Legal status of nonhuman animals in India

This post aims to provide an overview of the legal status of nonhuman animals in India, examining the historical attitudes toward animals, the current state of the Indian economy concerning the use of animals, the constitutional provisions, existing laws governing animal welfare and some notable judicial decisions that have shaped the legal landscape for animals. We conclude by examining advocacy strategies used by animal activists and highlighting opportunities for individuals and organizations to advance the situation of animals in India. We hope that it will benefit the readers in understanding the current deficiencies in the legal-ethical framework governing human-animal relations in India, which can further inform animal advocacy groups to strengthen their strategies.

Historical attitudes toward animals

Before looking at the contemporary treatment of animals in India, it is important to look at people’s attitudes in the past. India is a culmination of various religious traditions, and in many of them, Ahimsa, or non-violence, has been a foundational moral principle in Indian culture from ancient times to the present.¹ It holds a central place in Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, where it represents non-harm and deep respect for all living beings.² In Buddhism, Ahimsa is included in the Five Precepts, beginning with the commitment to abstain from killing. Jainism takes the principle further, discouraging any form of harm to living creatures, including working in zoos or using animal-derived products like silk. Hinduism also emphasizes interconnectedness through the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, meaning “the world is one family”, a concept from the Maha Upanishad that reflects unity across cultures, religions, nationalities, and species. Beginning in the 12th century, Islamic dynasties introduced new views on animals, including Halal dietary practices and royal hunting traditions, while also establishing rules to reduce unnecessary cruelty.

Apart from the major religions, pro-animal attitudes have also been observed by many indigenous tribes that adhere to respect for nonhuman animals, for example, the Bishnoi community in the state of Rajasthan, who strictly adhere to 29 rules prescribed 500 years ago by Guru Jambhoji. One of the rules teaches its members to be compassionate toward all living beings. They observe a strict vegetarian diet, and the animals they rescue are given the same treatment as humans.³ It is common to see Bishnoi villagers nursing injured gazelles or feeding wild peacocks. There are other tribal communities as well that either follow a strict vegetarian diet, such as Todas⁴ and Lingayats,⁵ or that abstain from milk consumption as they believe it belongs to the calves, such as the Drokpa,⁶ Baiga, and Araku⁷ tribes.

Despite the existence of some positive attitudes toward animals, there still exist beliefs and practices that involve animal use and cruelty. Practices such as bull-taming, bullock-cart races and cock-fighting are some examples of events conducted in the name of tradition. Animal sacrifices during religious festivals are also defended on the grounds of religion, which the law permits as a justifiable ground if such practice is an essential part of the religion.⁸ Religious practices in India are varied, and therefore, people’s attitudes and treatment toward animals differ from place to place.

Food politics and animal rights

In many Western countries, individuals generally avoid animal products due to moral, environmental and health related considerations, whereas a significant portion of vegetarians in India do so for religious beliefs. Various religions and castes have principles that compel their followers to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.⁹ Given the religious importance of cows in Hindu ethics, most Indian states have implemented laws for their protection, which prohibit the slaughter of cows, bulls, and their offspring. While this legislation safeguards them from being slaughtered, it does not stop their exploitation for milk and other products. However, cow protection has in recent times become a contentious political topic, intertwined with caste and sectarian identity politics.¹⁰ Numerous marginalized communities, including Dalit and Muslim groups, who historically depend on cow meat consumption and tanning industries, view bans on cow slaughter as a threat to caste and communal equality. This conflict is also exploited by right-wing majoritarian groups weaponizing cow protection laws for political advantage and resorting to violence against marginalized individuals¹¹ suspected of eating cow flesh. It is important to note that this protection does not include buffaloes, which account for nearly half of the milk production in India. A FIAPO report revealed that many dairy facilities house sick, injured, and distressed animals.¹² Inadequate veterinary care and the illegal administration of drugs and hormones, such as oxytocin, to enhance milk production are prevalent. In addition to this, vegetarianism has also historically usually been appropriated by upper caste Hindu groups to marginalize lower caste populations reliant on meat for sustenance, often through purity politics.¹³ This politicization of food and cows poses a significant challenge for animal advocates promoting veganism, who face criticism from left-wing political factions wary of such advocacy, viewing it as a facade for undermining the rights of marginalized communities.

