WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23 OF 2016; MAY 18, 2023
Facts of the Case
In this case the three state legislations were challenged. It includes The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act) 2017, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment Act) 2017 and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Amendment Act) 2017. These legislations were contrary to the judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja and Ors, which provide an exception in PCA 1960 to freely practice bovine sports like Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, Bullock Cart Race in Maharashtra and Kambala in Karnataka. These are the symbol of their culture and tradition. This led to filing of batch of writ petitions in all three High Courts. Later in the year 2017, PIL (Public Interest Litigation) was filed in Bombay High Court, challenging Maharashtra Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Bullock Cart Race) Rules, 2017. As a result, Court restrained the conducting of Bullock Cart Race. The present case arose out of the decision of Bombay High Court. A farmer named Vikramsinh Nivrutti Bhosle from Maharashtra filed Special Leave Petition SLP contending against the order of the High Court, on ground that restricting the Bullock Cart Race would hamper the lives of farmers, as they couldn’t sustain their lives. Moreover, he also argued that the provision under the said Amendment Act of Maharashtra falls under entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of Constitution.
Issues in the Case
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court has framed five issues on which they have to deliver the judgment.
- Firstly, the court has to decide that whether Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, which create an exception to animal cruelty by allowing “Jallikattu”, refers pith and substance to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Further, the Court has to looked upon the application ‘Doctrine of Colourable Legislation’ in this matter.
- Secondly, the Court has to analyze that whether this impugned Amendment Act of Tamil Nadu is part of cultural heritage of the people of the State, in order to fall under the protection of Article 29 of Indian Constitution.
- Third, that whether the doctrine of pith and substance relatable to Article 48 of Constitution of India.
- Fourth, the Court need to examine that whether the said amendment violates Article 51(g) and 51(h) along with Article 14 and 21.
- Lastly, the court also need to review whether the impugned Amendment is in contrary to the judgment in A. Nagaraja case.
Contention of the Case
In this case the major contention of petitioner’s side was regarding the practice of these bovine sports, which led to exploitation and infliction of unnecessary pain to these bulls’ species, in the name of culture and tradition. Their argument is based on the assertion that it leads to cruelty towards animals, which is in violation to Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act 1960. Further, they argued that the said State Amendments disregarded the previous judgment of A. Nagaraja and was unable to cure the deficiency brought about the judgment. Instead, the states through these amendments have bypassed the said judgment. Secondly, the petitioner side argued that the expression ‘person’ under Article 21 of the Constitution also includes sentient animals. Thus, their liberty as guaranteed under the said provision has been curtailed by allowing the practice of these bovine sports. Moreover, according to petitioner these amendments acts were also unreasonable and arbitrary and against the principle of Article 14, 21, 48, 51A(h) and (g). Their contention was that the Constitution laid down the Fundamental Duty to have compassion towards living creatures and it leads to development of humanistic values in corresponding to protection of the rights of these sentient animals. In argument advanced the petitioner contended that such kind of practices cannot be the part of culture heritage and tradition of Tamil Nadu, as provided by the Preamble of the Amendment Act of that state. The Preamble specifically states that the object of the statute is to ensure the wellbeing and survival of native breed of the bulls. Further, this amendment has inserted clause 2d in the definition clause of 1960 Act and amended section 11(3) of the said statute by inserting sub-clause (f) thereto. Later, petitioner also contended that these statutes were contrary to the judicial decision and is violating the provision the PCA 1960. Hence, giving the presidential ascent symbolizes the overriding of legislative power and it comes under the Constitutional Doctrine of ‘Colourable Legislation.’ It was contended by petitioner that the subject of Jallikattu didn’t not fall under Entry 17 of List III of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. Hence, there was no competency with state legislature to enact these amendments.
On the other hand, respondents argued that there were several offending elements associated with the practice of Jallikattu, Kambala and Bullock Cart Race has been rectified in the subsequent rules made by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka Amendments Acts. This laid down the regulatory measure of conducting these sports. These rules specify the setting up of both bull run and bull collection area. According the rules the spectator’s area should be separated in order to prevent direct contact from the bulls. Secondly, the argument of respondent contains the assertion that these bulls are of special breed, which has the natural ability to run alike horses, which is allowed under Performing Animal Registration Rule 2001.
