Author Details:-

Srimathi Srinivasan
III Year, B.A.,LL.B.,
CHENNAI Dr. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PUDUPAKKAM.

SANCTIONING THE PRACTISING JALLIKATTU- AN ANALYSIS OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454

Appellant: The Animal Welfare Board

Respondent: Union of India

Bench: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Coram: Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph, Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi, Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Judgement Date: 18.05.2023

INTRODUCTION:

Jallikattu also known as Manju Viratu is considered a traditional sport and holds a major role in Tamilans harvest festival, Pongal. The practice is a subject-matter of controversy because it involves cultural significance on one hand and on another hand it involves the well-being of the animals. The legislation initially strictly prohibits the practice initially and later amends the same. The dispute has been resolved in the landmark judgment of The Animal Welfare Board v. Union of India^[1], not only in Tamilnadu but also in Karnataka and Maharashtra^[2].

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraj held that Jallikattu and Bullock-cart racing. The ban was upheld on the grounds of cruel treatment, unnecessary pain, and suffering in accordance with the statute Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) (Hereinafter referred to as “Act”). However, the notification of the Union Government in January 2016 permitted the practice with severe restrictions in organizing these events. In 2017 an amendment was enacted to the Act, where rules were enacted to govern these practices. Similarly, the legislations of Maharashtra and Karnataka permitted bull races with adequate amendments. As a consequence of the enactment of these amendments, animal activists and various other organizations challenged these amendments in Hon’ble Supreme Court. The divisional bench of the Court in February 2018, declared that the sport ‘Jallikatu’ of Tamilnadu and ‘Bullock cart race’ of Maharashtra are illegal. The court also declared that the amendments ratifying these sports are void. Further, the bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Nariman referred this matter to the five-judge constitution bench to decide whether the matter is constitutionally protected under Article 29 of the constitution.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017 contradict the legislative intention and competence of the Act, 1960?
2. Whether the amendments Acts are arbitrary and against the welfare of the animals?
3. Whether the amendment Act violates Articles 14, and 21 of the animals of the constitution of India?
4. Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendments aim to protect the cultural heritage of the state under Article 29 of the constitution?
5. Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is in conflict with Entry 17 of the Constitution of India?

ARGUMENTS:

Contentions Put forth by Petitioners- The arguments for the petitioners were assailed by the Learned Senior Advocates Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. Anand Grover, Mr. V. Giri, and Mr. Krishnan Venugopal. The petitioners argued that the state amendments which legitimize these activities were destructive and contradicted Section 3, Section 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Act. The petitioners also highlighted that the Amendments failed to rectify the deficiencies of the A. Nagaraja judgement. They argued that it is the fundamental duty of Indian citizens to show love and compassion towards all living creatures and to promote humanism rather than implicating pain for human entertainment. The other dimension of their arguments is that sports is not a part of the cultural heritage and is not mentioned in the preamble. The counsels for the petitioners intervened that the statutes which seek validation for the amendment without curing the defects in the judgements. The petitioners relied on various cases to prove their arguments. Their final argument is that the amendments override the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court. They cited Chief Secretary to Government, Tamilnadu v. Animal Welfare Board to argue that the legislation goes beyond the constitutional Scheme.

Contentions Put forth by Respondent- The arguments for the respondents were assailed by the Learned Senior Advocates Mr. Tushar Mehta, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Learned Solicitor General Mr. Kapil Sibal, and Mr. Mukul Prohatgi. The respondents argued that the existence of sentient animals’ rights has not been contended directly. They can be enjoyed only in cases subjected to the legislative provisions and legislature could judge this better and not by the judicial interpretation. Other things are interpreted and reasoned by the court.

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS & CASE LAWS:

STATUES & PROVISION:

1. Article 14, 19, 21, 48, 48A, 254 of the Constitution of India
2. Section 2 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960
3. Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
4. Section 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
5. Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
6. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017
7. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017
8. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017

PRECEDENTS:

1. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, [(2014) 7 SCC 547]
2. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, [(2002) 8 SCC 106]
3. State of T.N. v. State of Kerala, [(2014) 12 SCC 696]
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [(1978) 1 SCC 248]
5. Chief Secretary to the Government, Chennai, Tamilnadu v. Animal Welfare Board, [(2017) 2 SCC 388]
6. M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India [(1979) 3 SCC 431]
7. K.T. Plantation Private Ltd. V. State of Karnataka, [(2011) 9 SCC 1]

JUDGEMENT:

1. The expressions Jallikattu, Kambala and Bull Cart Race as introduced by the Amendment Acts of the three States have undergone substantial change in the manner they were used to be practiced or performed and the factual conditions that prevailed at the time the A. Nagaraja judgment was delivered cannot be equated with the present situation.
2. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation. It relates, in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It minimises cruelty to animals in the concerned sports and once the Amendment Act, along with their Rules and Notification are implemented, the bovine sports would not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.
3. Jallikattu is a type of bovine sport. It has been going on in the State of Tamil Nadu for at least the last few centuries. But whether this has become an integral part of Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social cannot be undertaken by the Judiciary. The court interpreted that this question on culture matter cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings. Since legislative exercise has already been undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be part of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, the Court would not disrupt this view of the legislature.
4. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, to ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls. The amendment of the Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India,1950.
5. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act read along with the Rules framed on that behalf is not directly contrary to the ratio of the judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

In this case, Jallikattu is a cultural practice and it is protected under 29. Whether it is custom or not requires going through the cultural practice, and spirit of people, society. The court should emphasize the importance of preventing cruelty to animals and have to strike a balance between cultural practice and animal welfare legislation. The case resolved a major dispute in striking a balance between culture and humanism in protecting the well-being of the animals. The case has analyzed various precedents and provisions of the law clearly in obtaining the reasoning.

CONCLUSION:

Apart from the legal contradictions, the issue of Jallikattu paved way for a major protest in Tamil Nadu at Marian beach, where the folks understood their implications to be made in protecting their cultural identity. This is because, bulls were considered a part of family specifically in Tamilnadu, where bulls were tamed to assist agriculture and other domestic purposes by the cultivators and farmers. The judgement renounced a notable moment in the history of diversified Indian culture.