Economy

Economic considerations significantly influence the legal status of animals in India, largely shaping public policy and societal views. Analyzing these influencing factors on attitudes and practices concerning animal treatment can better inform our understanding of the opportunities and challenges that animal advocates face in India.

India has a population of about 1.43 billion people, which, according to some estimates, is growing steadily between 1.15% and 1.17% per year. Farming animals for food plays a significant role in the country’s economy to feed the growing population. It is also considered an important source of livelihood for many small and marginal farmers, and it also contributes to the country’s food security (Singh, 2020). This trend has intensified since the 1970s, coinciding with several revolutions in animal agriculture, including the White Revolution (1970-1996) for dairy, the Red Revolution (1980s) for meat, and the Silver Revolution (2000s) for eggs.¹⁴ India stands as one of the largest producers of various animal-derived products: it is the top producer of milk, ranks second in egg production globally, and is the leading exporter of buffalo meat, commonly referred to as carabeef.¹⁵ Estimates indicate that approximately 4.3 billion land animals are farmed each year in India.

Between 23% and 37% of Indians follow a vegetarian diet, but these figures are likely exaggerated due to the social, cultural, and political significance attached to vegetarianism.¹⁶ Meat and dairy consumption in India has been rising in recent years, partly due to a growing middle-class population with an increase in disposable income. According to the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), per capita meat consumption in India increased from 4.9 kilograms in 2004-05 to 7.9 kilograms in 2011-12. Similarly, per capita consumption of milk and other dairy products increased from 118 kilograms in 2004-05 to 177 kilograms in 2011-12. However, despite this increase in consumption, India still has a relatively low level of meat and dairy consumption compared to other countries. For example, per capita meat consumption in the United States is more than four times higher than in India. This increase in demand in India can be attributed to several factors, including a growing middle class with higher disposable incomes, urbanization, and changing dietary habits. It has been observed that with an increase in people’s income, there is a rise in the consumption of meat and dairy products. Furthermore, urbanization has also led to a shift toward more Westernized diets, which tend to be higher in meat and dairy products. However, there are anomalies in this pattern. For example, it’s been observed that a large percentage of Indian adults (81%) observe limitations on meat consumption as part of their dietary habits primarily due to religious reasons, which may involve avoiding certain types of meat, abstaining from meat on particular days, or both.¹⁷ Nevertheless, as mentioned in the last section, it is worth noting that avoiding certain animal products due to religious reasons does not necessarily reflect a pro-animal attitude and a positive moral stance toward animal protection.

Various laws in India

Currently, Indian legislation on animal laws takes a welfare approach by way of establishing standards and regulations to ensure that animals are not subjected to unnecessary suffering and cruelty as opposed to a rights-based approach wherein animals are granted inherent rights as those of humans.

Among the main acts is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PCA Act’), which aims to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. The Act does not explicitly define what constitutes “unnecessary pain or suffering.” In practice, Indian courts interpret these terms based on the context and circumstances of each case. Apart from this, the legislation also casts a general duty on the person in charge of any animal to take reasonable care in ensuring their well-being.¹⁸ Although the act does not define ‘wellbeing’, it has established some welfare regulations for certain farmed species based on the ‘five freedoms’ model of welfare. However, these regulations significantly fall short of adequately considering the interests of animals. The Act defines an ‘animal’ as any living creature other than a human being.¹⁹ Hence, the provisions of the Act generally apply to all animals unless specifically mentioned. According to the act, it is an offense to subject any animal to immense pain, suffering, agony, and discomfort by beating, kicking or torturing the animal.²⁰ However, it also provides a exemption clause which, if followed in the prescribed manner, exempts certain practices from being an offense, such as dehorning of cattle, castration, branding or nose-roping of any animal and killing any animal as food for human consumption, unless such killing involves “unnecessary pain or suffering”.

