This blog has been written by Abeer Sharma, Second Year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
Introduction
The earth’s ecosystem is not solely based on anthropocentric values and consists of various other beings, such as plants and non-human animals. However, in the past, human attitudes were more oriented towards self-development, often neglecting the well-being of other living beings, but over time, due to the degradation of the ecosystem, an ecocentric approach acknowledging the importance of other beings- was adopted.
In India, ecocentrism, which comprises the welfare of animals, was identified with the passage of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960. This was given an extended interpretation in the landmark case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja & others (Jallikattu case), where animal rights were provided an expanded constitutional interpretation on par with human rights, with the intent of protecting animals from exploitative practices.
Further, in the Jallikattu case, the Supreme Court described exceptions to animal rights as “unavoidable necessary actions for human benefit”. The court aligned these exceptions with provisions under Sections 14 and 28 of the PCA Act. The rationale for such exceptions, as explained by the court was to maintain an ecological balance in society by establishing an equilibrium between animal welfare and their use in promoting natural cycles, such as food chains.
However, these exceptions can be described as ambiguous because the term “unavoidable necessary actions for human benefit” lacks clear objective criteria, with its components leading to varied interpretations. Furthermore, while the exceptions under the PCA Act, are intended to be minimal and to balance animal rights with necessary human actions, they are insufficient for addressing the current evolving level of complicated modern industries. Thus, these limitations create challenges in determining whether the actions or practices adopted concerning the animals violate their rights or are covered under the umbrella of ecological balance.
Considering these challenges, this blog analyses the constituents of “unavoidable necessary actions for human benefit” as per the Jallikattu judgment and outlines the limitations within this classification. Furthermore, with reference to international standards, it proposes a new mechanism that can be adopted to promote both animal rights and ecological balance.
Defining What Constitutes “Unavoidable Necessary Actions for Human Benefit”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja & others (Jallikattu case), dealt with a matter where humans used bulls as a way of entertainment in Andhra Pradesh and subjected them to various exploitative practices to make them violent. Describing such actions as violative of Article 21, the court emphasized animals’ rights as inherent rights protected under the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, it recognized the duty of every individual under Article 51A(g) to ensure that their actions impacting animals are just and humane.
In the Jallikattu judgment, the court acknowledged that animal rights are not absolute and must be balanced with the “unavoidable necessary actions for human benefit.” To address this, the court devised a criterion to assess the necessity of the actions involving harm to animals
The criterion established by the court to analyse the actions as “unavoidable” included 4 components. First, ‘necessity’, the action causing harm to an animal must be based on essential reasons addressing an emergency situation not mere convenience. Secondly, ‘proportionality’, the harm caused by human actions should be outweighed by the significant benefits caused to humans, where the benefit must significantly exceed the loss. Third, ‘lack of alternatives’, no other viable alternatives should exist that could cause the same level of benefit for humans without causing harm to animals. Fourth, ‘regulatory compliance’, the harmful actions must adhere to the existing laws and regulations governing animal welfare, ensuring that all possible measures are taken to minimize suffering.
In alignment with these criteria, the court validated Sections 14 and 28 of the PCA Act. Section 14 permits the usage of animals for necessary experimental purposes, while Section 28 allows the killing of the animal as required by the religious practices of any community.
The Limitations Under the “Necessary Actions” Criteria
The “necessary action” criteria as devised by the court in the Jallikattu judgement, though appearing objective and exhaustive, still contains certain ambiguities. For instance, in present times, livestock such as cattle, pigs, or goats are used for multifarious purposes. During their operation, they may sometimes contract contagious diseases like avian influenza or African swine fever. To prevent the spread of such disease among other animals, the affected livestock often needs to be culled.
It is necessary to cull the deceased livestock to prevent the spread of infectious diseases to other animals and humans. Additionally, culling is deemed proportional, as the greater harm it averts is outweighed by the harm it causes, safeguarding the health and well-being of other living beings. Furthermore, alternatives such as vaccination or quarantine may not be feasible during a severe and widespread outbreak and culling is further allowed to be performed under strict regulatory compliance with government regulations, such as the Prevention and Control of Infectious and Contagious Diseases in Animals Act, 2009, making it valid and compatible in fulfilling components of the “necessary action” criteria.
However, this process can also result in negative consequences such as healthy animals getting culled due to the logistical challenges of bifurcating between infected and non-infected individuals. The proportionality criteria can also become contentious, as the lives of culled animals being sacrificed to protect others. Furthermore, long-term alternatives like improved disease surveillance and research into effective vaccines, are often overlooked due to the immediate effectiveness of culling, ultimately undermining the “lack of alternatives” component of the criteria.
Similar limitations under “necessary action” criteria can be observed in other spheres of action against animals, such as pest control in agriculture (unproportional harm to non-target species such as birds) and the use of animals in medical and pharmaceutical research (subjective quantification of animal life for human life). To rectify these issues and establish an equilibrium between animal rights and ecological balance, a new mechanism needs to be formed to replace the concept of “unavoidable necessary actions for human benefit”.
Formation of the New Mechanism in Consonance with International Standards
A new mechanism can replace the “necessary action” criteria, referred to as the Integrated Ethical Decision Framework (IEDF). This framework can function as an advanced version of the former criteria and be based on 4 advanced components: 1) The Ethical Necessity Assessment, 2) The Dynamic Proportionality Analysis, 3) Innovation and Alternatives Imperatives, 4) Regulatory Safeguards and Monitoring.
Ethical Necessity Assessment
This concept moves beyond the concept of necessity to incorporate ethical considerations, requiring decisions to be evaluated against a tiered ethical scale, wherein actions can proceed only if they address or mitigate an imminent threat to public health, ecological balance, or human survival. A comparable framework can be observed in the U.S. Animal Welfare Act, which mandates institutions using animals in research to ensure humane treatment and showcase substantial scientific and societal benefits to humans.
Furthermore, the actions must adhere to the basic ethics and natural justice principles, such as acquiescence with international standards like Brambell’s five freedoms of animal welfare. This ensures that every animal has the right to: 1) Freedom from hunger, malnutrition, and thirst. 2) Freedom from fear and distress. 3) Freedom from heat stress and physical discomfort. 4) Freedom from pain, Injury, and disease. 5) freedom to express normal behaviour.
Dynamic Proportionality Analysis
The ‘Dynamic Proportionality Analysis’ is an advanced version of the proportionality criterion. Instead of solely weighing the number of lives saved vs. harmed, it adopts a broader perspective by comprehensively analysing the short-term and long-term benefits and harms to animals, humans and ecosystems.
Moreover, this analysis encapsulates the idea of the Ecological Ripple Effect and Societal Gains, which considers the cascading consequences of actions such as culling animals and their direct and indirect effect on the food chain and its further societal outcomes. The precedent for this approach can be traced to European Union Directive 2010/63/EU on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes, which mandates a robust proportionality principle to comprehensively justify any harm with harm-benefit analysis (comparing the long-term and short-term losses and harm) as provided under Article 38(2)(d) and mandatory justification (providing reasons concerning measures to contain the ripple effect of actions) as provided under Article 38(1)(a) and Article 38(1)(b).
Innovative and Alternative Imperatives
This component builds upon the lack of alternative criterion, by further emphasizing innovation. Innovation works in expanding the scope of this approach to encompass not only existing remedial alternatives but also innovative strategies, which can be adopted to prevent the arousal of such situations where other alternatives become exhaustive.
For instance, the government should promote innovation in medical research, to eliminate animal testing all together and counter the situation under which alternatives to use animals are exhausted. A precedent for this approach can be observed in the United Kingdom, which adopted the “principle of 3Rs” as defined by Russell and Burch in their book “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique”. The 3Rs-replacement, reduction, and refinement- focus on ethical animal use in research. Replacement aims to avoid or replace the use of animals in areas through innovative techniques where they otherwise would have been used. Reduction emphasizes minimising the usage of animals with scientific innovation and the adoption of unexplored alternatives. Refinement focuses on the minimization of pain or suffering that animals may face during their usage.
Regulatory Safeguards and Monitoring
The current standard of regulatory compliance can be enhanced by incorporating ‘Regulatory Safeguards and Monitoring’ which can go beyond the compliance of the existing law and standards concerning animal usage. Independent audit bodies comprising multidisciplinary experts, including animal welfare specialists, ecologists and legal professionals can be established to conduct pre-implementation audits (evaluate compliance before taking actions) and post-implementation audits (evaluate adherence after taking actions).
Additionally, periodic reporting can be undertaken by the auditing body to provide a detailed report, highlighting the status of minimization of harm against animals and its short and long-term impacts on the ecosystem. Furthermore, if violations of standards and law are detected, these auditing bodies may be empowered to punitively sanction the violators and issue injunctions against them to prevent such future practices. An international example of this approach can be seen in Canada’s National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), which develops codes of practice for the care and handling of farm animals and observes its compliance to promote minimum suffering to the animals in various industries, while if the same is not followed then it also contains the statutory power to sanction the violators.
Conclusion
In conclusion, with the redefinition of “unavoidable necessity” post the Animal Welfare Board v. Nagaraja, there is a pressing need to form an equilibrium and harmonize animal rights vis-à-vis ecological needs. The Jallikattu case worked as a milestone in this respect, as it emphasized the need to protect animal rights and promote their welfare through constitutional protections, while at the same time recognising the exceptions for the essential human benefits.
However, defining “necessity” and addressing the existent modern challenges like culling and pest control still face certain limitations and ambiguities. The proposed Integrated Ethical Decision Framework (IDEF), upgrades this criterion by incorporating ethical assessments, dynamic proportionality, innovation in alternatives, and robust regulatory safeguards. Moreover, by embedding these principles with international precedents, India can efficiently promote an ecosystem that prioritizes humane treatment parallelly with a sustainable ecological balance.