Deconstructing the "Juristic Person" Status of Animals in Indian Jurisprudence: A Critical Examination and Challenges to Speciesism

The research paper "Deconstructing the 'Juristic Person' Status of Animals in Indian Jurisprudence" critically examines the evolving legal landscape where Indian courts have begun to recognize animals as legal entities (juristic persons) rather than mere property (pp. 1, 13, 16). Key Aspects of the Research Philosophical and Cultural Foundations: The paper highlights how the extension of personhood is rooted in unique Indian traditions like the doctrine of Ahimsa (non-violence), the cultural significance of animals in mythology, and the constitutional mandate for compassion towards living creatures (Article 51A(g)) (pp. 4-5, 16). This framework blurs the rigid human-animal binary often found in Western legal systems (p. 4). Judicial Activism and Landmark Cases: Several court rulings are analyzed, including the Supreme Court's Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) case, which expanded the interpretation of the "right to life" under Article 21 of the Constitution to include animals (pp. 6, 8). More explicitly, the Uttarakhand and Punjab & Haryana High Courts declared the entire animal kingdom as legal persons, using the in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) doctrine to designate human guardians for them (pp. 6-8). Shift from Welfare to Rights: The research argues that granting personhood moves animal protection beyond the limitations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act), which primarily focuses on preventing "unnecessary" suffering but still treats animals as property (pp. 9-10). A rights-based approach, in contrast, recognizes animals' intrinsic value and inherent right to a dignified life, independent of human utility (pp. 9, 16). Challenges and Critiques: Despite the progressive strides, significant challenges remain, including the lack of clear legislative frameworks, practical difficulties in implementing universal guardianship, inconsistent application across states, and conflicts with deeply entrenched economic (agriculture, research) and cultural/religious practices like Jallikattu (pp. 10-12). The Supreme Court's subsequent reversal of the Jallikattu ban highlights the tension between judicial pronouncements and traditional practices (pp. 6, 13). Overall Impact: The paper concludes that this evolving jurisprudence challenges speciesism and pushes for a more inclusive, eco-centric legal framework, but its effective realization requires coherent legislation, robust enforcement, and broader societal acceptance to bridge the gap between legal theory and practice (pp. 1, 16).