Additionally, the Act established the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), an advisory body tasked with the implementation of the legislation’s provisions by issuing SOPs and guidelines for regulating the trade of certain animals.²¹ The PCA Act’s provisions merely extend to the regulation of transporting, handling, and slaughtering of animals and do not altogether ban such activities, thereby failing to confront the core problem of exploitation. For example, the Transport of Animals Rules (1978) prescribes rules for certification and precautions to be taken during the transportation of animals, but does not prohibit the use of animals for transport.

The Central Government also mandates every State Government/Union Territory to establish a statutory body called the ‘Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)’ in every district to aid the AWBI and local authorities in enforcing the provisions of the Act.²² This body has, in principle, the power to compel any person to produce any animal in their possession or custody, stop any vehicle, or enter any premises to conduct a search or inquiry if it believes that an offense under the Act has been committed.²³ It also mandates every state government to assist this Society by providing land and other facilities, establishing infirmaries and animal shelters with a full-time veterinary doctor and other staff for its maintenance.²⁴ However, as of 2025, it is still not implemented in every district of the country as envisioned and is limited by financial and infrastructure issues, which highlights the inadequacy in enforcement.²⁵

One of the major criticisms of the PCA Act is that its penalties are outdated and insufficient to deter individuals from committing offenses. The fines set decades ago do not reflect current economic realities. In response, the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying drafted a bill to amend this 60-year-old legislation. The draft proposes increasing the penalty for first-time offenders from the current range of Rs. 10 to 50 (approximately $0.12 to $0.60 in 2024) to Rs. 1000 to 2500 (about $12 to $30) for each animal harmed. Additionally, the draft introduces new provisions, including penalties for gruesome cruelty. The proposed fines for such offenses range from Rs. 50,000 to 75,000 (around $598 to $897 in 2024), along with imprisonment of up to three years.²⁶ However, despite its importance, this amendment bill has been pending in Parliament for several years and has yet to be formally discussed, reflecting a significant gap between legislative intent and political action. Furthermore, a critical yet often overlooked issue is that most provisions under the Act emphasize negative duties prohibiting harm or cruelty owed by humans to animals. In contrast, positive duties that would actively promote better and dignified lives for animals are scarce and underemphasized.²⁷

The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is another legislation intended to protect the country’s plant species and wild animals, both terrestrial and aquatic. The act primarily aims to conserve the species and biodiversity as a whole, as opposed to giving priority to the interests of individual animals. It provides for the establishment of national parks, sanctuaries, and other protected areas for the conservation of wild species. The Act also prohibits the hunting of wild animals, trading of animal articles and destruction of their habitats with certain exceptions, such as in cases of self-defense, dangerous or diseased animals and other special purposes. It lays down penalties for offenders who violate its provisions, including imprisonment and fines.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of legal provisions relating to different categories of animals:

Farmed animals

Section 11(3)(e) states that the provisions of the PCA Act do not apply to the killing of any animal as food for human consumption unless such killing involves the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Egg Laying Hens) Rules, 2023 covers registration of farms, duties of farm owners, space requirements, prohibited feeds, veterinary care, euthanasia of male chicks, disposal of spent laying hens, cancellation of registration and penalties for non-compliance.

It’s important to clarify that the term “euthanasia”, when applied to the killing of male chicks, differs from its definition concerning humans. In human contexts, euthanasia involves intentionally ending a person’s life to alleviate pain and suffering, which does not apply in the case of male chicks that are killed because they are not useful for farmers.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 deal with license requirements, procedure for slaughter, maintenance of slaughterhouses and inspection by the AWBI to ensure compliance.

Rules 16 and 17 of the Livestock Markets Rules state that Animals must be handled humanely, and practices like dragging, suspending off the ground etc, are prohibited.

Other similar rules include the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Animal Markets Rules (2018) and the Transport of Animals Rules (1978).

Wild animals

The Wild Llife (Protection) Act, 1972 prohibits poaching, killing, poisoning, trapping or harming any wild animal in any manner. The Act does not generally prohibit the harming of non-wild animals (like domesticated animals) or pests, unless they’re included in Schedules I-IV. Some notable sections in the act:

• Section 9 makes it an offense to hunt any wild animal listed in Schedules I-IV, which cover virtually all charismatic or economically valuable species. Hunting includes “capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring or trapping… and every attempt to do so”, so organized trophy hunts are automatically illegal.
• Section 48A prohibits any person from transporting any wild animal(or animal article), bird or plant (excluding animals categorized as vermin) without the permission of the Chief Wildlife Warden or any other official authority of the State government.
• Section 49 prohibits buying and selling any captive or wild animal (excluding animals categorized as vermin), or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom, otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorized to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this Act.
• Section 51 imposes penalties on anyone found violating the provisions of the Act to be liable for punishment of imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to Rs. 25,000 or both.

Aquatic animals

The Wild Llife (Protection) Act, 1972 covers aquatic animals and helps preserve marine biodiversity through Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Schedules I to IV of the Act list species like seahorses, hermatypic corals, organ pipes, fire corals, sea fans, sponges, and molluscs. However, this protection is species-based, not individual-based, focusing on conservation rather than safeguarding individual wild animals.

Birds

Birds are protected under both the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960.

For example, Section 11(1)(ii) prohibits any act that incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal for the sole purpose of entertainment. Hence, this provision makes cockfighting illegal in India.

Section 11(1)(o) of the PCA Act prescribes punishment for any person who promotes or participates in a shooting match or competition where animals are released from captivity for such shooting.

Animals used for experimentation

The Section 18(4) of the Cosmetics Rules, 2020 states that no cosmetic that has been tested on animals after the 12th day of November 2014 shall be imported into the country.

Although cosmetic testing is prohibited, animal experimentation for scientific purposes is still permitted in India and continues to cause harm. While some regulations exist, they do not fully ban these experiments.:

• Chapter IV of the PCA Act deals with the establishment and duties of a Committee for supervision and passing regulations on animal experiments.
• Under that, Section 14 permits animal experimentation for advancing physiological knowledge, discovering new information beneficial for prolonging life, alleviating suffering or combating disease, in humans, animals or plants.²⁸ In some cases, it is allowed to test on animals to save plants, thereby prioritizing plants over the interests of animals.
• The Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998 provide for registration of every experimentation establishment and regulations on stocking of animals and conducting experiments, etc.
• MoHFW passed an amendment sparing repeat animal testing for new drugs in cases where previous data exists.²⁹
• Government of India has passed the New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules that aim to replace the use of animals in research, especially in drug testing.³⁰

Animals used for entertainment

Chapter V of the PCA Act deals with performing animals. The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules 2001 establish rules and regulations for the registration of animals intended to be used for entertainment. The provisions contain the procedure for application and registration. Section 26 imposes penalties against any person who is not registered and found using any animal for entertainment or performance, liable for a fine up to Rs 500 or imprisonment of 3 months or both.

General protection of animals

• Prevention of Cruelty towards Animal Act (PCA), 1960
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017
• Section 325, BNS, 2023 – Killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal could result in an imprisonment of up to and/or a fine determined by the court.

For a comprehensive list of animal-related laws, please refer to the AWBI Animal Welfare Handbook.³¹ Besides the national laws mentioned earlier, there are also state-specific laws addressing animal cruelty.

The provisions outlined above indicate that the definition of cruelty in the PCA Act differs significantly from the common perception. This legislation focuses solely on establishing regulations regarding the treatment of animals that may be exploitative, rather than seeking to prevent such significant harms at their source.

Constitutional provisions

The Constitution of India is regarded as the supreme law of the country, which lays down the fundamental political code, rights and duties of citizens, procedures, structures and powers of governmental institutions. It is widely regarded to be a “living document” — dynamic and constantly evolving with changing times. It is the longest-written constitution of any country.

In India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a tool granted under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution that allows anyone, even if they are not directly affected, to bring up issues of public concern before the Supreme Court or the High Courts,³² respectively for the purpose of seeking legal remedy. PILs are often used to defend the rights of marginalized groups, including animals, and have been successful in securing significant legal protection for these causes. One notable instance of this application for animals is the Jallikattu Ban – Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), which was in response to a PIL filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India.

In the eyes of the law, animals are considered to be the legal property over which the State and humans may exercise control and dominion. Therefore, the concept of personhood³³ is not defined by any legislation in India for animals. However, certain judicial rulings have symbolically recognized animals as legal persons.

