Animal Rights

Summary: This New York case centers on a petition of habeas corpus for an elephant named "Happy" who is housed at the Bronx Zoo. Petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project is a not-for-profit corporation with a mission of seeking to establish that “at least some nonhuman animals” are “legal persons” entitled to fundamental rights, including “bodily integrity and bodily liberty.” In 2018, petitioner commenced this habeas proceeding in Supreme Court against respondents James J. Breheny, Director of the Bronx Zoo, and the Wildlife Conservation Society, the organization that operates the Zoo. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus “on behalf of Happy,” an Asian elephant that petitioner claimed was unlawfully confined at the Zoo in violation of her right to bodily liberty. Happy has resided at the Bronx Zoo for the last 45 years and has been held in captivity since she was approximately one year old. Petitioners request that she be transferred to an “appropriate sanctuary" where she could potentially be integrated with other elephants. To support its request, petitioner proffered affidavits from several experts specializing in elephant study and care attesting to the general characteristics of elephants. The Zoo respondents opposed petitioner's application and requested dismissal of the petition for lack of standing and failure to state a cause of action. Specifically, respondents argued that there was no legal basis for habeas relief and that Happy's living conditions comply with all relevant laws and accepted standards of care. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground “that animals are not ‘persons’ entitled to rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus” and that habeas relief is not available for an animal. On petitioner's appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, reasoning that “the writ of habeas corpus is limited to human beings.” While the court acknowledged that the law recognizes that animals are not mere "things," and existing animal protection laws underscore this conclusion, the scope of habeas corpus does not include animals. The court lastly noted that " this case has garnered extraordinary interest from amici curiae and the public . . . Though beyond the purview of the courts, we appreciate that the desire and ability of our community to engage in a continuing dialogue regarding the protection and welfare of nonhuman animals is an essential characteristic of our humanity. Such dialogue, however, should be directed to the legislature." As such, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed

Summary: Killing, poisoning, maiming, or 'rendering useless' cattle, including elephants, or any other animal worth over fifty rupees, is a criminal offence.

Summary: The provision criminalizes killing, maiming, or 'rendering useless' any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees and upwards.

Summary: This law, specific to the state of Kerala, prohibits the sacrifice of animals and birds within the precincts of temples. No persons may officiate at, perform, or participate in an animal sacrifice - it is a criminal offence.

Summary: This law, specific to the Union Territory of Puducherry (formerly known as Pondicherry), prohibits animal sacrifice within the precincts of temples. Persons shall not perform, officiate at, or participate in animal sacrifice.

Summary: The law, specific to the southern state of Karnataka, prohibits animal and bird sacrifices in places of public religious worship. Persons are prohibited from performing, organizing, or participating in animal sacrifices—they are criminal offences carrying a fine or imprisonment. Police officers not below the rank of a sub-inspector may arrest persons committing an offence under this Act without a warrant.

Summary: This law, specific to the state of Gujarat in western India, prohibits animal sacrifice within the precincts of places of public religious worship. Persons are barred from performing, officiating at, or in any other manner participating in animal sacrifice—doing so would attract imprisonment or a fine. If the officer-in-charge of a police station finds that a sacrifice is about to be performed, they shall file a complaint in the court. On receiving this complaint, the court may issue an injunction prohibiting the sacrifice.

Summary: The law, specific to the North Indian state of Rajasthan, prohibits the sacrifice of animals and birds in temples or places of public religious worship. No person shall sacrifice an animal or birds or officiate at such a sacrifice—doing so is a criminal offence and violators may be imprisoned or fined. The Executive Magistrate may issue a prohibitory order if they receive information from a police officer that an animal sacrifice is going to be made

Summary: The Act, specific to the South Indian state of Telangana, prohibits animal and bird sacrifice at places of public religious worship or in congregations associated with religious worship in a public street. Persons sacrificing animals can be imprisoned under this law. The law also prohibits persons from officiating at such animal sacrifices. Such persons can be fined. Animal sacrifice or officiating at an animal sacrifice is a cognizable offence—the accused can be arrested without a warrant.

Summary: This Oregon complaint seeks economic and non-economic damages for Justice, an American Quarter Horse from Oregon, by and through his guardian. Justice suffered extreme pain, distress, and permanent injury due to the criminal neglect of Defendant Gwendolyn Vercher. According to the facts issued in the complaint, Defendant denied Justice adequate food and shelter for months, abandoning him to starve and freeze. As a result of this neglect, Justice was left debilitated and emaciated. Plaintiffs' attorneys plead negligence per se based on violation of Oregon's anti-cruelty statute.