BALANCING TRADITION AND ANIMAL WELFARE: A CRITICAL ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA V. NAGARAJA & ORS (2014) 7 SCC 547 BY: AMANDA JESSICA FERNANDES & GAURAV SHAKTINATH MISHRA
BALANCING TRADITION AND
ANIMAL WELFARE: A CRITICAL ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA V. NAGARAJA & ORS
(2014) 7 SCC 547
AUTHORED BY: AMANDA
JESSICA FERNANDES
& GAURAV SHAKTINATH MISHRA
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION: REVA University
COURSE AND YEAR: BA LLB
(Hons): 4th year
CITATION:
WRIT
PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23 OF 2016
SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA
BENCH:
K.M JOSEPH J, AJAY RASTOGI; J. ANIRUDDHA BOSE; J. HRISHIKEHS ROY; C.T.
RAVIKUMAR; J
INTRODUCTION
India is a country of diversified cultural and
traditional persons, with a periodically diversified history. One of which is a
practiced sport that dates to the Indus valley civilization, around 2500 years
ago. ‘Jallikattu’ is defined under the ambit as a practiced sport mainly to
bring in the harvest festival of Pongal in the state of Tamil Nadu[1].
the following judgement as stated by the Supreme Court, majorly holds a
distinction between traditional and cultural practices and law that governs the
practices. Various states of India, Karnataka and Maharashtra through its
conventional celebrations partake in such festivities in taming the bull by
managing to hold the horns or humps and managing control over it. The sport is
celebrated in a customary manner to adjudicate the care prescribed to the bull
in flaunting of personal strengths, care and love to their bulls. Since, the
bulls are members of the family. The Supreme court, in its judgement stated
that such practices that cause grievous hurt to such animals should be banned,
upon which there were various upholding to the judgement in such states,
protests and agriculturalist towards concerning factors on bulls used in
agricultural practices in obtaining yield products. Upon which there were state
Amendments to the Act of 1960, to tackle the opposition that was held against
the ban on Jallikattu. Various organisations that stand for Animal Rights,
stand against such state activities upon which the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals[2]
in order of preventing the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on
animals and prevent cruelty to animals. Majorly shedding light on interpreting
constitutional provisions of Article 14 and Article 21. In the following case
of A. Nagaraja stated that bulls are sentient animals and the sports that they
were involved in is clearly unnecessary and not needed for human survival.
JUDGEMENT
The pronounced judgement by a Two Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court, dating to the year 2014 in the case of Animal Welfare Board of
India V. Nagaraja[3] terming
that there should be an immediate action towards the common sports practices in
the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
The infringement and measures against the violation of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960[4],
Training and Exhibition of animals is termed to being cruelty against such
animals, which also includes bulls used for bullock cart races and events of
exhibition. Stating that the following practices are overlapping the
Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of India[5]
In the year, 2017 there were major changes that were
brought about on by the state legislatures of the concerned states. Amending
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, in the state of Maharashtra, the
conduct of bullock cart race was in order of promoting tradition and culture
and ensuring and preserving the native breeds of bulls.
Observing through, section 11 and section 22 of the
1960, Act stated that dealt with treating animals with cruelty and the
circumstances upon which were not to be exempted under these practices. Section
22, stating that in order of neglection and denying such animals from food,
shelter and by keeping them chained and confined for hours will be punished for
a period of 3 months and will be fined.
The practice of jallikattu was exempted from the ambit
of the 1960 Act, stating that these practices are traditional in nature and are
in no manner causing grievous hurt or is not against the principles of harm and
torture of animals.
In February 2018 a bench comprising of justice Dipak
Misra and R.F. Nariman referred the case to a 5 judge Constitution bench to
decide if jallikattu and other bull taming sports are constitutionally
protected under Article 29 as cultural practices.
In May 2023 the Supreme Court upheld the following judgement
on the practices of jallikattu, kambaala and Bullock cart racing, stating that
the jurisdiction doesn’t extend to giving absolute protection to animals but
ensuring that there are necessary steps considered in protecting them against
unnecessary sufferings, upon which the State amendments law fulfil the
established statement.
