The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of rights inherent in animals and the obligations of humans to protect those rights, invoking the doctrine of parens patriae to require affirmative state action to safeguard the interests of animals.

ORDER :

1. Unfortunate indeed are the circumstances leading up to the human-animal conflict situation that we are called upon to resolve in these proceedings. Our State that is spread over 38,800 Square Kilometers of land is home to about 34 million human inhabitants, and wedged as it is between the Arabian Sea and the Western Ghats, it also boasts of substantial marine and forest wealth and the fact that it is home to many species of animals - domestic, wild and liminal. Coexistence with other species has always been an integral part of human existence in this State. In recent times, however, there have been a number of incidents of human-animal conflict reported from various corners of the State and it is one such issue that confronts us today.

The issue before us:

2. We have been shown reports of attacks on members of our citizenry by communal dogs that roam our streets in search of food and water. While the circumstances under which the attacks took place are not entirely clear, the reality is that many persons have suffered fatalities and injuries and the time has now come to direct the State administration to take immediate measures to prevent such incidents in future. This is all the more so because we have also been shown reports that reveal that, on account of delayed State action, people have begun taking law into their own hands and unleashing violence, bordering on massacre, on community dogs that they perceive to be dangerous.

The legal regime:

3. While dealing with human-animal conflict situations, and balancing the competing interests of humans and animals in that process, we feel that prudence calls for an examination of the statutory provisions, as contained in the Constitution and the laws, from the perspective of duties rather than of rights. Article 48A [Constitution of India; Article 48-A: Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country] in Part IV of our Constitution, that deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPoSP), speaks about protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife. Article 51A (g) and (h) [Constitution of India; Article 51-A. Fundamental duties - It shall be the duty of every citizen of India - (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures and (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform] that fall under Part IV-A of the Constitution dealing with the Fundamental Duties, obliges every citizen to protect and improve natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures, as also to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.

4. In N.R. Nair vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 2337, the Supreme Court breathed life into these constitutional provisions by interpreting restrictions imposed in furtherance of the said provisions as “reasonable” vis-a-vis the freedoms guaranteed to citizens under Article 19. The Court found that reasonable restrictions could be imposed on the fundamental freedoms recognised in citizens under Article 19 for the purpose of protecting the ‘rights’ recognised in animals. More than a decade later, in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others, (2014) 7 SCC 547, the Court interpreted the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (the ‘PCA Act’) in the backdrop of the fundamental duties prescribed under the Constitution and held that animals should now be seen as having certain rights, corresponding to the duties that are prescribed for human beings. Accordingly, it was held that Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act recognized five freedoms as inherent in all animals viz. (i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition (ii) freedom