"
Animal welfare advocates to avert futile agony. On the contrary, the animal rights approach aims to lift animals out of the way of human use all around by granting animals the hold on their own lives and bodies3. Animal rights activists want animals to be free to live as they wish without any encroachment, without being abuse, or exploitation.4

Animal's best interests must be put ahead, regardless of the fact that whether it is "adorable," useful to humans, wild species, and any human cares about them at all or not. Animals cannot be an object and playthings of human hands and sources of food, clothing, or experimentation.5"Corporations, consumers, veterinarians, politicians, and others utilize animal welfare extensively.6 The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) states that "Animal welfare refers to the physical and psychological well-being of an animal".

The concept of animal welfare includes three elements:

1. Biological state - ensuring that the animal is healthy and well-nourished
2. Emotional state- the absence of negative emotions, such as pain, stress, and chronic fear
3. Ability to express certain normal behaviours.

Animal welfare is a science and has led to the development of several methodologies, including frameworks such as the "Five Domains Model".

This science-based Five Domains framework is evolved by David Mellor, it focuses on the mental attitude of an animal. It emphasizes that animals have nutrition, environment, health, behaviour, and mental state. It states that animals should have the right to safe food and water, a clean environment free from pollution, timely medical treatment, the right to express natural behaviour, positive mental health, and so on.7

Constitutional Provisions
The Right to Life of Animals

Article 21, says
No person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except as per the procedure established by law. The word "life" has been given a broader connotation and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes animal life in all forms of life, under Article 21will be amounted to a violation of the principles of the Constitution.8

Article 21 protects the Right to Life as a Fundamental Right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of the environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air, water, and sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed - K. M Chinnappa v. Union of India9

Directive Elements of Government Policy
Article 48 Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry - The State must work to organize agriculture and animal husbandry along contemporary, scientific lines. In particular, the State must take action to protect and improve breeds and forbid the killing of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle.10

Article 48A - Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife - The State shall strive to safeguard the nation's forests and wildlife as well as to maintain and develop the environment.11

In contrast to fundamental rights, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are inoperative in any court. But it is the responsibility of the States to use them in crafting thoughtful constitutional legislation.12

It was debated amongst the Constituent Assembly of the Constitution regarding whether Article 48 should be included as a Fundamental Right or not. Ultimately, the Constituent Assembly accepted the provision as a DPSP.13

The 42nd Amendment of 1976 included this article, which obliges the State to safeguard the natural world and wildlife. Article 48A may become enforceable under the scope of the right to life under Article 21 even if it is not yet judicially enforceable. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,14 The Supreme Court heard a public interest litigation about Delhi's air pollution.

The following observations were made by the Court on Article 48A and public health: Articles 39, 47, and 48A individually and collectively impose obligations on the State to safeguard citizens' health, advance public health, and preserve and improve the environment. In Sachidanand Pandey & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.,15 The Supreme Court ruled that when a case involving the preservation of the environment is brought before the Court, Article 48A must be borne in mind.

Fundamental Duties
Article 51A (Part IV-A) of the Constitution outlines the Fundamental Duties of Indian citizens. The 42nd Amendment, which was passed in 1976, also inserted the provision in order to implement Article 29(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The relevant provisions of Article 51A in relation to animal rights are as follows: Every citizen has an obligation to:

(g) maintain and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife

(h) cultivate a scientific mindset, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and change. Indian citizens are required by Article 51A (g) to preserve and enhance the natural environment and to show compassion for all living things.16As interpreted in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.,16Concern for the pain and welfare of all living things is part of compassion. In this decision, the Supreme Court viewed 51A (g) and the requirement to

cultivate a scientific temperament under 51A (h) as the cornerstones of Indian animal rights law. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors.,17 The Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament intended for Article 51A to be interpreted in conjunction with Articles 48 and 48A in order to uphold the spirit of the laws.

Allocation of Powers between the Centre and the States:
The subject matter of laws passed by the Parliament and State Legislatures is defined in Article 246. The Seventh Schedule's three lists devoted to this topic are as follows:

1. The Union List: Only the Parliament has the authority to enact laws under this list.
2. The State List: With regard to the subjects, state legislatures have the only authority to enact legislation.
3. Concurrent List: The ability to pass laws regarding the items on this list rests with both the Parliament and State Legislatures.

