FACTS
Jallikattu, Kambala, Bull Race, or Bullock Cart Race (the sports), are sports employing
bovine or bulls of special breeds, for entertainment by the people in the States of Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka, and Maharashtra. The bulls or bovines were “prepared” for the sport with cruel
and inhumane methods including ear cutting, mutilation, and twisting of the tail resulting in
fractures, dislocated tail bones, and injuries to muscles, bones, nerves, and blood vessels. The
animals were kept in cramped conditions, without food and water, and mistreated by the
spectators. Aggrieved by the cruel and abhorrent practices involved in the conduct of such
sports, a Petition was filed combining the writ petitions pending in the matters thereof, which
was finally decided in A. Nagaraja 1 judgment by the Supreme Court. It held that the use of
bulls in such sports in a manner contrary to their nature was to be violative of Sections 3,
11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act and hence banned these sports completely. In the aftermath
of the judgment, due to public pressure, the State Governments of Tamil Nadu 2 , Karnataka 3 ,
and Maharashtra 4 enacted State Amendment Acts (the Amendment Acts) to the 1960 Act,
amending the provisions to allow the continued performance of these sports. Post receipt of
Presidential assent on the Amendment Acts, the State Governments of Tamil Nadu and
Maharashtra notified Rules titled “The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules, 2017” and “The Maharashtra Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(Conduct of Bullock Cart Race) Rules, 2017” to govern the conduct of bovine sports. The
State Government of Karnataka issued a Notification on 17th December 2015 to strictly
regulate the conduct of such sports. These Rules and Notification.
1 Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 (India)
2 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, No. 1, Act of Tamil Nadu, 2017
(India).
3 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017, No. 2, Act of Karnataka, 2017 (India).
4 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017, No. 45, Act of Maharashtra, 2017(India).
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the three State Amendment Acts violate the A. Nagaraja 5 ratio to legitimize a
cruel sport under Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act. - Whether animals can possess Fundamental Rights under the Constitution and be
considered a “person” under Article 21. - Whether the State Amendments are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the State Amendments are colourable legislations.
- Whether impugned sports are part of the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu.
5 Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 (India)
CONTENTION
Countering the contention of the Petitioner’s claim that the Amendment Acts had not
addressed the defects mentioned in the A. Nagaraja, the Respondents sought the reading of
the 1960 Act together with the Amendment and Rules. Citing the Peerless General Finance
and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India 6 judgment of the Supreme Court, the
Respondents highlighted that rules made under a statute are an integral part of the Act itself
and must be interpreted or constructed in light of the intention of the legislature.
On the issue of animals being recognized as persons and accorded rights under the
Constitution, the Respondents argued that the power to accord such rights to animals is
vested only with the Legislatures and cannot be done by judicial interpretation. They averred
that the species of bulls were specifically bred to run and hence, there was no grave cruelty or
compulsion imposed on the animals violating Article 21 7 .
6 Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. & Anr. V. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343 (India)
7 Constitution of India, Article 21
RATIONALE
- Not Violative or Bypassing the Ratio in A. Nagaraja 8 :
The Court accepted the stand of the Respondents and the Amendments which imposed an
obligation to implement the Rules for any exceptions, thereby curing the defects. Having
become an integral part of the 1960 Act, the Amendment and Rules introduced strict
conditions, banning unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering on the animals,
substantially changing the manner of the practice. The Court, however, acknowledged that
the Amendment Acts read independently from the Rules would have violated the A.
Nagaraja judgment. In pursuance of the substantially changed circumstances, this ratio is
no longer tenable. Arguments on the ground reality or possible non- implementation of the
changed law, cannot be considered valid grounds for striking down the Amendment Acts. - Status Of Legal Personality:
The Court observed that the current legislative jurisprudence does not recognize animals as
capable of possessing rights. However, if social and cultural factors dictate such a
declaration, rights may be accorded by law by restricting human behavior concerning
animals. - No Rights Under the Constitution:
Concerning the demand for the elevation of statutory rights of animals under the 1960 Act
to fundamental rights status, the Court did not think it within their powers to accord the
protection under Article 21 9 and left the issue to be decided by the Legislature. It found that
the Constitution does not recognize the Fundamental Rights of animals and that it was
impossible for an animal to be accorded rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, it observed that testing the provisions of animal welfare legislation for
arbitrariness or unreasonableness under Article 14 and the legality under Articles 48, 51-A
(g) 10 , and (h) 11 , is possible in the instance of those concerned about animal welfare.
8 Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 (India)
9 Constitution of India, Article 21 - Not Violative of The Constitution:
The Court held that there was no irrational classification by legislature under Article 14 12 .
However, contrary views were expressed regarding the ability of the bulls to run, creating
confusion over the unreasonableness arising out of the pain and suffering. Moreover,
while horse racing was allowed under the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001
despite being sentient animals, the Court observed that some degree of pain and suffering
cannot be doubted. However, the issue of whether this degree of pain and suffering can be
inflicted on an animal for an activity not being a necessity to human beings, cannot be
taken up by the judiciary. Hence, the Amendments were not violative of Article 21 13
either. Furthermore, the Court appreciated that the 1960 Act aimed at protecting animals
from unnecessary pain and suffering out of involuntary compulsions, which was balanced
in the Amendments without impinging on animal ownership rights of individuals.
