Pakistan’s current legal framework for animal welfare is a study in anachronism, drawn from colonial-era legislation dating back to 1890.
Imaan Ali Sheikh | Ali Tauqeer Sheikh
Published November 26, 2025
DAWN
THE silence of a predawn Lahore was shattered by an act of institutional brutality: a late-night operation near Data Darbar by the Lahore Development Authority. This unannounced sweep saw structures demolished and an unquantified number of lives — animals and birds — allegedly snuffed out.
The LDA has denied any wrongdoing. Yet, this deliberate, brutal operation is the latest scar on Pakistan’s conscience, rooted in our reliance on an antique statute whose meagre, poorly enforced fines utterly fail to reflect this magnitude of cruelty. Witnessing this gap between legal mandate and moral obligation is a personal affront; our commitment to justice must extend beyond human boundaries to embrace every life.
Institutional cruelty in Pakistan manifests directly through negligent governance: municipal bodies routinely employ brutal methods like mass poisoning to cull stray dog populations, while government-run facilities, such as zoos in Karachi and Lahore, are notorious for gross negligence, poor infrastructure, and underfeeding, turning sanctuaries into sites of suffering.
This cruelty is further compounded by the official tolerance of sprawling, unregulated animal and bird markets across major cities, including Tollinton Market in Lahore, Empress Market in Karachi, Raja Bazar in Rawalpindi, and the main animal bazaar in Peshawar, where wild and exotic species endure severe confinement and abuse, perpetuating a system of commercialised misery.
The legal incapacity: Pakistan’s current legal framework for animal welfare is a study in anachronism, drawn from colonial-era legislation dating back to 1890. Despite superficial amendments, the law remains structurally incapable of addressing contemporary challenges: the modern pet trade, the necessity of clearer definitions of cruelty, the ethics of captivity, and the broader environmental impact. This legal incapacity manifests in two distinct but related wrongs: the arbitrary, destructive action of authorities, and the very establishment of markets that trade in captive life. The lack of prior notice in such operations highlights an institutional apathy and procedural negligence that the law implicitly permits. Our failure to modernise this foundational act signifies a national refusal to integrate ethical and ecological stewardship into our governance model.
Pakistan’s current legal framework for animal welfare is a study in anachronism.
Constitutional imperatives: The inadequacy of the 1890 Act stands in stark contrast to the progressive jurisprudence of Pakistan’s superior courts that has revolutionised animal law. Article 9A of the Constitution guarantees the ‘right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment’. The courts have repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed that this right is ecologically inclusive, extending protection to ecosystems and wildlife. Environmental degradation, including the cruel confinement of animals, is thus recognised as a direct violation of constitutional principles of sustainability and environmental justice.
This judicial evolution culminated in the Islamabad High Court’s landmark 2020 judgement on the fate of the animals at the Islamabad Zoo. In this ruling, Justice Athar Minallah firmly established that animals possess inherent legal rights, demanding they live in environments that meet their behavioural, social, and physiological needs. Critically, it was recognised that the practice of keeping animals in cages purely for human amusement to be a form of “torture”. This ruling created a direct constitutional mandate, bridging the gap between an antique colonial law and the nation’s highest legal standard, asserting that the state has a fundamental duty to protect all non-human life.
This principle has consistently echoed across provincial high courts, rejecting the human tendency to arrogate the right to enslave animals born free and affirming their essential role in ecological balance. Furthermore, the superior courts have decisively held that wildlife protection is a critical precondition for mitigating ecosystem damage. The Supreme Court has clarified that any damage to animal populations and biodiversity constitutes an adverse environmental effect, legally linking harm to animals with comprehensive constitutional degradation.
Ecological cost: The confinement and exploitation of animals have consequences that extend far beyond individual suffering. Ecosystems function through complex, regulated relationships. The removal or captivity of apex predators leads to unchecked herbivore growth, resulting in overgrazing, vegetation loss, soil erosion, and accelerated deforestation. This directly impacts carbon absorption, effectively contributing to the acceleration of climate change. Animal welfare, therefore, is not a philanthropic sideline. It is an environmental and climate necessity.