The State and Concurrent List has been assigned the following items in relation to animal rights. The States have the authority to "preserve, protect and improve stock and prevent animal diseases and enforce veterinary training and practice," according to Item 14 of the State List."

The Concurrent List gives both the Center and the States the authority to enact legislation on:

1. Item 17: The reduction of animal abuse.
2. Item 17B: Safeguarding wildlife and birds.18

Legislations
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, which outlaws cruelty to animals, contains the fundamental cruelty law of India. According to the Act, an "animal" is any living thing that is not a human being.

In accordance with Chapter II of the Act, the Government of India established the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) with some of the following functions:

1. To offer advice to the federal government about how to keep animals from suffering needlessly when being transported, used in studies, or kept in captivity
2. Promote monetary aid, foster homes, and animal sanctuaries for elderly animals.
3. Giving guidance on regulations and medical care for animal hospitals.
4. Spreading knowledge and awareness about animal welfare.
5. Providing general guidance to the federal government on issues related to animal welfare.

However, the Act does not classify as cruelty the castrating and dehorning of cattle in accordance with authorized procedures, the annihilation of stray dogs in prescribed procedures using lethal chambers, or the killing of any animal carried out by law.19

The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
The legislature passed this comprehensive piece of legislation to protect the country's wild animal, bird, and plant species in order to guarantee environmental and ecological stability. Restricting the illegal trade in wildlife and its derivative parts is the main goal. Among other protected areas, the Act oversees national parks, zoos, and sanctuaries. The Act also includes schedules of plants and animals that are subject to varied levels of government protection and oversight.20

The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 428 - Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the value of ten rupees �Anyone who does mischief by killing, poisoning, injuring, or rendering useless any animal or animals valued at ten rupees or more faces a sentence of up to two years in prison, a fine, or a combination of the two. A sentence that might last up to five years, come with a fine, or come with both.

Section 429 - Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees.� Any person who causes trouble by killing, poisoning, injuring, or rendering useless an elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow, or ox, regardless of its value, or any other animal worth at least fifty rupees, will be punished with either type of imprisonment for a term that may reach five years, a fine, or both.21

The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978
It manages animal transportation in India in order to stop cruelty and guarantee the welfare of the animals while in transit. regardless of the breed, whether traveling by rail, road, inland canal, sea, or air. For the transportation of animals, there are criteria such as the need for room, ventilation, and other circumstances. A fine of up to 500 rupees a sentence of up to three months, or both, are possible penalties under the law. Punishment may be increased if a crime is committed repeatedly. The regulations control animal transportation and guarantee the animals' welfare while doing so.22

The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001
It controls the raising and usage of performing animals in India and guarantees that they are treated humanely at all times. It outlines rules for the construction, upkeep, and circumstances of slaughterhouses. It must be roomy, well-ventilated, and equipped with appropriate lighting and a drainage system. It offers several techniques, tactics, and processes that must be used to lessen suffering and anguish during the slaughter of the animal. To engage in the training or display of performing animals, individuals or organizations must register with the relevant authority.23

The Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998- It controls the breeding of animals used in experiments and makes sure that experiments on animals are done in an ethical and compassionate way. The Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) requires that breeders and establishments register with it and adhere to its regulations. It regulates and oversees the care and use of animals in research, including cage size and condition, animal feeding and watering schedules, and the administration of anesthesia and analgesia.24

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018
It runs a chain of pet stores in India and oversees the welfare of the animals bought and sold there. The proprietors of the pet store must register with the appropriate authority and follow all rules. It prescribes the size and condition of cages, the frequency of feeding, and watering, and the supply of veterinary treatment, as well as the housing, care, and sale of animals in pet stores.25

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Aquarium and Fish Tank Animals Shop) Rules, 2017

It controls how aquarium and fish tank pet stores operate in India and guarantees the well-being of the animals sold in these businesses. It outlines requirements for tank size and condition, water quality, and temperature, as well as the provision of suitable food and care for aquarium and fish tank animals for sale.26

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001
It controls how societies for the prevention of animal cruelty operate and are established in India. It requires state governments to provide enough land and other resources for the construction of animal shelters and hospitals. It lessens the suffering of animals and establishes penalties for those who violate this law. In terms of legislation and reducing the use of animals in experimentation, India has made some progress. In order to prevent animal testing and promote alternatives, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change released guidelines in 2014. The regulations demand that thorough justifications for animal experiments be submitted, and they promote the adoption of non-animal substitutes whenever practical.27

The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change issued guidelines in 2014 India has made some headway in limiting and regulating the use of animals in testing and encouraging alternate techniques when it is practical. It requires thorough justifications for animal experimentation to be submitted. Since concerns about ethical treatment in animal experiments have existed.28

Ethics of animal testing and factory farming in India
Animal farming that is done intensively, or "factory farming," might have moral implications. In order to maximize production efficiency, it includes the growing of numerous animals in protected areas. This is criticized because it has a bad effect on public health, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare. India has a lower prevalence of animal rearing than other countries.

The Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) is a statutory organization created under Section 15(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The body's main objective is to protect animals from unnecessary suffering or abuse. In 1998, regulations governing breeding and experimentation were established. The committee can carry out its functions according to its protocol. Committees may occasionally receive funding from the government. Additionally, anyone may make a gift, contribution, bequest, or other similar gesture to the committee's coffers. To control scientific experimentation, the Ministry of Environment and Forests developed a set of ethical guidelines in June 2007 that the CPCSEA must abide by. These guidelines are:

1. Purpose behind carrying out the experiments
   Only the following justifications may be used to conduct animal experiments:
   
   • To procure knowledge for improving, saving, or prolonging human life;
   • To gain significantly in ensuring well well-being of the people; and
   • To find a cure for a disease of plants, animals, or human beings.
      
2. Avoid animal experimentation if an alternative exists
   Animal experiments should only be performed on the least intelligent creatures. The proper justification for using animals in experiments must be provided when there is an alternative yet the experiment was nonetheless carried out on them.
    
3. Appropriate sedation and anesthesia
   It is necessary to employ a minimally painful object throughout an experiment. If an experiment's discomfort would endure longer than a brief period of time, the animal would need to be given anesthesia or the proper level of sedative.
    
4. Euthanasia, when allowed?
   According to Rule 9(cc), the investigator is responsible for the animal in question's aftercare. Only in the following situations can the researcher decide to put an animal to death:
   
   • If the animal proves to be incapable of functioning physically or mentally;
   • If the animal experiences pain following an experimental procedure;
   • If the non-termination of animals used in experiments puts human lives in danger.
5. Suitable living conditions
   Animals should live in habitats that are appropriate for their species. Animals used in biomedical research must be managed by qualified scientists or veterinarians.

Functions of CPCSEA:

• Granting licenses to establishments that conduct experiments on animals.
• Nominee selection for Institutional Animal Ethics Committee of the registered institutions.
• Based on reports of inspections conducted by CPCSEA, approving animal facilities shown fit for housing animals by the report.
• Granting permission for experiments that involve animals.
• Recommending the import of animals for usage in experiments.
• In case of violation by establishments, CPCSEA has the authority to take any action.

Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998 (enforced in 1982)
The rules embody the principles and make registration with CPCSEA a necessity amongst other essentials. The important rules have been discussed below:

Definition of the term 'Experiment'
Rule 2(e) states that an experiment is either a program or a project that involves the use of animals. Such usage is undertaken for acquiring knowledge related to biology, physiology, or ethology or is of a chemical or physical nature. The animals can be further used:

1. In the production of reagents, antibodies, or antigens,
2. For procedures related to diagnostics and testing, establishing transgenic stock, and saving and alleviating lives;
3. In an activity that will result in a significant gain in the well-being of people of the country; and that will help come up with a cure for a disease related to human beings, plants, or animals.

Any activity taken up for fulfilling objects would qualify as an 'experiment'. Rule 10: Procurement of Animals

It states that:

• Animals for experimentation can be acquired from 'registered' breeders
• Alternative legal sources are used in the case of non-availability of registered breeders.
• In case of procurement from legal sources, written permission from the appropriate authority should have been sought.

Rule 14: Suspension of Registration of an Establishment by CPCSEA When can CPCSEA suspend or revoke a registration of an establishment:

• If the report of the Member Secretary or the authorized officer, proves that the rules are not being followed by the establishment or a breeder and the directions given by the Committee.
• The breeder or the establishment has the right to be heard.
• Minor violations will not cause revocation or suspension. These acts don't have any direct effect on the well-being of the animal or that doesn't lead to pain, suffering, any other adverse health disorder, or death of the animal.
• Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC)

The creation of the IAEC to oversee the operations of the establishment during an experiment is covered by Rule 13 of the Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules 1998. The case is sent to CPCSEA for large animal experimentation. University Grants Commission

The UGC prohibits the use, dissection, and experimentation of animals in colleges teaching courses on zoology, physiology, anatomy, etc. for undergraduate and postgraduate students and must adhere to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the PCA Act, 196029.

