Dated-7th may 2014
Court- The Supreme Court of India
Bench- K. S. Radhakrishnan, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA (2023)
Dated- 18th may 2023
Court- The Supreme Court of India
Bench- Justices KM Joseph , Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar
Facts of the case
One of the sets filed an objection against the judgment of the Madras High Court’s Division Bench, which cast doubt on the legal validity of the TNRJ Act, 2009, alongside several other writ petitions that raised issues regarding the Ministry of Environment and Forests’ notification dated 11-7-2011. The appeal to overturn the ban on Jallikattu was initiated in 2006 when a group submitted a petition to the Madras High Court seeking permission to conduct Jallikattu. Whereas the single bench banning Jallikattu on the grounds of excess cruelty which is prohibited under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Division bench in another appeal rehearing the very issues, reversed the previous order and permitted the animal to be tempered in Jallikattu subject to certain conditions. Despite this directive, if Jallikattu continued without adherence to these conditions, the Animal Welfare Board, a statutory body constituted under Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, issued a notification recognizing bulls as “performing animals.” This also included another set of cases where a bench of the Bombay High Court on December 12, 2012, addressed continual notifications from MoEF dated 11-07-2011 and a corrigendum issued by GoM (Maharashtra), covering all races, games, training, and exhibitions involving bullocks. The Supreme Court was also approached regarding the Division Bench’s order to implement this notification. Conversely, respondents argued that Jallikattu should not be restricted under cultural and traditional grounds.
Issue raised
* Are all the events that are being conducted in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra against the provisions of the PCA Act which is as follows: Section 3, 11(1)(a)&(m), 21 and 22 of the PCA Act read with Article 51A(g) and (h) of the constitution of India?
* On this backdrop, the question arises as to whether provision with reference to the Tamil Nadu regulation of Jallikattu Act,2009, being a state act is repugnant to the PCA act, being a central act since; both the Acts fall under Entry No. 17 in the concurrent list?
Appellant’s Argument
By stating that the bulls in Jallikattu, bullock-cart race etc are not ‘performing animals’, the AWBI is bending section 21 and 22 of the PCA act. Bulls are found under Draught and Pack Animal category They are protected by the law of prevention of cruelty to draught and Pack Animal Rules 1965 Bulls are commonly used in live-stock farming and farming. Besides, it was pointed out that during Jallikattu, it means the flight response indicating the feelings of being threatened, in pain and suffering. AWBI also argued that the bulls used in the race is an act of inflicting pain and suffering on the animal hence violating section 3, sections 11(1)(a) & 11(1)(m) of the PCA act, section 51A(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the further averment that Article 21 of the constitution while protecting rights of humans has protected ‘life’ and it was submitted that the word ‘life’ has received a very wide meaning and any act that causes a departure from the essential infrastructure of life, basic technology of life in the present world which comprise all forms of life necessary for sustaining human life including animal life comes within the meaning of Article 21 of the constitution. In categorization of rights under PCA act 1960, the right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and the right to protection of human beings from unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering is a right accorded to Wildlife Ss.
Respondent’s Arguments
The defenders of Jallikattu affirmed that such potentials are likely to happen as a tradition when the harvest season is over and sometimes with the temple festivals. What, The participants involved in the Bullock-cart races especially in the state of Maharashtra said that it has been in existence for over 300 years based on traditions and that a lot of care and precaution is taken to ensure that the racing bullocks do not get hurt or develop any sort of ache during the race. They also noted that such a sport keeps revenue gen in the state on the spotlight as well as creating employment for people in that state. It is contended that sporting events cannot be entirely banned or prohibited. In light of the concerns expressed by the board, the state of Tamil Nadu has enacted the TNRJ Act. Furthermore, it has been asserted that no cruelty is inflicted upon the participating bulls in bullock cart races in a manner that would contravene section 11(1)(a) of the PCA Act. Police officials, district collectors, and other authorities are always present to ensure that no cruelty is imposed upon animals. The counsel also indicated that bulls involved in these events are specifically selected, prepared, and trained for the sporting events with significant financial investments made by their owners for training, feeding, and associated expenses.
Supreme court’s 2014 judgement
The Supreme Court agreed with AWBI where it was right in its stand that Jallikattu, Bullock cart race and such events in se violate section 3, 11 (1) (a) and 11 {1) (m) (ii) of the PCA act and therefore approved the notification dated 11. 07. The Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India in 2011 christened the central government so bulls cannot be deployed as performing animals and therefore they cannot be used for Jallikattu or Bullock-cart races in Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra or any other state in India. The Supreme Court observed that the rights that have been conferred on the bulls under Section 3 & 11 of the PCA Act are indeed the rights embodied under Article 51 a(g)&(h) are the rights that cannot be encroached or can be restricted except by the provisions of Section 11 (3) & 28 of PCA Act.
