Human Rights & Animal.

1.    The Human Rights, significantly rights for the Human beings and universal in nature, till date. However, it is not a right for what humans do.

To apply the Human Right in India, it is necessary to guarantee it as one of the Fundamental Rights in India and exclusively protected by the Court.

Viz. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Source: "The right to life is the most fundamental of human rights, and like all human rights, it is something that inherently belongs to people not because of what they do, but because of the human beings they are. -Shailesh Rai, the Senior Policy Advisor at Amnesty International India..

2.    The Animal Rights, significantly rights for the Animals and universal in nature too.

However, it is not a right for the Human beings but very well within the considerations of what humans do.

Its applicability is not a matter of my interpretation here.

In India, capital punishments are in absence of standards of absolute and universal application.

Earlier death penalty was brutal, painful and public, later moved to less painful, humane, and now, like the major countries, need to change the penalty in alternative manner for the necessary refinement in the statute.

Article 21 in the Constitution of India provides protection of life and personal liberty and it states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law".

However, said exception in the Article, though fundamental in nature, provides great reliance and power in the hands of the States. Therefore, Fundamental Rights of a citizen apparently ceases due to said reliance and power in the hands of the (so called political) States, while the Court is likely to restraint itself to interfere into such an administrative order, even erroneous, since one's inability to challenge it on the grounds of contravention of Fundamental Rights due to said exception.

Furthermore, Article 72 in the Constitution of India provides power to the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence, however, said power, of the President, not appears to be absolute. The President’s decision, about a mercy plea, likely to influenced politically. As in the recent case, Union Home Ministry advised the President to reject it; accordingly, the President rejected a mercy plea. To grant mercy, the President needs to apply an absolute power.

The architect and framers of the Constitution of India freely borrowed the good features of other constitutions. However, on 20 December 2012, meetings of the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly adopted a fourth resolution (A/RES/67/176) on moratorium on the death penalty, where 111 countries voted in favour, 41 countries, including India, voted against, 34 countries abstained from and 7 countries were absent.

However, India voted against moratorium on the death penalty instead a majority of 111 countries voted in favour, only 41 against. Since, the framers of the Constitution freely borrowed the good features of other countries why not India, for good, voted in favour for moratorium on the death penalty.

Therefore, in India, the capital punishment needs to change in civil manner and the necessary refinement in the Statute.