Medical Council of India
In its circular, the MCI had said that they would keep up the clinical components of their instruction while also having central or departmental animal facilities. In order to maintain the animal houses, all colleges affiliated with the MCI have secured a CPCSEA license. Pharmacy Council of India

A general ban on using animals for any reason was imposed after PCI mandated that institutions cease animal dissection at the graduation level. Additionally, research on animals could be carried out following a careful review of the evidence and receiving approval from the Institutional Animals Ethics Committee.

Animal testing for the cosmetics sector was outlawed by the Bureau of Indian Standards in 2013, and artificial and computer simulations were supposed to take its place. 2016 saw the inclusion of the soap and detergent sectors in the ban.29 In the 2018 case of Narayan Dutt

Bhatt v. Union of India,30 the Uttarakhand High Court rendered a significant decision on the legal status of animals, stating that they have "extended the rights of a person."

Landmark judgments:

1. State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Baig, 31
   According to the Supreme Court's ruling in this case, hunting elephants is forbidden because they are included in the list and range of creatures covered by Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972.
    
2. Tilak Bahadur Rai Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh,32
   Killing the tiger for self-defense can be considered some self-defense and is acceptable. Additionally, it was made clear in this ruling that any animal killed or injured by a person acting in self-defense becomes the government's property. The person who shot the animal has no right to it once it is killed or damaged.
    
3. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals Vs. Union of India,33
   A significant decision by the Bombay High Court in 2006 mandates that any film intended for public viewing that uses or films animals obtain a certificate from the Animal Welfare Board of India certifying that the requirements of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 have been properly met. This law protects animals against exploitation and cruel treatment when being used in the filming of movies. The judgment forbids, among other abuses, subjecting animals to loud, unusual noises, beating them, or depriving them of food and water.
    
4. Mr. Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. New Sarvodaya Chs,34
   A resident complained that the co-op society in which he resided had passed a resolution preventing dogs from making use of the building's lifts. The society passed this resolution on the basis that the dog was not a consumer and his usage of the lift could result in the spread of diseases and hence could be disallowed from using the society's facilities. To this, the consumer court declared that the owner, being a member of the coop housing society, was a consumer and hence, was well within his rights to bring his complaint to the Consumer Court. In addition, the dog bore a valid Kennel Club of India license, was registered with the Municipal Corporation, and had been issued a Health Certificate by the Bombay Veterinary College. This ruling reiterated that residents couldn't be prevented from having pets and those pets were not to be banned from using lifts.
    
5. Ozair Hussain Vs. Union of India, 35
   The Delhi High Court ruled that the packaging of goods such as food, drugs (except those that are life-saving), and cosmetics must contain information regarding the items' vegetarian or non-vegetarian origins, taking into account the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution and Article 10(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Any food item that comprises an animal in whole or in part but does not include milk or milk products as an ingredient must be marked with a brown circle inside of a square. Similar to this, all vegetarian meals must have a green circle inside of a green square to be recognized as such. This decision's justification was that a citizen's freedom of expression also extended to his/her food choice.
    
6. State of U.P Vs. Mustakeem and Ors, 36
   An FIR was filed against the owner in the state of Uttar Pradesh after it was discovered that goats were being transported for slaughter in a cruel way (they were firmly chained to one another, which was against the prohibitions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960). While the case was in court, the UP High Court gave the owner back custody of the animals. Following an appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the animals should be taken away from their owner and kept in a gaushala under the supervision of the state government, which was given custody of them for the duration of the legal proceeding. With this decision, the Court adequately clarified that if an animal was removed from a person's care on grounds of cruelty to his/her charge, the animal would not be returned until the case was resolved.
    
7. Gauri Maulekhi Vs. Union of India and Ors, 37
   When the Supreme Court banned the practice of Jallikattu in 2014, it alluded to various sections of the PCA Act, 1960, which addresses the unnecessary suffering of animals. Alluding to Section 3 and Section 11, the Hon'ble Court declared that all animal fights incited by humans are illegal, even those carried out under the guise of tradition and culture. The Court also listed various recommendations, among them an overhaul of the penalties and punishments in the PCA Act, 1960, so as to allow it to function effectively as a deterrent in cases related to animal cruelty.

The agony faced by helpless animals has been somewhat lessened by all of these verdicts.

Recent animal survey report:
According to a report collected by the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations and All Creatures Great and Small, between 2010- 2020, an aggregate of brutes were victims of crimes committed by humans. It includes 720, 741, 588, 88, and 258 cases of crime against road animals, working animals, companion animals, ranch animals, and wild animals respectively.

These horrible and purposeful acts of violence led to the animal's death or irrecoverable detriment. The report named,' In Their Own Right - Calling for Equality in Law for Animal Victims of Crimes', is a report of brutality humans have committed on animals such as rape, murder, remonstrating, beating, attacking with sticks and monuments. Some others are of a canine ravished with a screwdriver in Goa, a langur hung and beaten to death in Telangana, and a road canine beaten, tied to a scooter, and also thrown off in Ludhiana. Of the 1,000 assault cases that were proved, 82 cases were of sexual abuse, 266 cases of cold-thoroughbred murder, and over 400 cases were of violent attacks of beating, remonstrating, torturing, throwing acid or boiling water, mutilating a part of the body, attacking with a cutter or a blunt object.

What's more horrifying is that 20 of these proven cases were of assault by children. According to the report, the time 2019 saw the loftiest number of cases of crimes against animals (700 cases)- nearly, 4,230 dogs have been killed by mass culling drives across the country in the once five times alone. According to the findings, road animals including slapdash dogs are one of the biggest victims of animal abuse, which includes mass culling."

There are proven cases of mass killing of road animals from the following 21 nations Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha, Assam, Meghalaya, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

The data discloses varied styles of killing animals being buried alive, beaten to death, burned alive, poisoned, fitted with chemicals, shot, strangled with ropes and acerbic cables, suffocated, sharpened, and left to die with their mouths and branches tied," it said "the cases proved the report revealed violence against animals, and yet these are only the tip of the icicle- most cases are not reported. Because they're animals, people tend to play the violence by calling it atrocity.

But it's further than atrocity. It's physical abuse; it's cerebral abuse; it's rape; it's murder. Severe crimes against animals must be treated as a felony," Varda Mehrotra, Executive Director, FIAPO said, the report estimates that a normal of 5 animals die every day. But because of lack of reporting, the factual numbers could be at least 10 times advanced, which means 50 beast deaths every day - amounting to at least 2 animals being killed every hour in India. This doesn't include animal deaths in slaughterhouses, zoos, and laboratories, and deaths by accidents or mortal negligence.

Citing the findings of their report, FIAPO, and ACGS have appealed to the government to set up a devoted ministry to oversee aspects of beast weal, protection, and rights as the (AWBI) being under the Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries is a clear conflict of interest. The report also argues for a public record of crimes against animals to be published by the NCRB. Also, it recommends that crimes against animals must be meetly graded, and discipline must be handed to them according to the inflexibility of the crime.38

Obstructions in a way
There are several bars to implement laws relating to animal rights under the right to life and ethics of animal testing and factory farming in India.

1. Inadaptability:
   People oppose and persist in challenging the legitimacy of fundamental animal rights due to their faith and underlying financial benefits.
    
2. Legal impediments:
   Lack of enforcement of the law and public ignorance of ethical treatment are factors contributing to animal suffering.
    
3. Weaker enforceability of laws:
   India has made progress in actively defending animal rights while upholding the interests of all parties involved in the process.
   39 It is regrettable that India still conducts business with nations and funds organizations where egregious abuses continue to occur, even after the PETA-uncovered incident in 1999. Even though there have been fewer violations since 2015, there is still a lack of transparency in the system because it was discovered that 90% of the animals were absent from the records kept by labs for compiling data on the animal subjects because they were brought into the facilities illegally. These figures are still able to appear because of systemic flaws.40
    
4. Overcome myths:
   People believe that since animals are tools by nature, humans can utilize them any way they like. People find it challenging to shed their outdated perspectives.
   41
    
5. Cultural and traditional barriers:
   People's memories of practices like offering sacred blood from sacrificed animals to God in order to fulfill their wishes are deeply ingrained. They don't want to abandon the long-standing customs and cultural practices that they adhere to.
   42

Way Forward
Here are some suggestions:

1. Effective animal protection laws and implementation:
   More efficient legal mechanisms are required, along with severe legal enforcement on the side of the government, to stop the horrific suffering of animals.
    
