The historical Indian legal regulation of animals has been based on a welfare-based model that considers animals as passive subjects of human sympathy and not as entities that possess their own legal rights. But current constitutional and judicial events suggest a slow but steady change towards treating animals with dignity, intrinsic worth and limited legal status as sentient beings. The paper critically reviews the changing legal status of animals in India by performing a historical analysis of how animal welfare approach has been replaced by an emerging approach of rights-based approach, with particular reference to a case of street dogs as a focal point of constitutional and judicial debates. The research paper will use a doctrinal and analytical approach to study the constitutional clauses, especially Articles 21, 48A and 51A (g) of the Indian Constitution, as well as the major judicial decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. Cases like Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagarajas, and other decisions on the management of street-dogs are discussed to show how the Indian courts have broadened the definition of the right to life and dignity beyond human beings. Using street dogs as an example, the paper brings out the intricate interface between animal rights, communal security, city regulation and constitutional morality. This paper explains that Indian courts have been critical in constitutionalizing animal rights using purposive interpretation that defeats the anthropocentric nature of the conventional animal welfare laws. However, it finds that there are still unsolved doctrinal ambiguities, inconsistent application of judicial precedence, and difficulties in enforcement that restrain optimal implementation of animal rights. The work has ended with a strong point that a consistent legal framework of rights must exist which balances human interests with constitutional pity towards non-human life.