V. Rohaan Thyagaraju BBA LL.B. | Final year, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
The fire accident in Aligunj, Lucknow[1] which caused the tragic loss of individuals along with the death of several pet animals trapped, illustrated the absence of governance in disaster management, specifically for animals. Disasters show no favouritism, and the non-existence of an immediate institutional response for animals in distress is appalling. While 30+ Animals were rescued, the rest perished in the blaze, and the grief of losing a pet animal is equally traumatic to that of losing a human, yet the system’s ignorance is an unfortunate consequence.
Pet animals occupy the status of a family member as much as an intimate family relationship and are completely dependent on their human caregivers to keep them safe and protected during periods of extraordinary vulnerability. The fire in Lucknow underscores the institutional failure by indian law in treating pet animals in a disaster. Further, such instances make us question whether the law considers the “suffering” and the “survival” of companion animals in terms of property ownership or with a more compassionate viewpoint, which remains an undecided issue. Although the legal system in India has changed throughout the years in recognising animal welfare law (animal rights) and animal dignity through the Constitution, the animal emergency response systems are still lagging.
II. Animal Welfare Jurisprudence in India: Constitutional Compassion without Disaster Protection
Although the Constitution of India adopts an active stance on animal welfare concerns, it did not alter the ground reality. Article 48A[2] mentions that the State must protect and improve the environment and wildlife, whereas Article 51A(g)[3] outlines a fundamental duty for all citizens to have compassion towards all living beings, and legal decisions have greatly expanded upon these principles.
In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014)[4], the Supreme Court ruled, “ The narrative that animals exist only for humans is incorrect.” Rather, it has determined that animals have inherent value and dignity and the right to live free of suffering which has been upheld and recognised by the lower courts which recognise that animals are entitled to legal protection beyond their economic value. Nevertheless, there is a gap in the assistance provided to animals affected by such disasters.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960)[5] addresses the acts of cruelty and neglect perpetrated against animals, but is silent on provisions for assistance such as evacuation, rescue, temporary shelter, and veterinary assistance during disasters. The Disaster Management Act (2005)[6], primarily designed and implemented from a human-centric perspective, neglects animals, although the recent amendment is yet to be implemented. Such lack of legislative reference places animals at a disadvantage, leaving them legally invisible alongside creating a hierarchy of suffering, evident when animals require protection.
III. The Juridical Failure of Urban Governance: Why Companion Animals Perish in Emergencies
The majority of pet animals dying in urban fires are not solely caused by the actual fire but due to deficiencies in laws and lack of infrastructure.
- Multi-storey buildings generally incorporate fire escape routes, signage, and smoke alarm systems for human use.
- The majority of Building associations lack records on the number & Type of pets in their buildings.
- Fire departments do not have specialised animal rescue equipment to assist in rescue efforts.
When an animal is in a state of acute anxiety, it may demonstrate unpredictable behaviour; therefore, rescuing can be very difficult without a strong understanding of the characteristics associated with animals exhibiting acute anxiety.
In Countries like Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Kenya and Tanzania, animal evacuation strategies are a part of emergency strategies. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the USA[7] witnessed people evacuating from vulnerable or disaster-prone home areas, as they could not take their pets with them owing to administrative rules. Subsequently, the legislation has evolved, comprehending that the protection of pet animals is equally crucial. India, with its rapidly urbanising environment, also requires similar changes.
Municipalities still see pet animals as private property that require no public protection leading to serious ethical implications. To watch an animal suffer and die when trapped behind a locked door, crying out for help, while emergency responders are prepared to help humans alone, is a form of institutionalised cruelty caused by a lack of systemic sensibility. The law cannot take a neutral stance when there is preventable suffering.
IV. Towards Animal Disaster Justice: Reimagining Legal Protection during Urban Emergencies
The strategy for animal disaster justice requires a shift from providing only passive support to providing proactive protection to companion animals in disaster situations, recognising that disasters reveal existing vulnerabilities and that companion animals are part of a category that needs specific legal protection.
- Implementation of the amended law: The need of the hour is the implementation of the amendment to the Disaster Management Act, 2024, which addresses animal-inclusive disaster risk reduction. The National and State Disaster Management Authorities (NDMA and SDMA) must issue comprehensive guidelines for evacuation plans, emergency shelter facilities, and veterinary rapid response units, as mere amendments to law do not change the reality.
- Microchipping Model: The Municipalities must create confidential registries of all pets living in their ward and introduce the Microchipping model as initiated by the Chennai Metropolitan Corporation.
- [8]Establishment of division: An Animal rescue division must be established within urban fire departments, and their personnel should be trained in handling different animal species, preventing smoke inhalation, and rehabilitating animals temporarily.
- Compensation Framework: The compensation framework should also account for and provide compensation for non-economic losses due to the death of animals, especially due to negligence or regulatory violations by government entities that will result in the death of animals.
Conclusion
The recent fire in Lucknow should not be simply thought of as yet another urban error in statistics; it ought to be seen as a historical event. It would challenge the way the Indian justice system perceives its own empathy and require it to rethink the standard of its own justice system as a result. Laws have changed from just giving people their rights to also trying to help vulnerable beings such as pets that cannot speak for themselves. Pets in natural disasters (like in fires) wait for humans to save them with the faith and trust that they will be saved. If you disregard their legal place in the scheme of things, you are lessening the compassion that is part of Indian society’s moral values and, as such, promoting animal disaster justice is a gauge of how civilised we are as people. The recent disaster in Lucknow shows how important it is that city governments change their practices to regard the safety of companion animals in the future.
[1]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/hearts-break-as-pets-perish-in-blaze/articleshow/131920245.cms
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/871328/
[3] https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-51a-fundamental-duties/
[4] https://www.jusscriptumlaw.com/post/animal-welfare-board-of-india-v-a-nagaraja-ors-2014
[5]https://awbi.gov.in/uploads/regulations/175085130181Prevention%20of%20Cruelty%20to%20Animals%20Act,%201960.pdf
[6]https://ndmindia.mha.gov.in/ndmi/images/The%20Disaster%20Management%20Act,%202005.pdf
[7]https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/8/20950253/wildfires-hurricane-katrina-pet-evacuation
[8]https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/chennai-corporation-mandates-pet-microchipping/article69161037.ece