2. Publicize:
   The issue can be addressed through hosting fundraising events, organizing educational events making informational pamphlets, advocacy campaigns, awareness-raising programs, and mass media etc.
    
3. Incite Ethical Farming Practices:
   The expansion of animal farming has raised ethical concerns. This can be accomplished by encouraging farmers by rewarding those who adopt moral behaviour and penalizing those who engage in unethical behaviour.
    
4. Encourage Alternatives to Animal Testing:
   To lessen the number of animals used in tests and lessen their suffering, promote alternatives to animal testing in India, such as computer modeling and in vitro testing.

Conclusion
John Feldmann says "I believe animals should be respected as citizens of this earth. They should have the right to their own freedom, their own families, and their own life".43 Animals were revered and treated as heavenly figures in the past when they were thought of as embodiments of God. In certain instances, they are still taken into account.

Animals are treated with moral decency. However, this faith is fading more and more every day. It is heartbreaking to witness people treating animals arbitrarily in ways such as poaching, exploiting them for profit, using them in experiments, beheading them as a form of religious sacrifice, and so on.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, of 1960, on the other hand, sets up regulations for the moral conduct of research with animals and levies fines for violating these regulations. To safeguard the well-being of animals in India, we must ensure gentle treatment and protection from cruel actions. To do this, we need competent rules and effective implementation.

References:

1. 1595 (2014) 7 SCC
2. Ben Davies, De Ethica. A Journal of Philosophical, Theological and Applied Ethics Vol. 3:3 (2016), Utilitarianism and Animal Cruelty: Further Doubts, https://philarchive.org/archive/BENUAA
3. https://straydoginstitute.org/animal-rights/
4. https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/what-do-you-mean-by-animal-rights/
5. https://thehumaneleague.org/article/animal-rights
6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340178/
7. Ozy Frantz, The history Of animal rights In India, https://faunalytics.org/the-history-of-animal-rights-in-india/
8. https://www.worldanimalprotection.ca/education/what-is-animal-welfare
9. (2002) INSC 453
10. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1452355/
11. Ibid
12. Supra note 9
13. Ibid
14. 1987 SCR (1) 819
15. 1987 SCR (2) 223
16. https://www.animallaw.info/article/constitutional-scheme-animal-rights-india#s1
17. Supra note 1
18. AIR 1998 Guj 220
19. Supra note 17
20. AIR 2002 SC 724.
21. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1726
22. Ibid
23. https://wii.gov.in/animalwelfare_rules_14
24. https://indiankanoon.com
25. https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/criminal-laws/the-prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals-act-1960/breeding-of-and-experiments-on-animals-control-and-supervision-rules-1998/
26. https://www.reddyandreddy.org/prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals-pet-shop-rules-2018/
27. http://bwcindia.org/Web/Info%26Action/Legislation/AquariumandFishTankAnimalsShop(English).pdf
28. https://ahd.uk.gov.in/files/12-SPCA-Rules-2001.pdf
29. https://moef.gov.in/en/
30. https://blog.ipleaders.in/laws-and-regulations-regarding-animal-experimentation-in-india/
31. 2018 SCC On Line Utt 645
32. AIR 1989 SC 1
33. 1979 Cri LJ 1404
34. Writ Petition (PIL) (Lodging) No. 2490 of 2004
35. First Appeal No. 676 of 2009
36. Civil Writ Petition No. 837 of 2001
37. 1999 (3) ACR 2668
38. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2010
39. https://www.indiatimes.com/explainers/news/explained-animal-rights-secured-in-the-indian-constitution-607057.html
40. https://www.fiapo.org/fiaporg/news/tradition-culture-or-cruelty-2/
41. https://indianlegalsolution.com/animal-rights-issues-and-challenges-faced-by-the-government/
42. Ibid
43. https://twitter.com/veganfuture/status/1313738344032022533

Written By: Pallvi Thakur

Also Read:

• Animal Protection Laws under IPC and Constitution