Rationale
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court, after hearing all the evidence came at the conclusion that these practice of bovine sports in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra should not be banned. Further, the said Amendment Acts passed by the state legislatures are valid in nature and not contrary to any Constitutional provision. It also doesn’t violate the provisions under PCA 1960. The court dealt with various parameters to come at this conclusion. Firstly, the court analyzed in order to provide the correct interpretation of these Amendment Act, it should read in consonance with the rules of these states. As far as Karnataka Amendment Act is concerned, the two fresh restrictions were imposed under Section 3(2) of the said act. It states certain condition to ban unnecessary pain or suffering inflicted on these bulls during conducting Kambala. Similar restrictions were imposed in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. Though the court believed that there is positive reformation happened in conducting these sports over the period of time but still there are possibilities that even after taking all due care the chances that the pain and suffering inflicted to these bulls cannot be negated. Secondly, the court after analyzing various statutory interpretation came to the conclusion that the statute cannot be struck down just because there is an apprehension of misappropriation and disobedience. Further, court didn’t accept these amendments as mere colourable legislation just to override the judicial pronouncement.
Secondly while examining issue that the said provisions of amendment acts are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, Court didn’t find any irrational classification with regard to these sports by legislatures in creating some kind of mischief under Article 14 of the Constitution. Third, the court had negated the assertion of petitioner that there is an application of doctrine of ‘pith and substance.’ The court examined item 17 in List III, specifically stating ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,’ these alleged amendments were also based on the same subject matter, which makes state legislature the competent authority to formulate these rules regarding the same. Fourth, the Court stated that after these rules becomes the part of act, the defects have been rectified and now it didn’t attract the Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the PCA 1960. Hence, the assertion that these amendments void because they override the previous judgment (A. Nagaraja) cannot be sustained because these said amendments have altered the position and manner in which these bovine sports were conducted. At last, the court has reiterated that Tamil Nadu Act is doesn’t violate Article 21, 51A (g) and (h) and is not related to Article 48 of the Constitution. Hence, the court considered it a valid legislation.
Defects of the Law
In this case the major contention was related to said amendments enacted by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka. All these amendments have incorporated the rules laid down by these states regarding conduct of bovine sports such as Jallikattu, Kambala and Bullock Cart Race. According to these amendments these sports are defined as the symbol of tradition and cultural heritage of the states. Contrary to this it was contended by the petitioner that the following practices are in contrary to Article 14, 21, 48, 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution. This kind practice is unnecessary pain and suffering to these innocent and speechless bulls. Further, the petitioner argued that this is also violation of PCA 1960 which is welfare legislation to prevent cruelty towards animals and is contrary to Section 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the said act.
The division bench of the Supreme Court has altered its position from the case of A. Nagarajan to allow the continuation of these bovine sports, based on the rationale that constitution doesn’t guarantee any fundamental rights to these animals. Secondly, whether these sports are the part of cultural heritage of the state or not, the court has left this controversial aspect on legislature to decide. Further, the court has also reiterated while to referring to A. Nagaraja case, that according to Section 11(1)(a) to (e) of PCA 1960, which provide exception in case of necessity, which includes eating flesh, experiment on animals, killing stray dogs etc. Moreover, Section 28 provide the usage of animals in case of religious sacrifices. In all these circumstances there are unnecessary pain inflicted on the animals which are more painful than what these bulls suffer during the conduct of these bovine sports which are held once in a year.
Inference
This case is the prime example of the hypocritic attitude prevailing in the society, not only in India but all over the world. The idea of animal rights to protect these animals from cruelty face lot of criticism as well as backlashes in the name of religion and cultural practices. With the analysis of this it can evident that animal right jurisprudence required reformation in the country. There is an urgent need to amend the existing statute of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Even though, it is matter to think how to balance the animal rights and the religious believes in the secular country like India, which guaranteed Right to Freedom of Religion under Constitution. But the question arises that whether this right should be exercised absolutely even at the cost of lives of these innocent animals which are the significant part of our ecosystem and share the symbiotic relation with human species.
Name – Varisha Chaudhary
College Name – Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida