Case Overview:-
Case Title: Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India
Case No: Writ Petition (Civi) No. 23 of 2016
Citation: [(2014) 7 SCC 547]
Jurisdiction: Civil Original Jurisdiction
Date of the Judgment: 18th May 2023
Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice K.M. Joseph
Petitioner: Animal Welfare Board of India
Respondent: Union of India
Provisions Involved: Article 14, Article 21, Article 29, Article 48, Article 51A(g) and Article 51A(h) of the Constitution
INTRODUCTION:
The case of Animal welfare board vs Union of India challenges the amendments made by the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to the Prevention of cruelty to Animals act, 1960 (PCA) which acted against the Jallikattu, kambala, bullock-cart racers and likewise bull taming sports. After Animal Welfare Board India v. A. Nagaraja Judgement the sports are declared as Violation of PCA act. The amendments by the State legislature which allow the bull taming sports to be conducted with some restrictions. While speaking about the bull taming sports, India is said to be the country with rich culture and heritage. All states have different culture followed in different ways, Jallikattu is the traditional sports which held during the time of Pongal for the bountifull harvest in Tamil Nadu which is followed for over 2,000 years. During the olden days Bulls were used to Plough the fields and used for agricultural activities to show respect or thanksgiving to the Cattles like cows, bulls and calves Jallikattu is being celebrated. It faced controversy due to the concern about the treatment of animals and safety of Participants, bec. ause the bull is released into the crowd and the participants try to grab the hump of the bull and hold it when the bull tries to escape. Jallikattu was derived from the Tamil words “Salli,” meaning coins, and “Kattu,” meaning a package, coins were tied to the bull’s horns, and participants would attempt to retrieve them which have been evolved today.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case revolves around a traditional bull taming sports called “Jallikattu “ popular in Tamil Nadu.The Jallikattu case has been famous for its legal implications and for debates on the preservation of cultural traditions and the ethical treatment of animals.
Jallikattu faced criticism for using chemical and physical violence to provoke them and it leads to animal cruelty. This sport is proven hazardous to participants which cause severe injuries. In 2007 the Animal Welfare Board of India challenged the legality of Jallikattu in Supreme Court and In 2014 in Animal Welfare Board India v. A. Nagaraja case Jallikattu was banned and prioritized animal welfare over cultural practices. This led to elevation of animal right to the constitutial status.
In 2016 The Ministry of Environment responding to the protests and demand from Tamil Nadu issued a notification restricting the use of bulls but made an exception to Jallikattu. This notification allows the sport but to be conducted with certain conditions to reduce the suffering of the bulls. The Supreme Court in response to the notification, re-impose ban of Jallikattu and Once again protest arise in Tamil Nadu and the protesters and State Government seek Central government to interfere and find a solution. In response the Central government made an ordinance to allow Jallikattu and it was passed as bill on later. In 2017 the Government of Tamil Nadu passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act and legalised Jallikattu against the judgement given in A. Nagaraja case by Supreme Court. Likewise, amendments were made in PCA act, 1960 by Maharashtra and Karnataka legislatures allowing their traditional sports of Bullock cart racing and Kambala to get legalised and got the President assent. After the aforesaid three Amendment Acts received Presidential assent, the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra formulated Rules for conducting the bull taming sports.
The amendment of PCA act, 1960 by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka were Challenged in Supreme Court in 2018 and A writ petition was filed questioning the legality of the amendments made by the State legislatures. The case was referred to the Bench of 5 Judges to determine the legality and balance between animal welfare and cultural practices.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
- Are the amendment acts arbitrary and against the welfare of animals?
- Is the objective of Tamil Nadu amendment act to preserve the cultural heritage of State and Jallikattu safeguarded as cultural right under Art – 29?
- Does the Amendments violate the constitutial rights of animals, Art – 14, Art – 21 and is it violate the Art – 51(g) & (h) of Constitution of India?
- Is it colourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List?
- Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act perpetuate cruelty to animals, or does it serve as a legitimate measure for the prevention of cruelty to animals as mandated by Sections 3, 11(1)(a), and 11(1)(m)(ii) of the PCA Act?
CONTENTIONS OF THE CASE:
The central issue arise in the case is legality of the Amendments made by the State governments to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals act, 1960. The case was referred to the Bench of 5 Judges because of several constitutional interpretations.
The Animal Welfare Board vs A. Nagaraja case ruling is the main source of the case plea. A. Nagaraja case identified and highlighted the abuse of bulls in Jallikattu, kambala and bullock-cart racing and abolished it, it becomes the key component or source of the case.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:
The main argument is that these kinds of sports violate the PCA act, 1960 it was argued that it cause severe physical injuries and harm to the animals which is against the provisions of this act. Jallikattu result in many deaths and injuries of both humans and bulls.
They also argued that traditional practices need to be followed with certain conditions and legal standards.
They asserted that cultural and traditional practices should not override the fundamental duty of society and the state to ensure the prevention of cruelty to Animals and emphasized the welfare of animals and seek judicial interpretation for animal welfare.
They argued that amendments violate the Art – 14, 21, 48, 51(g) & (h) of Constitution of India and contrary to Entry 17, List III of Seventh Schedule. They contended that there should be balance between the safeguarding cultural practices and rights & welfare of the animals which must ensured by state.
They argued that court plays a crucial role in identifying the legality of laws that discuss treatment of animals.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:
Respondent claim that Jallikattu plays a role in the preservation of indigenous native cattle breeds, especially the Kangayam and Pulikulam breeds. By conducting the sport these breeds will never disappear and it helps to preservation of biodiversity.
They also argued that by conducting Jallikattu the bull owners and local economy will earn profit by organsing and through participation.
Respondent argued ban of Jallikattu will affect the economy conditions of bull owners, traders and people who rely on it by directly or indirectly.
They argued that ban of Jallikattu will affect the sentiment people and lead to protests and affect the culture which is celebrated by people without any caste, creed.
RATIONALE OF THE CASE:
The Supreme Court, sitting as a five-judge bench maintained the legality of amendments to PCA act, 1960. The purpose of revision was to control similar animal sports and declared this ruling act as precedent for Maharashtra and Karnataka amends. The three modifications are legitimate legislations held and underlined by the court.
The case was referred to a five-judge Constitution panel by Justice RF Nariman and former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, who mentioned that there were important constitutional issues at stake. Regulations made for the conduct of bovine sports with President assent to modification. The guidelines which designed to keep the bulls safe were accepted by court. Appellant said that legitimization of sports remains harmful and violation of PCA act, 1960.
There were several constitutional problems presented to court, The Court referred whether the amendment address and prevent cruelty and whether contrary to Entry 17, List III of Seventh Schedule. The Court mentioned that modification diminished many cruel customs in Jallikattu, kambala and Bullock-cart racing.
In response to complaints about colorable legislation, the Court rejected the idea that the revisions were only surface-level adjustments meant to override rulings from the courts. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act was not a form of Colourable legislation because it did no infringe any central law.
The Court accepted that Jallikattu is the essential practice in Tamil culture and highlighted the cultural heritage as critical component. The amendment acts with regulations while preserving traditional sports, reduced suffering of animals. The Court referred that whether revision related to Art – 48, which intends to protect native breeds. The modifications were not mainly focused on the goal under Entry 17, List III which is most acceptable reference point.
The Court ruled that the Amendments acts did not violate the Art – 14, 21 and the court rejected the arguments about Art – 51 (g), (h) which is said violative and unreasonable and it did not go against constitution. The Court referred whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act went against earlier rulings, specifically the 2014 Nagaraja ruling and the 2016 review ruling. The Amendment Act by the Tamil Nadu legislature corrected the flaws mentioned in the earlier rulings found by the Court.
This legal analysis helped to establish a precedent for animal welfare by highlighting the balance that must be struck between cultural preservation, treatment of animals, and constitutional considerations. The Court found the amendment acts did not violate any earlier rulings.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
The Animal board argued that the amendment attempts to legalize which are harmful and violation of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the PCA Act. The Court rejected the prior interpretation under the case Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) which conclude the traditional sports like Jallikattu are violation of protection of animals. Further the court ruled that animals cannot be considered as person definition under Article 21 and no animals cannot claim protection under Article 14 result in failure of regonisation of fundamental rights of animals and weekness of animal protection related jurisprudence.
INFERENCE:
On hearing the case and examining the evidences the Court came to the Conclusion that the Ruling given in the Case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) need to interpreted and declared that amendments made by the State legislature of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka are valid and the ban on Jallikattu by the earlier rulings had been abolished by those amendments are held valid. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act did not violate any Constitutional provisions Art – 14, 21, 48, 51(g), (h). Concluded that Art – 14, 21 is a fundamental right of person and animals cannot claim it as a person. Finally, the ruling establishes a precedent for state authority in regulating such practices and created a balance between evolving ethical considerations in animal welfare and cultural practice preservation.
VISHWADEEP R,
3rd Year B.A., LL. B,
CHENNAI Dr. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PUDUPAKKAM