Further improvements in the issue
The central government in January, 2016 issued a new notification to exclude Jallikattu and bullock cart races from the provisions of PCA Act. The Social Establishment notification came to be challenged at the Supreme Court. Still, it required the state government to pass another law known as the prevention of cruelty to Animals Act of 2017. Thus, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the killing of Bulls during Jallikattu festival, is cruel and involves unnecessary torture on the animal only for entertainment sake and therefore any change in laws should be held by this Court as irrational and perverse.
Supreme court’s 2023 judgement
The Supreme Court stated that: “For instance, while other means of carriage of goods are available, why should bulls be permitted to undertake such activities apparently forced on them which amounts to causing them pain and suffering on these sentient bovine species?” As per the performing animals (registration) Rules,2001 bet on horse racing is legal in India. Horse is also considered as the sentient animal. The problem here however remains that if one were to make them race, then some level of suffering has to be inflicted on the horses. Thus, the focus is not on whether a given act would cause pain and suffering to a sentient animal or not, but the extent to which a given animal is subjected to pain and suffering in order to be made perform certain errands in the interest of human beings. The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court while reversing the Tamil Nadu amendments held that “ while protection under Article 22 has been given to person which is different from the citizen as in the case of Article 19 of theconstitution, we do not consider it wise for us to embark on a course of judicial($) to bring in bulls under the said protected mechanism.
Inference
It is one comparative study of legal interpretation of cultural practice and power struggles and Jallikattu and the cultural events like Jallikattu and bullock cart races are other related issues mixed with aspects related with animal rights. In my case, I have used personal experience to justify protection of animal rights while observing cultures and traditions. Jallikattu and bullock-cart races are core cultural events associated with practicing regions such as Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, connected to religious Saiva Nadar devotional rituals and annual fairs that have been preserved since ancient time. They explain that through these spectacles, community spirit is promoted, hence the economic aspect is of considerable importance and such spectacles contribute to the definition of local identity. However, it is the essence of how the animals that are used are treated that is the real essence of the debate. Supreme Court judgements previous and Animal Welfare Board of India position expose that such events cause avoidable and unwanted sufferings to the bulls which is in violation of PCA Act. Another essential area is the morality concern because bulls as bright animals with their own feelings and ideas about the world should not be scared and endangered just for the sake of providing people with entertainment. As pointed out by Azanza and Erquiaga, the assertion that other forms of transport exist only serves to emphasise that there is no reason to have bulls participate in such activities. Also, Horse racing is legally allowed but like any other sport it has its ethical issues suggesting that the idea should focus on the level of suffering the animals are subjected to in various games. In legal perspective, it involves extraction of meaning from PCA Act and Constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court maintained the previous case law that protection of animal rights within the country is allowed by the PCA Act composing with the constitutional Articles 51A(g) and (h) dealing with the duty of citizens for the preservation of the natural environment including animal life. Yet, the Order 2023 as delivered a more considered opinion by differentiating the levels of pain and suffering of animals and consequently affirmed the Tamil Nadu amendments. This raises a fundamental question about judicial boundaries: Have the judiciary, animal rights advocates and lawmakers taken it upon themselves to grant animals constitutional rights applicable to human beings? Although there is some truth in the assertion that judiciary has its risks of overstepping its powers, one cannot argue that sparing sentient creatures from suffering can be seen as progressive interpretation compatible with the trends observed in other countries on the issue of animal welfare. Lastly, it is important to uphold cultural practices, this however should not be an excuse for the continued use of animals in ethically wrong methods. It remains the duty of the government and the judiciary to find a middle ground by making necessary adjustments in those traditions that are in some way or the other still causing unnecessary sufferings and/or deaths to animals in the backdrop of modern day animal rights. It is recommended that the guidelines should be set tough so as to promote maximum allowable events that would not harm the animals in any way – be it through causing stress, pain or suffering. Promoting non-cruel animal sacrificial cultural practices is very important since people can always embrace different cultural practices as meaningful ways of supporting their traditions, uniting and maintaining cohesiveness in the society as well as benefit economically from animal farming which is legal and humane. It is expected that with advancement in technology there should be a gradual disappearance of these practices and the adoption of techniques that observe the rights of other beings and cultures, yet, will not harm any innocent living being.
References
Our Legal World (2024) “Home – Our Legal World,” Our Legal World, https://www.ourlegalworld.com/.
Law, Live (n.d.) “Supreme Court News, Latest India Legal News, Supreme Court Updates, High Courts Updates, Judgments, Law Firms News, Law School News, Latest Legal News,” Live Law, https://www.livelaw.in/
LAW TIMES JOURNAL (2023) “Home – Law Times Journal,” Law Times Journal, https://lawtimesjournal.in/.
“STPL INDIA – HOME | STPL INDIA – INDIAN JUDGEMENTS,” (n.d.), https://stpl-india.in/.
SUBMITTED BY: TANVI RUKHAYA
OP JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY