A concurrent judgement, authored by Justice Bose, said the Amendment substantially reduced pain and cruelty to animals.
Are Jallikattu and bullock-cart races protected under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution as a cultural right? (Wikimedia Commons)
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on Thursday, 18 May, upheld the practice of Jallikattu, as permitted by the 2017 Tamil Nadu amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It also upheld the practice of Kambala in Karnataka and bullock cart races in Maharashtra.
The judgement by the five-judge Constitution Bench — headed by Justice KM Joseph — mainly addressed the five questions referred to it by a two-judge bench on 2 February, 2018, and the contentions raised by the petitioner challenging the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017.
The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, said that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 by Tamil Nadu substantially minimises pain and suffering to bulls that form part of the bull-taming sport of Jallikattu.
Referring to one of the five questions framed by the 2 February 2018 order — can the amendment to the Tamil Nadu law be traceable to the state’s cultural heritage and thus entitled to protection under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution — the bench said that the judiciary could not deliberate on matters relating to cultural heritage and tradition and that the state legislature has already decided on it.
“Courts will not disturb such laws, not accept the argument that holding such events was not part of cultural heritage,” the ruling said. “The issue is debatable,” the bench ruled.
The concurrent judgement, authored by Justice Bose, stated that the Amendment Act “substantially reduced pain and cruelty” to the participating animals and the same would apply to Kambala and bullock cart racing that were conducted in Karnataka and Maharashtra, respectively.
Clause (1) of Article 29 that provides for the protection of 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.”
Dismissing the petitions filed against the amendment, the bench said, “We do not think that there was sufficient material for the court to come to that conclusion. The amendment, having received Presidential assent, we do not think there is any fault in it.”
The top court saddled the concerned district magistrate, acting through a competent authority, with the responsibility of ensuring the strict implementation of the amended law.
While the Animal Welfare Board of India had sought to invoke Article 21 (Right to life) for the bulls, animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) had referred to Article 21 in the context of casualties and injuries suffered by humans during the conduct of the events.
PETA told the court that, every year, a number of participants in Jallikattu die and their number is more than that of bulls. On 18 May, the Constitution Bench said that these laws do not violate Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life).
Referring to the 2014 judgement and the review of the same rejected in 2016, the court said that there was not sufficient material before the bench in 2014 to hold that Jallikattu was not a traditional sport of Tamil Nadu.
In February 2018, the bench of then-chief justice Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Nariman, had referred five questions for adjudication by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Kambala is a traditional sport in Karnataka and other parts of the west coast. (Wikimedia Commons)
The questions included whether amendment to the Tamil Nadu law was referable to the subject relating to enactment of law for the prevention of cruelty under Entry 17 of concurrent list? Does it further perpetuate cruelty to animals? And can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals?
Other questions referred to the constitutional bench were: Whether the amendment is a colourable legislation which does not relate to any entry in the State List or the Concurrent List? And, does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act ensure the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls and is relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution?
Article 48 of the Constitution, that 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.”
“Jallikattu”, also known as “Eruthazhuvuthal”, is a bull-taming sport played in Tamil Nadu as part of the Pongal harvest festival during January and February, mostly in the southern parts of Tamil Nadu.
In 2014, a two-judge bench — comprising Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose of the Supreme Court — declared Jallikattu illegitimate in the Animal Welfare Board of India vs A Nagaraja case on the grounds of animal cruelty, finding it to be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
In 2016, the Union government issued a notification exempting Jallikattu from performances where bulls cannot be used, which effectively reversed the ban. The Supreme Court, however, struck down this notification and ultimately upheld the ban.
In 2017, protests against the ban on Jallikattu started in Alanganallur in Madurai district and spread across the state.
Following this, the Union government passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017, permitting it to conduct Jallikattu as it is a part of the state’s culture and tradition, which is protected under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution.
The Act was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Animal Welfare Board, PETA, Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, and Animal Equality.
On 2 February, 2018, a bench comprising Justices Dipak Mishra and Rohinton Nariman referred this batch of writ petitions to a Constitution Bench.
Four years later, a Constitution Bench was constituted — headed by Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar.
The case commenced before the bench in November 2022 and was heard for two months. The judgement was reserved on 8 December, 2022.
The primary question that was dealt before the Constitution Bench was whether Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock-cart races are protected under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution as a cultural right. The bench would also decide whether states have powers to enact rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Justice KM Joseph, who is leading the Constitution bench, is due to retire on 16 June, during the court’s summer vacation. Hence, the case was listed for judgement on 18 May.
Petitioners: Animal Welfare Board, PETA, Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, Federation Of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, and Animal Equality
Lawyers: Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra, Shyam Divan, V Giri, Anand Grover, and Krishnan Venugopal
Respondent: Union of India, State of Tamil Nadu, and State of Maharashtra
Lawyers: Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Nagamuthu, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Solicitor General of India
May 10, 2024
May 09, 2024
May 09, 2024
May 08, 2024
May 08, 2024
May 08, 2024
