On May 18, 2023, a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, upheld the constitutional validity of amendments made by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra to the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960 (PCA Act). These Amendments allowed for the constitution of traditional animal sports- Jallikattu, Kambala, and bull-cart racing in the respective states. The Bench directed strict enforcement of the amended legislation, including associated rules and notifications, by the authorities.
The case originated from a petition filed in response to the Animal 2014 Animal Welfare Board India v. A. Nagaraja Judgement, which declared events such as Jallikattu and Bullock-cart Races as violations of the PCA Act. Subsequently, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra enacted amendments in 2017, receiving Presidential assent
The Constitution Bench refrained from delving into the specific legal issues but focused on determining the constitutionality of the state amendments. The Court recognized the amendments as a response to concerns raised in the A. Nagaraja’s judgment emphasizes the altered practices in the conduct of the specified animal sports post-amendment. The court validated the constitutional soundness of the amendments, permitting the continuation of these traditional practices while ensuring strict compliance with the amended legislation’s provisions and rules.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra’s amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) comply with Article 246 read with Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or not. The constitutionality of these state-level changes to the PCA Act is being questioned.
- 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?
- Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in its current form, contrary to the judgments in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), and have defects identified in those judgments been adequately addressed?
- Can the stated objective of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu render I immune to legal challenge under Article 29 of the constitution of India?
- Does the amendment violate the constitutional rights of animals, particularly under Article 21 of the constitution, and can animals be considered “persons” for the purpose of invoking Article 14?
- Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act purportedly enacted to preserve cultural heritage colorable legislation that lacks a nexus to any entry in the State list or entry 17 of the concurrent list?
CONTENTION OF THE CASE
The central dispute in this case concerns the constitutionality of the modifications made to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) by the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. The Supreme Court has upheld the legitimacy of these state modifications. The court is made up of a 5-Judge Constitution Bench that is chaired by Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar. With the intention of controlling animal activities, including bull-cart racing, kambala, and jallikattu, the revisions were approved by the president.
The importance of following the modified law, rules, and notices was emphasized by the Court, which directed stringent enforcement. The Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) ruling, which recognized bull abuse in Jallikattu events, is the source of the case’s plea for compliance. There were significant concerns over constitutional interpretation, so the case was referred to a five-judge Constitution bench.
SOME OF THE MAJOR ISSUES ARE:
- Validity of the Constitution and Cruelty Prevention: Will the changes, as required by the PCA Act, truly combat animal cruelty and are consistent with Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution?
- Preservation of Cultural Heritage: Investigating whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act’s purported goal of preserving the state’s cultural legacy is eligible for protection under Article 29 of the Constitution.
- Evaluating if the changes truly aim to control animal sports or if they are a cover for another legislative goal that may fall outside the purview of the state. This is known as “colorable legislation.”
- Agricultural Activities and Native Breeds are Affected: Analyzing whether the amendments are relevant to Article 48 of the Constitution and whether they essentially help native breeds survive and thrive while taking into account any incidental effects on particular bull breeds and agricultural practices.
- Constitutional Rights of Animals: Addressing the argument that the amendments infringe on the fundamental rights of animals, examining the reasonableness under Article 14 and 21, and the assertion that animals are entitled to the protection of these constitutional provisions.
- Compliance with Previous Judgments: Evaluating whether the amendments contradict past judgments, specifically Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) and a subsequent review judgment in 2016, and if the identified defects have been adequately addressed.
The case highlights the precarious equilibrium between the ethical treatment of animals and cultural preservation, necessitating a careful legal study. The Court, rejecting the claim of colorable legislation, observed substantial changes in the regulated sports, asserting that the amendments do not encroach upon central legislation. It emphasized the cultural significance of Jallikattu, deferring to the legislative view, and deemed the amendments constitutionally valid. The Court also ruled that the amendments do not violate Articles 51-A(g) and 51-A(h) and are not contrary to the Nagaraja judgment. The case underscores the delicate balance between cultural preservation and ethical treatment of animals, requiring a nuanced legal analysis.
RATIONALE OF THE CASE
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court, sitting as a five-judge Constitution Bench, maintained the constitutionality of modifications to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) made by the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. The purpose of the revisions was to control animal sports in the relevant jurisdictions, such as bull-cart racing, kambala, and jallikattu. In addition to upholding the legality of the state modifications, the court, which was made up of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, specifically declared that this ruling would act as a precedent for the Maharashtra and Karnataka Amendment Acts. The three Amendment Acts are all legitimate pieces of legislation, the Court underlined.