The Constitution prescribes certain fundamental duties upon the citizens, amongst which Article 51A(g) states that “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”

The Constitution also contains Directive Principles of State Policy, which are ideals that the State should follow and keep in mind while formulating policies and enacting laws for the country, amongst which Article 48A states that “The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” It can be inferred from the mandate that it prioritizes the protection and conservation of the natural world as a whole while regarding individual animals as just a small part of a larger ecosystem. In conclusion, the constitutional provisions do not grant personhood status to nonhuman animals similar to that of a natural person. However, the Indian judiciary (court decisions) has made some progress with regard to that. For instance, the Uttarakhand High Court (2018) recognized animals as legal entities with rights akin to those of living persons. Likewise, in 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed that all animals, including birds and fish, are acknowledged as “legal persons”.³⁴

Judicial decisions

Judicial law is the body of law created by judges through their decisions in court cases, which establishes a precedent for subsequent cases of a similar nature. This is in contrast to legislative law, which refers to laws created by a legislative body through the process of drafting, debating, and passing bills as legislation. The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in shaping the legal status of animals in India. Over the years, the courts have issued several landmark decisions, among which a few have recognized legal rights for animals and sought to protect them from exploitation, though there is still a lot of progress to be made.

There have been several judicial decisions in the Indian courts that have attempted to recognize sentience and advance personhood and legal rights for animals.

• For example, in furtherance of Article 51A (mentioned earlier), the Supreme Court in People for Animals v. Md. Mohazzim (2015)³⁵ recognized birds’ right to fly.
• In N.R. Nair v. Union of India, both the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court on appeal recognized the first recorded language of animal sentience in Indian courts banning the use of five animals in performances (namely circuses) – bears, monkeys, panthers, tigers and dogs from being exploited in the guise of entertainment.³⁶
• In Subhas Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura,³⁷ the practice of animal sacrifice in a temple was challenged before the court, while the act was defended on the grounds of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution. Based on the finding, the court held the act to be cruel, barbaric, and violative of the PCA Act, 1960, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The court also noted that while the freedom of religion is a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and morality and that the practice of animal sacrifice is not an essential part of the religion of the worshippers. The court also directed the judicial officers of all the districts to initiate measures to educate and sensitize the general public about the constitutional mandate and the importance of adopting an attitude of love, compassion, and respect towards animals.

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors³⁸ is another landmark judgment that involves Jallikattu, a traditional bull-taming sport practised in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu as part of the harvest festival where a bull is released into a crowd of participants who then attempt to grab onto the hump on the bull’s back and hang onto it while the bull attempts to escape. The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India in 2010 to ban the sport, citing concerns about animal cruelty and public safety. Meanwhile, the practice was defended as a constitutional right to preserve distinct cultures guaranteed under Article 29(1) of the Indian Constitution. In 2014, the Supreme Court banned the sport on the grounds that it was cruel to the bulls and violated the PCA Act of 1960. This decision was based on the fact that the bulls were subjected to unnecessary pain and injury.

In connection with the above-mentioned case, the term “unnecessary pain or suffering” is mentioned under the object of the PCA Act, which states “to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals”. This is done by conferring a positive duty on the caretaker of the animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such an animal.³⁹ Therefore, the law assumes that there is some amount of infliction of suffering that is necessary. Additionally, since what amounts to necessary or unnecessary suffering is not explicitly defined under the Act, it was mostly left to the discretion of the courts to decide based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The court also commented on the doctrine of necessity, which states that in certain situations, it may be justifiable to infringe upon the well-being of an animal if it is necessary to prevent greater harm or to protect the interests of humans or other animals. This doctrine is, in principle, meant to be applied in cases where animal well-being considerations come into conflict with other competing interests, such as public safety and the greater good. However, the doctrine does not provide a blanket justification for all forms of harm or exploitation of animals. The PCA Act provides for specific exceptions on the grounds of necessity, such as animals raised for food, experimentation on animals and euthanization of stray dogs.⁴⁰

However, in 2023, the Supreme Court superseded their previous decision, by permitting the sport to be conducted in the state again, expressing that the Amendment Act passed in 2017⁴¹ aims to minimize the pain and suffering involved in the sport substantially. The Court emphasized that having received the President’s assent, it did not find any flaw in the Government’s action.⁴²

In conclusion, despite the positive developments in protecting animals by the Indian courts, there is still much progress to be made in protecting the interests of animals. This can be seen in the case of Jallikattu, which highlights the ongoing struggle to ensure animal well-being against cultural practices. Although the decision allowed for the sport to be permitted, it prompted significant discussion and consideration about the well-being of animals within the Indian judiciary.

Current advocacy strategies

Below are some of the broad interventions that are being employed by animal advocates in India:

Legislative and judicial interventions

Legislative and judicial interventions are the most commonly adopted methods of protecting the interests of animals in the long term. Legislative interventions focus on introducing new laws, amending existing laws, or imposing stricter penalties for animal-related offenses. This is beneficial as it would set a new standard and enable a change in people’s behavior by imposing sanctions for non-compliance. For example, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare revised the Cosmetic Rules,⁴³ thereby prohibiting the importation of cosmetics that have been tested on animals, making India the first Asian nation to outlaw both animal testing of cosmetics and the use of animal-tested components.⁴⁴

On the other hand, judicial interventions involve approaching the courts by filing a petition seeking certain relief. The court’s decision sets a precedent for future cases of a similar nature. For instance, as mentioned earlier, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), after hearing a petition filed by FIAPO, in compliance with the directions issued by the Delhi High Court, cancelled the registration of five circuses over complaints of violation of animal rights.⁴⁵

In another instance, a criminal complaint was filed in the police station as a captive elephant held by a temple was subjected to years of cruel treatment by her mahout. As a result, the Bombay High Court directed that the elephant be set free and relocated to a Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre.⁴⁶ However, achieving these changes through legislative and judicial interventions can be a long and complex process that might involve a lot of time and resources before the change is successful and for the enforcement to be strict. In addition to that, as long as the law treats animals as items of property, very little can be done to protect them in this system, despite changing several provisions.

Campaigns by animal advocacy organizations

Campaigns by advocacy organizations commonly aim to by raising awareness on specific issues related to animal cruelty, exploitation, and abuse, thereby focusing on changing the public’s attitudes and business practices toward their treatment of animals. There are more than 20,000 animal advocacy NGOs in the country, of which only a select few focus on farm animal protection, as most primarily focus on only stray and companion animals.⁴⁷ While there are many forms of campaigns run by Indian animal organizations. We highlight two of them below:

1. Corporate outreach is one method of campaigning strategy, though it is less commonly used compared to legal interventions, as most animal products are sold by small retail outlets across the country, with only a few sold by major corporate chains. However, an increasing number of initiatives by Indian animal advocacy organizations are being implemented that aim to secure commitments from corporations to adopt practices that reduce the quantity of animal products used or support higher welfare institutions, including the introduction of the Green Tuesdays Initiative and cage-free campaigns.
2. Another form of campaigning involves creating mass awareness to gain public support for policy change. For example, in 2016, a campaign demanding an amendment to the PCA Act was jointly launched by two major animal organizations to better address animal cruelty and has been successful in raising mass awareness among the public about the low penalties for animal cruelty.⁴⁸ It led to lawmakers taking action by bringing this issue before Parliament for amendment. The amendment could potentially help law enforcement agencies and the courts impose stronger penalties and punishments which could be a stronger deterrent against animal cruelty.

Dietary and nutritional change

Encouraging people to shift to a plant-based diet has been a widely used strategy in India by many health advocacy groups. India is home to a diverse population with a range of religious, cultural, and dietary practices, many of which involve the use of animal products. Organizations and advocates usually run campaigns that are focused on reaching out to people and raising awareness about the benefits of a plant-based diet. Activities by organizations and grassroots advocacy groups include street outreach, vegan food festivals, and education programs aimed at schools and colleges have been implemented to achieve this goal.⁴⁹ In recent years, there have also been efforts to promote an increase in plant-based alternatives to animal products.

Opportunities

Advocating for better animal protection laws

Despite India having several laws in place that criminalize some forms of animal cruelty, as mentioned earlier, the current laws are not enforced effectively,  and the penalties are not strong enough to deter offenders. In addition to that, the existing legal framework predominantly adopts a welfare-centric approach that holds that humans are entitled to use animals for multifarious purposes, but while doing so, they be treated humanely and avoid inflicting unnecessary pain. This has been criticized by several animal advocates for being inadequate in bringing substantial changes to their conditions, as it still perpetuates the subjugation and exploitation of animals. However, this approach is defended because it allows for easier implementation of regulations and garners widespread support from the general public compared to substantial changes.⁵⁰ Individuals can contribute by joining animal organizations that work with policymakers to strengthen these laws and find pathways of creating new laws that abolish harmful practices and prevent exploitative laws from being implemented.⁵¹ This can be augmented by supporting the animal farmers to find alternative livelihoods that don’t involve animal exploitation.We could also have a high impact by creating laws that provide protection to relatively neglected species of exploited animals that are harmed in large numbers. For example, the exploitation of aquatic animals and invertebrates, while being an area where a large number of animals are harmed but there currently exist no laws to extend protection to these animals and it has not received sufficient attention among most animal advocacy groups as there have been only a few organizations that focus on these issues, therefore a lot more work and capacity building can be done to improve their situation and the way these animals are perceived as there are currently no legislations to extend protection to these animals.

Development of alternative proteins to reduce dependency on animal products

India has the largest vegetarian population and one of the lowest per capita meat consumptions in the world.⁵² It is also among the top five producers of essential plant proteins, including lentils, legumes, millets, wheat, and soybeans. This presents a significant opportunity to encourage the populace to adopt alternatives to meat-based proteins by investing in the research and development of alternative proteins. For instance, initiatives such as the Alternate Protein Project, an initiative by GFI India that supports students in running university groups pursuing research on plant-based, cultivated, and fermentation-enabled protein.⁵³ However, despite an increase in purchasing power and disposable income over the years, India remains a price-sensitive market. Therefore, affordability will be a key factor in the demand for plant-based products, and efforts to provide cost-effective alternatives are necessary to achieve widespread adoption.

Targeted education campaigns to younger audiences

A study on attitudes toward farmed animals in India found that participants in the 18-24 age category generally displayed less supportive attitudes and beliefs toward animals compared to older individuals. This group also showed the lowest inclination to agree that farmed animals experience suffering akin to humans or that consuming meat directly contributes to animal suffering.⁵⁴ This is highly concerning as the next generation of decision makers would end up being less sympathetic to the animal cause. Conducting workshops and seminars to teach relevant audiences about the importance of extending moral consideration to animals could have a long-term impact in influencing attitudes of future decision makers. One study on the effectiveness of various advocacy strategies found that educating students in a classroom setting about animal suffering has been an effective form of advocacy in bringing a shift in attitude.⁵⁵ This gives us a good reason to believe that introducing discussions about moral consideration to animals in schools and universities can meaningfully influence how young people think during their formative years. A practical approach might be to incorporate a subject on Animal Welfare into the national curriculum, similar to Environmental Science. This would help children relate better with animals early on, and may encourage them to take part in efforts that help animals. For this reason, Animal Ethics focuses its outreach and education on younger generations, particularly Gen Z, by raising awareness about speciesism and the often-overlooked suffering of wild animals.

Efforts to reduce wild animal suffering

India is home to a large population of wild animals, primarily residing in 576 sanctuaries spanning over 122,564.86 km2.⁵⁶ This excludes the animals that reside in urban and agricultural settings. However, most of the work for wild animals in India is focused on conservation efforts rather than on reducing the suffering of individual animals. Animal advocacy groups can change this by lobbying for more research on wild animal welfare and for stronger laws and penalties for the protection of wild animals, which includes a focus on their welfare. One approach to achieve this goal is to focus on interventions that alleviate wild animal suffering, which also receive broad public support. Some examples of such interventions include vaccinating animals against diseases, assisting wild animals in urban and agricultural environments, and providing aid during disasters like floods. For instance, the government of Assam in India has been helping wild animals fleeing the Kaziranga floods by creating artificial highlands to serve as temporary shelters from the rising waters.⁵⁷ For more information about wild animal suffering and ways to help them, you can check out this section.

