the interplay between societal factors, legal frameworks, and philosophical discourse is what gave form to the history of the movement towards animal rights. Viewing animals mainly through a utilitarian lens, much of their history had their treatment being simply considered in regard to them being property or resources valued almost exclusively for their utility to human beings. This type of utilitarian view supported everyday practices like animal husbandry, scientific experimentation, and entertainment that didn’t really consider the welfare of animals or give the issues any real ethical consideration.

Philosophically, arguments against speciesism gathered momentum through some influential publications by renowned writers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer, and Jeremy Bentham. Bentham was a very famous utilitarian philosopher who advocated for good treatment of animals because of their capacity to experience pain and pleasure. He said that the capacity to suffer should be a moral guideline for earning rights. In his influential book “Animal Liberation,” Singer had developed Jeremy Bentham’s theories and launched an international debate on the moral status of animals and the moral consequences of human actions for their treatment. By his utilitarianism, Singer gave equal weight to considering the interests of all sentient beings irrespective of their species.

The progress on animal rights was also tremendously helped by legal developments. Laws viewed animals as property or chattel with very few safeguards against abuse, but this started to change with legal reforms as social attitudes changed and the force of philosophical arguments gained in bearing. It led to laws on animal welfare, guidelines on animal experimentation, and the eventual bans on a number of exploitations of animals by many countries around the world.

Changing public perceptions of animals is one of the key factors that have advanced the animal rights movement. Increased recognition of their consciousness and capacity to suffer operative in influencing government regulations, corporate policy, and consumer behavior. Challenging the norms by suggesting moral alternatives through the use of media awareness, public protests, and grass-root activities is one of the ways Animal Rights movements have gained momentum.

Animal rights theory was founded by an American philosopher, Tom Regan, who worked on this area of interest. On the side of Regan, animals have rights similar to human rights and significant intrinsic value because they are “subjects-of-a-life.” His adamant support for animal rights theoretically spanned beyond utilitarian views that animals have a moral claim and considerations apart from the utility that is derived for human activities. It is a perspective that clinched a turn of paradigm in the ethical discourse on treatment and rights for sentient beings, in the face of age-old beliefs that had reduced animals to mere commodities.

Animal rights are recognized and protected by different countries against their violation in various ways. There are, likewise, many countries and regions wherein complete legislation that ensures attention to animal welfare has been passed effectively with explicit objectives of ending cruelty, limiting the use of animals for experiments, and strictly regulating the industries of agriculture and entertainment. For example, the European Union has committed itself to a high level of animal welfare, far beyond what exists in most parts of the world, through the adoption of rigorous legislation that insists on humane treatment and forbids acts of cruelty. In sharp contrast, countries such as the United States rely on a far more fragmented system of animal welfare, where some animals used in experimentation and exhibition are minimally protected under federal legislation like the Animal Welfare Act, but for the greater part, state legislatures reserve the right to regulate farm animals.

The fact that India is one of the seventh-largest nations, hosts four of the biodiversity hotspots of the world, and holds great diversity of species—consider the Great Indian Rhinoceros and Bengal tigers—has drawn concerns toward animal welfare and protection for the last few years. That the country’s Constitution has some provision and enunciate it as the fundamental duty to protect the animals, and yet, there are a few vital acts like the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 that define the statutory frameworks from the Centre down to the state level. Sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code proscribe cruel acts against the animal.

Despite these legislation-backed protections, enforcement remains obstructed by soc­ioeconomic constraints and cultural diversity. Although Directive Principles and Article 21 of the Constitution supporting the right to life and liberty support animal protection regulations, the former are not directly and immediately applicable in court.

It is in the way India’s federal system divides legislature authority between the Parliament and State legislatures that leaves an imprint on how laws related to animal care are passed and implemented across the country. This legislation, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, still works as a landmark law and definition of cruelty with penalties. Still, the effectiveness and enforcement have been criticized. All of these changing landscapes of animal rights in India ultimately find their fate decided by courts and judicial decisions which require comprehensive amendments for the strengthening of its provisions and mechanism to become optimum.

In countries where either legislation is poor or enforcement is weak, actions that heighten the exposure to abuse and exploitation still remain. Global advocacy groups become vital in advocating for increased legal safeguards for animals worldwide; global advocacy groups like Humane Society International and World Animal Protection make a difference. These groups work together with civil society organizations, companies, and states in raising awareness of animal welfare issues and making a case for change in legislation, and pursuing those responsible for animal cruelty.
A discernible change in societal perspectives towards animals is a function of raised awareness of sentience and ethical importance. Virtual movements that accommodate vegetarianism, veganism, and cruelty-free products sweep the globe in terms of animal welfare concerns, the environment, and human health. Such changes are a testament to the growing commitment toward reducing animal suffering and furthering a more moral and compassionate relationship with nonhuman animals.

Consequently, cultural attitudes that have become set and the financial interests of the animal enterprise combine to encumber legislative hurdles to meaningful reform. So, advocates continue to lobby for legislative protection, attitudinal shifts in industries using animals, and comprehensive public education campaigns effectuating a sense of compassion and respect for all sentient beings.

The evolution of the animal rights movement is an instance of a very rapid transformation in social norms and legislation but also of great ethical and philosophical change. Animal rights are designed to challenge conventional paradigms and work toward avowing a more moral and sensitive relationship of humans with animals across the world, fostered with growing awareness of the issue and change in moral concerns. It aims to propagate justice, compassion, and equality for all forms of life.

By Aanya Bhargava (intern)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.