The matter, referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench in 2018, will come up for hearing again on 29 November.
Published Nov 24, 2022 | 10:38 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 24, 2022 | 10:38 PM
The traditional sport of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu. (Creative Commons)
The Animal Welfare Board of India on Thursday, 24 November, told the Supreme Court that the Tamil Nadu law permitting the bull-taming sport of Jallikattu and the Maharashtra law permitting Kambala, a bull- and bullock-cart race, is in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act.
The submission was made to a five-judge Constitution Bench of the apex court comprising Justice KM Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice CT Ravikumar.
The bench is hearing a 2018 reference whether Jallikattu and Kambala, described as traditional sports rooted in the culture of the two states, is protected by the Article 29(1) of the Constitution.
Appearing for the Animal Welfare Board, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra told the court that amendment to the laws of the two states, rooted in Entry 17 of the Concurrent List, is not for the prevention of cruelty to animals, but for a “perpetuation” of cruelty to animals.
Luthra said that taking recourse to Entry 17 of the Concurrent List that, besides the Centre, also allows states to enact laws for the protection of animals, is a colourable legislation which has nothing to do with the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Kambala is a traditional sport in Maharashtra and other parts of the west coast. (Wikimedia Commons)
The provisions advancing Jallikattu and Kambala contradict and are destructive of central law, Luthra said, pointing out that all the sports sought to be described as part of “tradition and culture heritage” and for the “preservation of native breeds of bulls”, end up injuring the bulls.
During Jallikattu, when the bulls are released in a 15-meter area, there are people riding them, resulting in injuries to the bulls, he said.
In the course of the hearing, the court was told that in one of the states in the US, bull fighting is permitted, but in Brazil it is prohibited.
On a lighter note, Justice Joseph said that even though mosquitos and white ants, too, are animals, they have no protection. “I feel sorry for mosquitos,” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, immediately added snakes to the list of mosquitos and white ants.
A bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman (both since retired) had on 2 February, 2018, referred five questions for adjudication by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
They included whether the amendment to the Tamil Nadu law was referable to the subject relating to enactment of the law for the prevention of cruelty under Entry 17 of the 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?
Whether the amendment is a colourable legislation which does not relate to any entry in the State List or the Concurrent list? Can the amendment to the Tamil Nadu law be traceable to the state’s cultural heritage and thus entitled to the 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 if the Tamil Nadu amendment ensured 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, which deals with 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 was, “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 judgement and whether the defects pointed out in the aforesaid judgement could be said to have been overcome by the state legislature?
The matter will come up for hearing on 29 November when Luthra will resume his arguments.
