INTRODUCTION
India is internationally recognised for its biological diversity and long-standing cultural emphasis on coexistence with nature. Despite covering only 2.4 per cent of the world’s land area, the country supports nearly seven percent of recorded species and sustains close to eighteen per cent of the global human population[1]. This ecological richness has historically shaped India’s ethical traditions and constitutional commitments towards the protection of non-human life. However, recent developments in criminal law reveal a growing disconnect between constitutional values and statutory protection[2]. The enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)[3] and the simultaneous omission of a specific offence criminalising sexual violence against animals has created a significant legal vacuum. This omission raises serious concerns regarding animal welfare, constitutional morality, and the scope of state responsibility under Indian law. This article undertakes a doctrinal examination of this gap, analyses its constitutional implications, and proposes concrete legislative reforms informed by comparative jurisprudence.
ANIMAL SEXUAL ABUSE: LEGAL CONCEPT AND RATIONALE FOR CRIMINALISATION
Animal sexual abuse, commonly termed bestiality, refers to sexual acts between a human being and a non-human animal. In criminal jurisprudence, such conduct is prohibited primarily for three reasons. First, animals lack legal capacity and the ability to give consent, rendering any sexual act with them inherently non-consensual. Second, such conduct amounts to extreme cruelty and exploitation of vulnerable beings. Third, such acts constitute offences against public morality and societal order.
Modern legal systems increasingly recognise that animal sexual abuse cannot be adequately addressed through general cruelty provisions alone. Instead, it warrants treatment as a distinct offence combining elements of sexual violence and aggravated animal cruelty. This shift reflects evolving legal recognition of animals as sentient beings rather than mere property, deserving protection from severe forms of exploitation.
POSITION UNDER INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW
Section 377 of the IPC and Judicial Clarification: Before the BNS, section 377 of the IPC defined “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” as illegal if committed with any person or animal. Though criticised for being too broad and moral, this section clearly defined bestiality as illegal. In the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018)[4], the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 to decriminalise same-sex relations between consenting adults. Notably, in this case, the Supreme Court made it clear that Section 377[5] shall remain applicable in cases of forced acts and bestial acts. This ensured that Section 377 is kept in line with the concept of dignity and autonomy.
OMISSION UNDER THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
With the repeal of the IPC and its replacement by the BNS, Section 377 was omitted without introducing a corresponding provision criminalising bestiality. This legislative silence has serious consequences. Under settled principles of criminal law, conduct cannot be punished in the absence of a clearly defined offence. As a result, acts of animal sexual abuse are no longer explicitly criminalised under India’s primary penal statute. Although the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960[6] addresses various forms of cruelty, it neither conceptualises sexual violence against animals as a distinct harm nor prescribes proportionate penalties. The punishments under the Act remain minimal and fail to reflect the gravity of such conduct. Consequently, the current legal framework is ill-equipped to address animal sexual abuse in a meaningful manner.
CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE GAP
Article 21 and Animal Dignity: Indian constitutional jurisprudence has progressively expanded the scope of Article 21 beyond human life. In Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja (2014)[7], the Supreme Court recognised that animals possess intrinsic value and a right to live with dignity, free from unnecessary suffering. The Court emphasised that compassion towards living creatures forms an essential component of constitutional morality. The absence of a criminal provision addressing sexual violence against animals undermines this interpretation. Sexual exploitation represents one of the most severe forms of indignity and harm. If dignity is to be meaningfully extended to non-human life, the legal system must protect against such extreme abuse.
Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties: Articles 48A[8] and 51A(g)[9] of the Constitution impose duties upon the State and citizens to protect wildlife and show compassion towards living creatures.[10] While these provisions are non-justiciable, they play a crucial role in guiding legislative policy and statutory interpretation. The omission of a bestiality offence is difficult to reconcile with these constitutional directives and reflects a retreat from India’s professed commitment to animal welfare.