- Not A Piece of Colourable Legislation:
Due to the substantial change in the circumstances and manner of performance and
conduct of the sports in the wake of the Amendments, the Court held that the contention
of being mere cosmetic change to evade the judgment in A. Nagaraja 14 cannot be
accepted. Hence, these Amendments were neither colourable legislation nor encroaching
upon the Central Legislation. Further, the Court found that given the ratio in I.N. Saksena
v. State of M.P. 15 directing that the entries in the legislative lists of the Constitution be
interpreted in the widest sense, the State Legislatures here had the necessary competence
to enact the Amendment Act under Entry 17 of List III 16 . Moreover, the Rules read with
the Amendment Acts, cured the mischief contemplated during the A. Nagaraja’s judgment
and therefore, could not be seen to be offending the 1960 Act anymore.
10 Constitution of India, Article 51-A(g)
11 Constitution of India, Article 51-A(h)
12 Constitution of India, Article 14
13 Constitution of India, Article 21
14 Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 (India)
15 I.N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 4 SCC 750 (India)
16 Constitution of India; Schedule VII
- Custom Or Not to Be Determined by Legislature:
The Court held that to determine whether any practice was part of the custom or tradition
of any community would require a trial on evidence and that it was not within the
jurisdiction of the Court to determine the same. However, the law shall prevail over even
a long-lasting tradition that violates the law. It was accepted here that the manner of
conduct of the sports as on date of A. Nagraj’s judgment 17 violated the 1960 Act and was
not permissible despite being a centuries-old practice. Being a legislative exercise, the
Amendments passed by the Legislatures, holding these practices to be part of their
cultural heritage, must be accepted as such. This overturned the conclusion in A.
Nagaraja 18 refuses to hold such a practice as part of cultural heritage.
17 Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 (India)
18 Ibid.
DEFECTS OF LAW
- Bypassing and Violating the A. Nagaraja 19 Ratio:
The Petitioners argue that the Amendment Acts are cosmetic changes to legitimize
cruel sports, overriding the A. Nagaraja judgment. They argue that these amendments
bypass the 1960s Act, which banned such sports without addressing their defects,
violating the constitutional scheme. They argue this overriding of the judicial verdict is
contrary to the constitutional scheme and should be set aside as colourable legislation.
- Animal Rights Under Constitution:
The duties of the State under Article 48 and that of citizens under Articles 51-A (g)
and (h) were sought to be interpreted as rights accruing to the animals under the
Constitution. Citing the ratio in A. Nagaraja case, the Petitioners sought the statutory
rights under the Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act to be elevated to
fundamental rights status and be read with Articles 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution.
The Petitioners cited the Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India 20 judgment of the
Uttarakhand High Court to accord animals the status, rights, and duties generally
associated with legal persons. Borrowing from international jurisprudence, the
Petitioners cited Argentinian, and Ecuadorian cases and an Act passed in the United
Kingdom holding animals to be sentient beings and possessing rights as such.
The Petitioners sought the Amendment Acts be declared violative of the Constitutional
duty owed to animals by the State and Citizens through the interpretation of Articles
48, 51A(g), and (h). They argued that animals cannot be compelled to suffer pain and
cruelty for the pleasure of human beings.
- Amendments Violative of Articles 14 And 21:
Petitioners argue that sentient animals have natural rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution, and that the cruel practices of bull racing in Jallikattu violate this right.
19 Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 (India)
20 Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, (2018) SCC Online Utt 645 (India)
They argue that the amendments legitimizing these practices and imposing exceptions
without intelligible basis are arbitrary actions.
- Colourable Legislation:
It was argued that the Amendment Acts amount to colourable legislation since they
violate constitutional provisions and the ratio in A. Nagaraja 21 . The Petitioners claimed
that the subject dealt with by the Amendments did not fall within the ambit of Entry 17
of List III 22 and hence was not within the legislative competence of the State
Legislature.
- Not Part of Cultural Heritage:
The petitioners argued that despite states claiming Jallikattu, Kambala, Bulls Race, or
Bullock Cart Race to be part of their culture, these sports cannot be considered
traditional. They referenced the A. Nagaraja case, which concluded that such sports do
not exist in Tamil tradition and should be protected by welfare legislation. The court
also cited the Isha-Upanishad, which asserts human rights and dignity.
21 Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 (India)
22 Constitution of India; Schedule VII.
INFERENCE
It is humbly opined that this judgment had aptly balanced the social pressure to allow the
continuance of such practices on the one hand and a compassionate approach to ensure the
protection of animals from cruelty on the other. Interpreting the Rules and notification
providing for strict regulation as part of the Amended Law, the Court has permitted the sports
to continue subject to adherence to the necessary directions to ensure humane treatment of the
animals. Though the possibility of these directions not being adhered to on the ground level is
known to the Court, it refused to strike off the law on grounds of apprehensions, imposing a
greater liability and duty on the State to ensure the strict implementation thereof.
Ayantika Das, JIS University