The core issue that the court flagged was whether a law could be held bad merely because its implementation at the ground level was flawed.
Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu. (Wikimedia Commons)
The Supreme Court on Thursday, 8 December, reserved its judgement on a batch of petitions challenging Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka laws allowing bull-taming sport Jallikattu, bull race, bullock cart race, and Kambala, which asserted that instead of preventing animal cruelty, they perpetuate it.
Reserving the order after hearing arguments over eight days, a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Justice KM Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar said, “Parties are free to submit their collective arguments within a period of one week from today.”
The core issue that the bench flagged in the course of the hearing was whether a law can be held bad merely because its implementation at the ground level was flawed and failed to address the issue of cruelty to bulls.
At one point during the hearing, the court even asked whether the amended Tamil Nadu law was unimplementable at the ground level.
While Tamil Nadu hammered on the point that a law cannot be interfered with merely because its implementation on the ground was not satisfactory, the petitioners challenging the law said it was not the language of the law that alone had to be taken into account but its effect on the ground.
The hearing, spread over eight days, saw Tamil Nadu defending an amendment to its laws to permit Jallikattu, telling the court that it had brought in a legal regime that ensured that no unnecessary cruelty was inflicted on the bulls in the course of Jallikattu events.
It said that it had brought in provisions to punish the violations of the safeguards in the conduct of Jallikattu.
Tamil Nadu permitted Jallikattu by amending its law in 2017, giving it a shield of being rooted in the tradition and culture of the people.
Similarly, Maharashtra defended its amended law permitting bull-racing and bullock cart races citing culture and tradition, including the safeguards brought under the new legal regime.
Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka amended their law to permit Jallikattu, bull race, bullock cart race, and Kambala, respectively, after the top court by its 7 May, 2014, judgment banned Jallikattu, holding that bulls were being subjected to cruelty.
All through the hearing, lawyers appearing for Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra assailed the 2014 judgment.
Meanwhile, the petitioners challenging the amended laws permitting Jallikattu, bull race, bullock cart race, and Kambala defended the judgment, arguing that it did not suffer from any legal infirmities.
The Animal Welfare Board of India also sought to invoke Article 21 (Right to life) for the bulls. The court appeared unimpressed by the argument.
However, the petitioner — the India chapter of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) — referred to Article 21 in the context of casualties and injuries suffered by humans during the conduct of the events.
PETA India told the court that every year a number of participants in Jallikattu perish and their number is more than that of bulls.
A bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman (both since retired) on 2 February, 2018, referred five questions for adjudication by a five-judge constitution bench.
The five questions included whether the amendment to the Tamil Nadu law was referable to the subject relating to the enactment of the law for the prevention of cruelty under Entry 17 of the concurrent list.
Another question was: Did it further perpetuate cruelty to animals; and could it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals?
Whether the amendment was a colourable legislation that did not relate to any entry in the state list or the concurrent list was another question.
It was also asked whether the amendment could be traceable to Tamil Nadu’s cultural heritage and was thus entitled to protection under Article 29(1) of the constitution.
Clause (1) of Article 29, which provides for the protection of the interests of minorities, says, “Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.”
Another question referred was whether the Tamil Nadu amendment ensured the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls and was relatable to Article 48 of the constitution.
Article 48 of the Constitution, which takes care of the organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry, says, “The state shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
Another question referred by the court in 2018 asked, “Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?“
The top court by its 2018 reference order asked the Constitution bench to adjudicate whether the amended Tamil Nadu law was directly contrary to the top court’s 2016 judgment and whether the defects pointed out in the aforesaid judgments could be said to have been overcome by the state legislature in the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?
Apr 19, 2024
Apr 19, 2024
Apr 19, 2024
Apr 19, 2024
Apr 19, 2024
