The State has a duty to protect the life and personal liberty of its citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Examine how the judiciary balances competing rights when human s

Introduction

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity and safety. At the same time, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty to show compassion towards living creatures. The judiciary often faces the challenge of balancing human safety with animal welfare, especially in matters relating to stray dog management.

Balancing competing rights by the judiciary

1. Primacy of human life and safety

• The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that protection of human life is the foremost obligation of the State under Article 21.

• Rising incidents of dog bites and rabies have raised concerns regarding:

  • Public safety
  • Children’s security
  • Public health

Judicial observations

• Courts have emphasized that citizens cannot be exposed to unsafe public spaces in the name of animal protection.
• In recent proceedings on stray dog attacks, the Supreme Court directed authorities to ensure effective implementation of sterilisation and vaccination programmes while safeguarding citizens.

2. Recognition of animal welfare

• The judiciary has also expanded animal rights jurisprudence.
• In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court recognized that animals have a right to live with dignity and protection from unnecessary cruelty.
• Courts oppose indiscriminate killing or relocation of stray dogs.

3. Harmonising constitutional principles

The judiciary seeks a middle path through:

• Scientific sterilisation under Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules
• Mass anti-rabies vaccination
• Regulated feeding zones
• Accountability of local bodies

This reflects the principle that:

• Human rights under Article 21 cannot be ignored, and
• Animal welfare must be pursued through humane and lawful methods.

Challenges in implementation

• Poor municipal infrastructure
• Inadequate sterilisation capacity
• Lack of coordination among civic bodies and animal welfare groups
• Rising urbanisation and waste mismanagement increasing stray populations

Value Addition

• Article 48A: Directive Principle for protection of environment and wildlife.
• WHO data: India accounts for a significant share of global rabies deaths.
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 governs humane treatment of animals.

Conclusion

The judiciary’s approach reflects constitutional balancing rather than absolute prioritisation of either side. While human life and safety remain paramount under Article 21, courts have consistently stressed that animal welfare must be protected through humane, scientific and legally sustainable measures, ensuring coexistence between public safety and compassion towards animals.