Do Tigers Have a Right to Privacy? Yes: Uttarakhand keeping wildlife reserves always open is problematic at many levels

Synopsis: 

The Uttarakhand government has decided to keep the Jim Corbett National Park and the Rajaji Tiger Reserve open all year round to boost tourism. This raises an important question, has the time come to grant the right to privacy to animals.

About the Right to privacy for animals:

This right has not been recognised anywhere in any Constitution or any law in the world. Further, there isn’t even an international agreement or convention that ensures the welfare and protection of animals.

• In India, humans’ right to privacy was famously recognised in the case of Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union Of India in 2018.
• But in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India vs A Nagaraja & Ors, the court held that animals too have the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • The issue is whether by recognising the existence of a right to life for animals under Article 21, it implicitly held that this includes the right to privacy as well.

Constitutional provisions that might lead to right to privacy for animals:

• Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife of the country.
• Article 51(g) casts a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
• Similarly, Article 51-A(h) says that it shall be the duty of every citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.

These articles read with the principles developed in Animal Welfare Board of India vs A Nagaraja & Ors, lead to the inference that animal species too have the right to privacy.

Why does India need the right to privacy for animals?

The right to privacy for animals is vital to the central purpose of a national park or forest reserve.

• Constant intrusion, as legal scholar Ewa Haratym rightly observed, can create suicidal behaviour in animals or even make them kill their partners or offspring so as to create new private spheres. This defeats the purpose of saving animals.
• Animals perform some functions alone and some functions within their community. For some functions like procreation, delivering an offspring or dying, animals need absolute privacy.
• Wildlife is more vigilant near human disturbance. That results in decreased forage intake and reduced reproductive success. So, filming animals or human presence erodes their privacy.
  • For instance, studies have shown when cows showed greater fear of humans, milk yield was low. Similarly, in poultry, high fear of humans was associated with reduced egg production, growth and product quality.

So, year-long tourism will therefore likely have a substantial negative impact on wildlife in Corbett and Rajaji reserves. It is time for the government to partly respect animals’ right to privacy.