FACTS
Jallikattu is a traditional sport that is part of the Mattu Pongal celebration, which is the third day of the Pongal festival. It’s also known by other names like eru thazhuvuthal or manju virattu. The word ‘Mattu’ stands for bull, and on this day, bulls are honoured for their role in farming and milk production. During Jallikattu, bulls are released into a crowd, and participants try to grab onto the bull’s hump to calm it down. The name Jallikattu comes from the words ‘calli’ (coins) and ‘kattu’ (tie), which is the practice of tying a bag of coins to the bull’s horns, which the participants aim to retrieve as a prize. This sport is not just a test of bravery but also has cultural significance, with winners historically earning respect and sometimes even a marriage proposal.
Jallikattu has a history that stretches back at least 2,500 years. Evidence of its ancient roots includes a seal from the Indus Valley Civilization, which shows the sport and is currently kept at the National Museum in New Delhi. Additionally, archaeologists have dated a cave painting, which illustrates a man attempting to control a bull, to be around 2,500 years old.
Bulls are put in terrifying situations, forced to run from a crowd of men. In their fear, they often jump off barriers, causing fatal injuries. Participants and spectators are also at risk. Bulls are frequently provoked with alcohol, sticks, knives, sickles, and even chili powder in their eyes.
Over time, a lot of people have gotten hurt or even died during Jallikattu events. It was first banned in 2006 by the Madras High Court because a young person watching the event got killed by a bull. This ban caused a lot of people to protest because Jallikattu is pretty important to them culturally. So, there was a big debate about keeping the tradition versus making sure animals were treated right.
On May 7, 2014, the Supreme Court of India banned two sports traditions beloved in the states of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, respectively, known as Jallikattu and the Bullock Cart Race. Following this, on January 7, 2016, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notified the ban on the use of bulls for exhibition or training as performing animals, with an important exception for events like Jallikattu. This led to several writ petitions filed against the legality of the notification at the Supreme Court.
While these legal challenges were still underway, the Tamil Nadu government enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act in January 2017, specifically allowing Jallikattu and setting out regulations for its conduct. This legislative move sparked further petitions to the Supreme Court, demanding the annulment of the Amendment Act.
In response to this, on February 2, 2018, the Supreme Court escalated the matter by referring the collection of writ petitions to a Constitution Bench composed of five judges for a more comprehensive examination.
ISSUES RAISED:
1. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act of 2017 stepping on the toes of what the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was originally set out to do?
2. Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act clash with what’s laid out in Entry 17 of the Concurrent List in the Constitution, especially since it might lead to animals being treated poorly?
3. Should the sport of Jallikattu be seen as a cultural right that deserves protection under Article 29 of the Constitution of India?
CONTENTION:
PETIONER’S CONTENTIONS – The petitioners contend that the state amendments allowing sports like Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races are not legal. They say this is because these sports continue to harm and injure the bulls involved, which goes against what the 1960 Act stands for. They point out that the amendments don’t fix the issues that make these sports problematic in the first place. According to them, just adding these sports as allowed activities under the 1960 Act doesn’t make them okay, especially since Jallikattu doesn’t really fit under Entry 17 of List III in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. They also believe that the state legislatures didn’t have the right to make these changes to the law and that even getting the president’s okay doesn’t make up for this lack of authority. However, the court didn’t see any problems with how presidential consent was given, as per Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION – The petitioners contend that the activities sanctioned by the State Amendments are harmful and violate Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m) of the Act of 1960. They assert that the Amendments fail to address the shortcomings identified in the judgment of A. Nagaraja, and that the term “person” in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution encompasses sentient beings. Furthermore, they claim that the three Amendment Acts, which serve as the means of legalisation, are irrational and capricious, thus failing to satisfy the criteria of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners aim to intertwine Articles 14, 21, 48, and 51-A (h) and (g) to establish a regime of rights for animals, arguing that the Fundamental Duty of citizens to show compassion for living creatures and foster humanism should translate into corresponding rights for sentient animals against activities that cause distress and pain for the mere entertainment of humans.
RATIONALE AND JUDGEMENT
The 1960 Act, created through the power given by Entry 17 of List III in the Seventh Schedule of India’s Constitution, really puts the spotlight on animal rights by setting rules on how people can interact with animals. Basically, the Constitution’s Article 48 tells lawmakers to make sure farming and taking care of animals follow the latest scientific methods. It also says we need to work on making animal breeds better and stop the killing of cows, their young ones, and animals that give us milk or help in farming.
We, as citizens, are also told to do our part in looking after our planet and being kind to animals. The big point being made by those challenging the Act is that it’s not enough just to have these responsibilities; they should actually give animals specific rights. Especially since some sports really don’t treat animals right, directly going against what the Act and these provisions stand for.
The court looked into the claim made by the government, three states, and the Animal Welfare Board that activities like Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bull Cart Races are important parts of their culture and tradition. The court noticed that these events have changed a lot in how they’re carried out compared to the past, especially since the time of the A. Nagaraja judgment. So, the court disagreed with the claim that the new Amendment Acts were just superficial changes made to get around the court’s previous decisions.
The court also checked if it was within the power of the three legislative bodies to allow Jallikattu and other similar events. It decided that because the amendments came with new rules or notifications that changed how these events were run, they didn’t violate the two main concerns of the 1960 Act.
There were also arguments that stopping Bullock Cart Races might harm a specific type of cattle that’s useful for farming. However, the court didn’t agree with the idea that the Maharashtra Amendment Act was made to protect and improve animal breeds or to prevent animal diseases.
Lastly, the court considered if these bovine sports went against the 1960 Act, as was determined in the A. Nagaraja case before the amendments were made. The court suggested that if these sports were found to violate the 1960 Act, such limitations could be seen as reasonable under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, which allows for certain restrictions on rights for the public good.
The Supreme Court’s Judgement was that The Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu views it as a traditional activity. It’s not within the judiciary’s role to decide whether it forms an integral part of Tamil Nadu’s heritage. The recent Amendment aims to reduce the harm and distress caused to the animals, presenting a distinct scenario from what was observed in the A. Nagaraja case. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act focuses on the essential use of animals for tasks such as carrying loads and for entertainment purposes while also seeking to lessen their pain and discomfort. The process to secure the president’s endorsement was conducted impeccably. The
constitution itself does not provide animals with fundamental rights; rather, it is up to the legislative body to assign rights to animals.
DEFECTS OF LAW
The analysis of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, particularly in light of its Amendment for Jallikattu, reveals critical legal defects that undermine the balance between cultural practices and animal welfare.
First, the Act’s failure to define “cruelty” and “unnecessary pain and suffering” creates ambiguity, allowing for interpretations that may not always priorities animal welfare. This vagueness leads to inconsistencies in the law’s application, potentially sanctioning certain forms of animal cruelty under the guise of cultural practices.
Second, the legal framework allows for state amendments like the one for Jallikattu, which can override the central act with the president’s assent. This mechanism can be exploited to circumvent animal welfare protections, creating loopholes that compromise the law’s intent to prevent cruelty.
Furthermore, the legal provisions inadequately balance the need for cultural preservation with the rights and welfare of animals. By permitting exceptions for activities such as Jallikattu, the law effectively places cultural practices above animal welfare, contradicting its foundational purpose.
Addressing these defects requires amending the Act to clearly define key terms, closing loopholes that allow state laws to undermine central legislation, and reevaluating exceptions granted for traditional practices to ensure they do not compromise animal welfare. By refining the legal framework, it can more effectively fulfil its dual objective of protecting animals while respecting cultural diversity.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Jallikattu case shows how India is trying to balance cultural traditions with animal protection. The Court allowed the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act of 2017, which permits Jallikattu, a traditional bull-taming sport during the Pongal festival. This decision respects the cultural importance of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu.
The Court also pointed out that these traditions need to change to ensure animals are treated better. The Amendment Act includes rules to reduce cruelty, showing a move towards more humane treatment of animals while keeping the practice alive. This ruling tries to find a middle ground where cultural events can continue without harming animals.
The case points out issues with animal protection laws in India today. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, aims to stop animal suffering, but its vague definitions of “cruelty” and “unnecessary pain” lead to different interpretations and inconsistent enforcement. This allows practices like Jallikattu to continue even though they may harm animals.
The ruling also brings up questions about the power balance between state and central governments and how cultural rights are protected under the Constitution. While animals don’t have explicit rights in the Constitution, it does say that people should treat animals kindly. The case points out some flaws in India’s animal protection laws.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Jallikattu case wants to protect cultural traditions but also make sure animals are treated right. It points out that our cultural habits need to change with the times, and our laws need to be clearer about keeping animals safe. The decision shows that as the world evolves, our laws need to evolve, too, so we can respect our traditions while making sure animals aren’t hurt.
Name: Aaliya Aleem
University: Christ (Deemed to be University) Bangalore.