A petition seeking compliance with the Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) ruling, which brought attention to bull abuse during Jallikattu events, was the starting point of the judicial drama. The case was referred to a five-judge Constitution panel by Justice RF Nariman and former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, who acknowledged that there were important constitutional issues at stake. After the presidential assent to the modifications under review, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu formulated regulations specifically for the conduct of the aforementioned bovine sports. The Court accepted the particular requirements in these guidelines, which are designed to keep the bulls safe from harm when participating in activities. In spite of these initiatives, the Animal Welfare Board maintained that these actions’ legitimization remained harmful and in violation of the PCA Act.
The Court was presented with a wide range of constitutional problems. First, the Court considered whether the modifications successfully addressed and prevented animal cruelty, with a focus on Tamil Nadu, and whether they were referable to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Court acknowledged that the adjustments had resulted in significant modifications to the Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bull Cart Race practices, which had diminished the severity of several cruel customs.
In response to complaints about colorable legislation, the Court rejected the idea that the revisions were only surface-level adjustments meant to supersede rulings from the courts. It emphasized that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act was not a form of colorable legislation by noting that the revisions did not infringe upon central law.
The Court recognized the legislature’s belief that Jallikattu is an essential component of Tamil culture, highlighting the preservation of cultural heritage as a critical component. It was determined that the Amendment Act, when read in conjunction with the regulations, significantly lessened the suffering of bulls while preserving traditional sports. The Court also examined whether the revisions were related to Article 48 of the Constitution and whether they were intended to protect native bull breeds. It was determined that Entry 17, List III was a more acceptable reference point for the modifications, as they were not principally focused on achieving this goal.
The Court ruled that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act was not in violation of Articles 14 and 21, rejecting arguments that it was unreasonable or in violation of Articles 51-A(g) and 51-A(h) and that it also did not run counter to these constitutional principles. The Court then considered whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act went against earlier rulings, specifically the 2014 Nagaraja ruling and the 2016 review ruling. The Court found that the Tamil Nadu Legislature had passed the contested Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, which corrected the flaws highlighted in previous rulings.
Finally, the Court considered whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act went against earlier rulings, including the 2014 Nagaraja ruling and the 2016 review ruling. The Court found that the Tamil Nadu Legislature has addressed the flaws mentioned in these rulings by passing the contested Tamil Nadu Amendment Act. This thorough legal analysis helped to establish a precedent for animal welfare jurisprudence by highlighting the delicate balance that must be struck between cultural preservation, the moral treatment of animals, and constitutional considerations.
DEFECTS OF LAW
While allowing the conduct of animal sports like bull-cart racing, kambala, and jallikattu, the recent Supreme Court ruling on the constitutional validity of the amendments made by the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 has drawn criticism and raised a number of legal issues.
One significant problem with the argument put up by the Animal Welfare Board (the “Board”) is that it maintains that the acts that are being attempted to be legitimized are still harmful and in violation of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the PCA Act, even in light of the state amendments. The Board contends that these changes fall short of resolving the issues raised in the seminal decision of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), which definitively determined that occasions such as Jallikattu are intrinsically illegal for the protection of animals. The Court appears to be ignoring the prior legal interpretation and its consequences for animal welfare by contesting the Board’s position.
Furthermore, there is no legal precedent for the claim that animals are included in the definition of “person” in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and that their freedom is restricted by allowing these cow-racing activities. The Court’s ruling that no animal may use Article 14 as a means of advocacy raises moral concerns about the recognition of animals’ fundamental rights. The lack of prior legal guidance on this issue exposes a legal framework weakness and essentially ignores the animal rights debate.
CONCLUSION
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of state modifications to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, thereby permitting bull-cart racing in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, as well as Kambala and Jallikattu. Strict enforcement of the modified regulations was directed by Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, who emphasized the laws’ potential to reduce animal suffering during these traditional games. The ruling establishes a precedent for state authority in regulating such practices and strikes a balance between evolving ethical considerations in animal care and cultural preservation. It also has repercussions for similar instances.
NIHARIKA SINGH,
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE