In the bizarre case that walked a tightrope between the boundaries of human and animal rights, the long-time resident of the Bronx Zoo was argued to be illegally confined and needed to be released to an elephant sanctuary
New York’s top court on Tuesday rejected an effort to free Happy the elephant from the Bronx Zoo, ruling that she does not meet the definition of “person” who is being illegally confined. AP
In a closely watched case, New York’s top court has ruled that Happy the elephant cannot be considered a person.
In the bizarre case that walked a tightrope between the boundaries of human and animal rights, the long-time resident of the Bronx Zoo was argued to be illegally confined and needed to be released to an elephant sanctuary.
According to the BBC, the state’s highest court voted 5-2 to reject an animal rights group’s argument that Happy was being illegally confined at the zoo.
Happy the elephant and the case to prove her human
Happy was born in the wild in Thailand in the 1970s, captured and brought to the US when she was about one. She has lived at the Bronx Zoo since 1977.
According to the National Geographic, last year, the New York Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project, a Florida-based animal civil rights organization.
The animal rights group argued that Happy should be recognised as a legal person and sent to a sanctuary. The group had already argued this before three other courts on Happy’s behalf. This was the highest court an animal rights case has reached in the United States.
In its arguments, NhRP has maintained that, kept inside the zoo, Happy is a “depressed elephant”. As per the National Geographic report, Steven Wise, NhRP’s founder and president, argued that Happy should be sent to an accredited sanctuary to be with other elephants in a larger, more natural-setting than her current one-acre enclosure, where she lives alone.
Even though there are a handful of solitary elephants in the US, the group decided to represent Happy because of her cognitive abilities. In 2005, she became the first elephant to pass the mirror test for animal intelligence.
Researchers marked a white “X” on Happy’s forehead, and when she spotted herself in the mirror, she repeatedly touched the mark with her trunk, indicating that she recognized the reflection in the mirror as herself, something very few species can do.
What did the court say?
The New York Court of Appeals followed the decision of lower courts which had taken the side of the Bronx Zoo in the case.
The court’s 5-2 ruling on 14 June means Happy is not entitled to the fundamental right of bodily liberty, or freedom from imprisonment, essentially meaning she is not legally a person under US law.
“While no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion”, a writ of habeas corpus was intended to protect the liberty of human beings and did not apply to a nonhuman animal like Happy, said Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, as reported by The Guardian.
The bench noted that granting Happy human rights “would have an enormous destabilising impact on modern society” and it would affect how humans interact with animals.
“Indeed, followed to its logical conclusion, such a determination would call into question the very premises underlying pet ownership, the use of service animals, and the enlistment of animals in other forms of work,” read the decision.
Even though the majority of judges ruled against NhRP, two judges, Rowan Wilson and Jenny Rivera, wrote separate, sharply worded dissents saying the fact that Happy is an animal does not prevent her from having legal rights.
With inputs from agencies
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.