The Case For Abrogation Of Section 28 Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 17
- 1 min read
Arindam Sood, Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Adity Srivastava, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
In India, the regime of animal rights is fraught with a distinguished tension between the constitutional aspiration towards compassion and judicially and statutorily sanctioned harm. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, was introduced as a progressive shift towards safeguarding Animals. Yet, it enshrines such tension under the ambit of Section 28, which exempts ritualistic killing from the purview of cruelty. This provision undermines the ethical coherence by subordinating animal welfare to ritual imperatives.
This disjuncture was starkly mirrored in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent decision concerning the fate of stray dogs in Delhi-National Capital Territory Region, continued with a reversal of the same on the 22nd of August, 2025, by a three-judge bench that modified its earlier directive to remove stray dogs permanently to shelters. The revised order mandates the sterilisation, vaccination, and release of non-rabid dogs, affirming the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
This article underscores the judicial oscillation between utilitarian safety and rights, and the recognition of the rights of animals. It resonates with the doctrine of constitutional morality, where courts have previously invoked their powers to uphold the rights of animals, as a guiding principle in animal jurisprudence. The incorporation of scientific reasoning and humane protocols in the recent judgments’ hints at a gradual doctrinal shift towards an eco-centrism-oriented approach. This article draws from comparative perspectives, constitutional norms, and emerging philosophical discourses that envision animals as subjects rather than objects as such.
Keywords: Section 28, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023; Judicial oscillation; Animal Rights; Constitutional Morality