INSTITUTIONAL AND EMPIRICAL DEFICIENCIES
A further concern arises from the lack of institutional recognition of animal sexual abuse as a distinct category of crime. Information obtained through Right to Information applications indicates that the National Crime Records Bureau does not maintain separate data on sexual violence against animals. This absence of classification renders such offences statistically invisible, impeding evidence-based policymaking and enforcement. Without clear statutory recognition and data collection, acts of animal sexual abuse are often misclassified under minor cruelty provisions or ignored altogether. This institutional invisibility perpetuates underreporting and weakens accountability mechanisms within the criminal justice system.
COMPARATIVE LEGAL APPROACHES
Comparative analysis demonstrates that several jurisdictions have adopted explicit legal frameworks to address animal sexual abuse:
United Kingdom: The Sexual Offences Act 2003[11] criminalises sexual penetration of animals as a standalone offence.
Germany: Animal protection laws prohibit bestiality and recognise sexual exploitation as a serious violation of animal welfare.
United States: Most states criminalise bestiality through specific statutory provisions rather than relying solely on general cruelty laws.
These approaches reflect an international consensus that animal sexual abuse warrants distinct criminal recognition. India’s failure to adopt a similar framework places it at odds with emerging global standards of animal protection.
LEGISLATIVE REFORM: TOWARDS A COHERENT FRAMEWORK
To address the existing legal vacuum, the following reforms are proposed:
Insertion of a Specific Offence in the BNS: The BNS should include a clearly defined offence criminalising sexual acts with animals, with punishments proportionate to the gravity of the harm.
Amendment of Animal Welfare Legislation: The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should be amended to categorise sexual abuse as aggravated cruelty, accompanied by enhanced penalties.
Mandatory Data Classification: The National Crime Records Bureau should maintain a separate crime head for animal sexual abuse to ensure transparency and informed policymaking.
Procedural Guidelines: Clear investigative and prosecutorial guidelines should be developed to prevent misuse while ensuring effective enforcement.
CONCLUSION
The omission of a specific offence addressing animal sexual abuse from India’s primary criminal statute represents a significant doctrinal and constitutional failure. While moral outrage may draw attention to individual incidents, sustainable reform requires precise legal articulation and institutional commitment.[12] Protecting animals from sexual exploitation is not merely an ethical concern but a constitutional obligation grounded in dignity, compassion, and the rule of law. Reintroducing a clear criminal provision, supported by comparative insight and robust data mechanisms, would restore coherence between India’s constitutional vision and its criminal justice framework. Until such reforms are undertaken, the promise of meaningful protection for non-human life under Indian law remains incomplete.
Author’s Name: Afreen Fathima Sathar (National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi)
[1] Pinksweetz, N Gangmei and DS Sharma, ‘Biodiversity of India, Biodiversity Hotspots of India’ PMF IAS (8 January 2025) <https://www.pmfias.com/biodiversity-hotspots-india/> accessed 20 December 2025
[2] Aurora K, ‘India’s Hidden Cruelty: Animal Abuse, Dog R*PE & Weak Laws Exposed: Episode 3’ India Today (29 August 2025) <https://www.indiatoday.in/newsmo/video/indias-hidden-cruelty-animal-abuse-dog-rpe-weak-laws-exposed-2776605-2025-08-25> accessed 27 December 2025
[3] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
[4] Navtej Singh Johar & Ors v Union of India AIR 2018 SC 4321
[5] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 33
[6] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960
[7] Taruni and Kavuri, ‘Overview of Animal Laws in India’ (Animal Law, January 2020) <https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-animal-laws-india> accessed 27 December 2025
[8] Constitution of India 1950, art 48A
[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 51A (g)
[10] ‘Environmental Law Overview’ (Indian Bar Association, February 2013)
<https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf> accessed 03 February 2026
[11] Sexual Offences Act 2003
[12] ‘Join Us in Protecting Animals’ FIAPO <https://www.fiapo.org/> accessed 27 December 2025