The current Animal Act fails to recognise or integrate entire classes of creatures vital to ecosystem health, notably insects and other invertebrates. Native pollinators, like bees, underpin Pakistan’s agriculture, providing immense, uncalculated economic value. By excluding these essential biodiversity assets, the law ensures that comprehensive ecosystem preservation remains impossible, undermining its own purported goals. True conservation demands a shift from the exhibition-based models of zoos to habitat-based protection.
International commitments: The LDA’s action exposes our failure to uphold international obligations. The Convention on Biological Diversity mandates the preservation of ecosystems, a goal our superior courts confirm is impossible without protecting animal welfare. The judicial condemnation of caging as “torture” directly supports the CBD’s core principle of in-situ conservation, rejecting the cruel ex-situ exhibition model perpetuated by our antiquated law. Furthermore, as a signatory to CITES, we are bound to ensure even permitted trade minimises animal suffering, a standard routinely violated by the chaotic pet markets. These global commitments provide the legal and ethical scaffolding for necessary reform and demand the integration of ecological values into national policy.
Way forward: Globally, comprehensive legal frameworks mandate humane treatment and ethical stewardship across all species. Pakistan must urgently replace the 1890 Act to safeguard essential species like invertebrates and align domestic governance with the global commitment to ecological justice.
Without a comprehensive, constitutional, and ecologically guided overhaul of the antique Animal Act, incidents of cruelty will continue, perpetually granting legal impunity and accelerating ecosystem disruption. Reforming this law is not a matter of choice; it is a constitutional, environmental, and international responsibility to ensure accountability, humane treatment, and the indispensable protection of our natural environment.
Imaan Ali Sheikh, a graduate of University of London, practices law in Islamabad.
Ali Tauqeer Sheikh is a sustainable development and climate change expert, based in Islamabad.
Published in Dawn, November 26th, 2025
THE silence of a predawn Lahore was shattered by an act of institutional brutality: a late-night operation near Data Darbar by the Lahore Development Authority. This unannounced sweep saw structures demolished and an unquantified number of lives — animals and birds — allegedly snuffed out.
The LDA has denied any wrongdoing. Yet, this deliberate, brutal operation is the latest scar on Pakistan’s conscience, rooted in our reliance on an antique statute whose meagre, poorly enforced fines utterly fail to reflect this magnitude of cruelty. Witnessing this gap between legal mandate and moral obligation is a personal affront; our commitment to justice must extend beyond human boundaries to embrace every life.
Institutional cruelty in Pakistan manifests directly through negligent governance: municipal bodies routinely employ brutal methods like mass poisoning to cull stray dog populations, while government-run facilities, such as zoos in Karachi and Lahore, are notorious for gross negligence, poor infrastructure, and underfeeding, turning sanctuaries into sites of suffering.
This cruelty is further compounded by the official tolerance of sprawling, unregulated animal and bird markets across major cities, including Tollinton Market in Lahore, Empress Market in Karachi, Raja Bazar in Rawalpindi, and the main animal bazaar in Peshawar, where wild and exotic species endure severe confinement and abuse, perpetuating a system of commercialised misery.
The legal incapacity: Pakistan’s current legal framework for animal welfare is a study in anachronism, drawn from colonial-era legislation dating back to 1890. Despite superficial amendments, the law remains structurally incapable of addressing contemporary challenges: the modern pet trade, the necessity of clearer definitions of cruelty, the ethics of captivity, and the broader environmental impact. This legal incapacity manifests in two distinct but related wrongs: the arbitrary, destructive action of authorities, and the very establishment of markets that trade in captive life. The lack of prior notice in such operations highlights an institutional apathy and procedural negligence that the law implicitly permits. Our failure to modernise this foundational act signifies a national refusal to integrate ethical and ecological stewardship into our governance model.
Pakistan’s current legal framework for animal welfare is a study in anachronism.
Constitutional imperatives: The inadequacy of the 1890 Act stands in stark contrast to the progressive jurisprudence of Pakistan’s superior courts that has revolutionised animal law. Article 9A of the Constitution guarantees the ‘right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment’. The courts have repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed that this right is ecologically inclusive, extending protection to ecosystems and wildlife. Environmental degradation, including the cruel confinement of animals, is thus recognised as a direct violation of constitutional principles of sustainability and environmental justice.
This judicial evolution culminated in the Islamabad High Court’s landmark 2020 judgement on the fate of the animals at the Islamabad Zoo. In this ruling, Justice Athar Minallah firmly established that animals possess inherent legal rights, demanding they live in environments that meet their behavioural, social, and physiological needs. Critically, it was recognised that the practice of keeping animals in cages purely for human amusement to be a form of “torture”. This ruling created a direct constitutional mandate, bridging the gap between an antique colonial law and the nation’s highest legal standard, asserting that the state has a fundamental duty to protect all non-human life.
This principle has consistently echoed across provincial high courts, rejecting the human tendency to arrogate the right to enslave animals born free and affirming their essential role in ecological balance. Furthermore, the superior courts have decisively held that wildlife protection is a critical precondition for mitigating ecosystem damage. The Supreme Court has clarified that any damage to animal populations and biodiversity constitutes an adverse environmental effect, legally linking harm to animals with comprehensive constitutional degradation.
Ecological cost: The confinement and exploitation of animals have consequences that extend far beyond individual suffering. Ecosystems function through complex, regulated relationships. The removal or captivity of apex predators leads to unchecked herbivore growth, resulting in overgrazing, vegetation loss, soil erosion, and accelerated deforestation. This directly impacts carbon absorption, effectively contributing to the acceleration of climate change. Animal welfare, therefore, is not a philanthropic sideline. It is an environmental and climate necessity.
The current Animal Act fails to recognise or integrate entire classes of creatures vital to ecosystem health, notably insects and other invertebrates. Native pollinators, like bees, underpin Pakistan’s agriculture, providing immense, uncalculated economic value. By excluding these essential biodiversity assets, the law ensures that comprehensive ecosystem preservation remains impossible, undermining its own purported goals. True conservation demands a shift from the exhibition-based models of zoos to habitat-based protection.
International commitments: The LDA’s action exposes our failure to uphold international obligations. The Convention on Biological Diversity mandates the preservation of ecosystems, a goal our superior courts confirm is impossible without protecting animal welfare. The judicial condemnation of caging as “torture” directly supports the CBD’s core principle of in-situ conservation, rejecting the cruel ex-situ exhibition model perpetuated by our antiquated law. Furthermore, as a signatory to CITES, we are bound to ensure even permitted trade minimises animal suffering, a standard routinely violated by the chaotic pet markets. These global commitments provide the legal and ethical scaffolding for necessary reform and demand the integration of ecological values into national policy.
Way forward: Globally, comprehensive legal frameworks mandate humane treatment and ethical stewardship across all species. Pakistan must urgently replace the 1890 Act to safeguard essential species like invertebrates and align domestic governance with the global commitment to ecological justice.
Without a comprehensive, constitutional, and ecologically guided overhaul of the antique Animal Act, incidents of cruelty will continue, perpetually granting legal impunity and accelerating ecosystem disruption. Reforming this law is not a matter of choice; it is a constitutional, environmental, and international responsibility to ensure accountability, humane treatment, and the indispensable protection of our natural environment.
Imaan Ali Sheikh, a graduate of University of London, practices law in Islamabad.
Ali Tauqeer Sheikh is a sustainable development and climate change expert, based in Islamabad.
Published in Dawn, November 26th, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment