From a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on stray dogs in Delhi (In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay the Price, Dated 11th August 2025)a thought struck: Do humans really have rights over the environment and over the species that live on this earth? If we think deeply, who created humans, and who created other living beings? We humans did not create anything, yet we act as if we have rights over everything and control the earth as its masters. But who gave us this authority? Is it natural, or is it something we wrote down for ourselves?
For centuries, human beings have believed themselves to be superior. We build cities, cut forests, tame rivers, hunt animals, and even affect the climate. Our actions often reflect the idea that the earth exists for benefit of human alone. This is not true. Philosophically, humans are just one species among millions. We are not above nature; we are a part of it. Scientifically, life on earth survives only through balance. Destroying one species, disturbing one ecosystem, harms us too.
Yet, our actions suggest ownership rather than coexistence. The right to control everythingdoes notvest in humans. No natural law declared humans as rulers over animals, rivers, or forests. It was human societies that created systems of ownership and authority. In fact, most of our laws reflect anthropocentrism, i.e. the belief that humans are the most important beings. We built property rights to own land, forests, and water bodies. We created hunting licenses, fishing rights, and industrial permissions that treat other species as resources, not as co-inhabitants.
Here an important comparison arises. When a wild animal kills another animal, it does so out of necessity, for survival. If a lion does not hunt, it will die of hunger. Its act of killing is driven by instinct and survival, not by cruelty. But humans, despite having a far higher intellectual level, know that animals feel pain, know that killing causes suffering, and also know that human beings can survive without eating animals. Yet, humans continue to hunt, slaughter, and exploit animals, often for taste, profit, or convenience. This raises a disturbing question: What is the real value of our intellect if we use it to justify cruelty rather than to prevent it?
The Supreme Court has orderedto keep stray dogs out of public spaces for human safety. Which sounds good and reasonable, but why does the problem of stray dogs exist in the first place? The answer is simple: it was humans who tried to control animals and domesticated dogs, altered their natural instincts, and then created conditions such as urban slums, waste disposal sites, and leftover food that allowed their populations to grow. In other words, dogs are not the real problem; the real problem is the human urge to control everythingand make changes according to their need.
Yet, instead of accepting responsibility, we treat their very existence as a nuisance and push them out for our own convenience, including interruptingother animals’natural habitat. The same logic extends to other animals. Humans breed cows, chickens, pigs, and goats in vast numbers through artificial farming, and then argue that if we stop consuming them, their populations will spiral out of control.
But this so-called “overpopulation” is not nature’s doing; it is the outcome of human interference. Thus, we create the problem ourselves and then justify further control in the name of solving it. This raises a moral dilemma: If we did not create the earth, do we truly have the right to exploit it for our comfort, or is our dominance just a misuse of intelligence and power?
Did the Constitution Provide a Real Balance?
The answer lies in comparison. In India, certain human rights are elevated to the status of Fundamental Rights—such as the right to equality, the right to life and personal liberty, or the right to freedom of speech. These are enforceable in a court of law, and if they are violated, a citizen can seek a remedy directly. However, not every human right is a fundamental right. For example, rights relating to property, health, or housing are recognised as human rights but are placed in the Directive Principles of State Policy, making them more aspirational than enforceable.
In contrast, the rights of animals and the environment are mostly mentioned in the Directive Principles (like Article 48A) or as Fundamental Duties of citizens (like Article 51A(g)). Unlike Fundamental Rights, they cannot be claimed directly by the beings they are meant to protect.
Constitution’s main aim was to ensure justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for citizens—not for animals, not for forests, not for rivers.
Even the environmental duties are framed in a way that ultimately secures human survival and well-being. We protect rivers because humans need water, we save forests because humans need oxygen and rain, and we manage stray dogs because humans need order in society. Rarely do we protect nature purely for its own sake.
This imbalance shows that while the Constitution acknowledges the environment and animals, it does not place them on the same footing as humans. The balance is tilted because we, the drafters and beneficiaries, kept ourselves at the centre of the system.
Should Nature Have Its Own Rights?
This question is being debated worldwide. Some countries have already recognized the intrinsic rights of nature. In Ecuador, the Constitution recognizes the rights of Mother Earth. In New Zealand, the Whanganui River has been granted legal personhood, meaning the river can be represented in court just like a human.
Bhutan has made significant strides in animal welfare and environmental conservation. By humanely managing its street dog population through sterilisation and vaccination, Bhutan has become a global pioneer. This approach has benefited over 150,000 street dogs and 32,000 pets.
The country’s dedication to preserving nature is equally impressive. With a constitutional commitment to keeping 60% forest cover, Bhutan has protected over half of its land, displaying a remarkable balance between human needs and environmental protection. Its pristine landscapes and waterways support rich biodiversity and a unique cultural heritage
India, too, has seen some progressive judgments where courts recognized the rights of rivers, forests, and animals. But such recognition is fragile, often rolled back when human convenience or development demands it.
A Call for Coexistence
If humans did not create the world, and if every species has its role in keeping balance, then why should we claim exclusive rights? The real path is coexistence, not dominance.
Protecting the environment should not only be about human benefit. It should be about respecting the rights of other beings to exist and thrive. The idea of coexistence goes beyond compassion—it is about justice.Here, justice does not mean justice only for humans as understood in courts and laws. It refers to natural justice, which embraces all forms of life on earth. Every creature, whether it can speak for itself or not, has a right to exist, to flourish, and to be free from unnecessary harm caused by human interference.
This includes animals, birds, rivers, forests, and even plants, which are equally vital for the balance of the ecosystem. Justice, in this broader sense, is universal and not restricted to human society alone. It demands that we recognize the rights of every life form, and that we act in ways that ensure fairness and respect for all beings who share this planet with us.
Conclusion
We began with a simple question: Who gave humans the right to control everything on earth? The Constitution tried to provide some balance, but since it was written by humans for humans, it largely secures human interests first. True justice lies in moving beyond an anthropocentric worldview, toward recognizing the intrinsic value of all life forms. Perhaps it is time to ask ourselves: Are we rulers of this earth, or just one part of a larger family of beings? The future of both, humanity and the planet, depend on how truthfully we answer this question.
Author Name- Vijay Kumawat