Preventing future risks

Given that the future is likely to last for a very long time, and considering the steady rise in the number of animals being exploited in India, it seems reasonable to expect that there will be many more sentient beings in the future than there are today. Since our actions can affect these future beings for better or worse, it is possible that large numbers of them could suffer depending on the moral attitudes we adopt now. Technological developments, in particular, such as precision livestock farming could pose risks, as they could lead to even more widespread animal exploitation.⁵⁸ For example, the growth of invertebrate farming could significantly increase the number of animals harmed. Campaigns that challenge speciesism and raise awareness of long-term risks to animals can help prevent these outcomes. Most current animal advocacy focuses on short-term goals, but encouraging a longtermist perspective among Indian animal protection movement could help us be better equipped to respect the interests of future sentient beings.

Conclusion

Due to India’s highly heterogeneous population, there are varying degrees of attitudes toward animals, with certain species of animals coming under the circle of compassion while several other species tend to be neglected. The country has struggled to protect their well-being, especially in the face of rapid industrialization and economic growth. Nevertheless, over the years, India has taken several judicial measures to protect the interests of animals, such as the recent recognition of animals as legal persons by a few court rulings. Other judicial decisions have affirmed that they are owed certain moral obligations under the law. Despite this, there is only so much that the judiciary can do to have a lasting impact, as it is the Parliament that has to amend obsolete laws and mandate strict enforcement.

The law takes an anthropocentric or an ecocentric view that values ecosystems in themselves as opposed to valuing sentience as the determining factor for moral consideration. Such a worldview can be problematic because it would allow harming individual sentient beings to protect the ecosystem’s stability.

The country has also seen a rise in animal advocacy groups in the recent decade that are working toward creating awareness about speciesism, advocating for animal-friendly policies, and providing legal support for the well-being of animals. However, there is still much to do to ensure that animals in India are protected from both human-caused and natural harm. There are many opportunities for advancing the interests of animals apart from the current efforts, such as capacity building for advocacy organizations, public education, legal reforms, and advocacy that includes concern for wild animal suffering and focusing on the long-term future.

---

Further readings

Cerqueira, M.; King-Nobles, H.; Kirsch, J.-J. & Raghavan, K. (2022) “Fish welfare scoping report: India”, Fish Welfare Initiative, October [accessed on 23 May 2025].

Good Food Institute India (2023) “Cultivated meat: Key opportunities and recommendations for India”, Good Food Institute India [accessed on 23 May 2025].

Goswami, M. (2022) “FAQ | Centre proposes changes to Animal Cruelty Law: What does draft bill say?”, The Quint, 26 Nov 2022 [accessed on 23 May 2025].

The Hindu Bureau (2022) “Vets petition for rules to ban use of animals in circuses”, The Hindu, January 06 [accessed on 23 May 2025].

Humane World for Animals (2023) “Humane Society International spays/neuters 50000 dogs in Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow”, Humane World for Animals, February 27 [accessed on 23 May 2025].

National Herald (2020)  “Milch animals being treated like ‘milk-producing machines’ in dairies in Varanasi and Allahabad: Report”, National Herald. 25 Dec 2020 [accessed on 23 May 2025].

Nuggehalli, J. (2021) “Evolution of animal cruelty laws in India”, YouTube, Jayasimha Nuggehalli [accessed on 23 May 2025].

Polanco, A.; Parry, J. & Anderson, J. (2022) “Planting seeds: The impact of diet & different animal advocacy tactics”, Faunalytics, April 27 [accessed on 23 May 2025].

Salazar, M. (2021) “Effects of diet choices”, Animal Charity Evaluators, February [accessed on 23 May 2025].

Shekhar, S. (2016) “End to elephant cruelty: Circuses charged for keeping animals in inhuman condition”, India Today, Dec. 8 [accessed on 23 May 2025].

Shinde, M. (2018) “Here’s the problem with declaring animals as legal beings in India”, The Quint, 11 Jul 2018.

---

Notas