ISSUES
1. Whether the sport of Jallikattu is a sport protected
under Article 29 as a cultural right of the Constitution?
2. Whether the Tamil Nadu amendment Act violates Article
51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution of India?
3. Does the Tamil Nadu legislature have the power to
amend the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?
4. Whether the act is unreasonable and violative of
Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
ANALYSIS
The
intricates of the following judgement brings forth various implications of
amendments, upon the following traditional practice of Jallikattu[6]
The intricates of the following case brings forth
various implications upon which such fundamental Rights of the people are
guaranteed on such practices that persist towards the preserving of a cultural
festivity, that under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution giving importance to
preserving the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of India by considering
the Rights of the minority communities.
The case persisted towards turning into a nationwide
debate that consisted of persons that were traditionally inclined people that
have been persistently following an age-old tradition towards celebrating such
festivities. And on the contrary, there were persons that raised various doubts,
filed writ petitions in the court of law in order of which consisted of the Animal
Welfare board, stating that Jallikattu is intrinsically cruelty against bulls.
The act such as physical restraint, applying chilli powder and twisting the
tail were reported as breaches of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960. Accordingly, there were our statistical reports that condemn and state
towards the injuries and fatalities to spectators.
A case that was recorded by the Madras High Court,
during the event of the activity of Jallikattu, a spectator was killed. The
emphasis, given by the Stated legislated amendments consist of the centuries
old tradition being highlighted as a manner in cultural and traditional partake[7].
The AWBI notified the Ministry of Environment and
Forests of the Supreme Court's unequivocal ruling that such events constitute
cruelty, as well as its directives supporting the PCA Act's prohibition on
performing bulls. (AWBI) said unequivocally that Jallikattu, bull races, bull
fights, Kambaala, and other comparable events are prohibited and
unconstitutional since they promote animal cruelty. In supersession of the 2011
Notification, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change issued
another notification 14 (the 2016 Notification") permitting bulls to be
used as performance animals for events like proms, despite the Supreme Court's
and the AWBI's directives to the Central Government not to take a stand in
opposition to its own Notification order GSR 528 (E) dated 11.07.2011 without
consulting the AWB Mainly under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, in cases
where in the president assent in order of amending acts accordingly to the
prescribed circumstances of the state. Directive Principles of State Policy
(DPSP) - Article 48A states that the State shall endeavour to protect, improve
the environment and surroundings and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of
the country.
The year 2014, where in the practice of Jallikattu was
being termed of violation of Article 14, equality before law, Article 21
stating that every living being has a right to life under the ambit of the
country’s jurisdiction The following practice was observed and keenly regulated
under the Jallikattu Act, 2009
Maharashtra, that it could hamper the daily lives of
such persons associated with the Bullock cart race, Amendment act of Maharashtra
in the entry 15 of list II of the Seventh schedule of the Constitution of India
sating preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of
animal diseases, veterinary training and practice. Prevention of cruelty to
animals (Tamil N?du Amendment) Act, 2017 the Maharashtra amendment and
Karnataka amendment enacted by the state legislatures on receiving the assent
from the president. Bulls should not be used in such sports, as they don’t hold
a natural inclination towards running as compared to a horse. Section 22
restriction on exhibition and training of performing animals.
Mainly the amendments to the aforesaid acts, have
taken into observation and amended the 2017 Acts, that in order of participating
in the race, the specifications for length of the track, rest period and
isolation of the track from public.
The Tamil Nadu Rules specifically provides for
examination of bulls, with specifications for the arena, bull collection yard
as also setting up of spectator’s gallery. These instrument in substance
prohibit causing any physical disturbance to the bulls like beating and poking
them with sharp objects, sticks, pouring chilli powder in their eyes, twisting
their tails amongst other such pain inflicting acts.
TMA v. State of Karnataka[8] court held that there is a need of court to establish
provisions related to minority groups.
Ajay Marathe V. The State of Maharashtra & Ors[9]. Mainly challenging the certain proposed rules
brought by the State of Maharashtra under the ambit of Maharashtra Prevention
of Cruelty to animals
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals[10]
against the judgement pronounced in the following case, argued against the
cruelty to animals and should be banned. PETA’s eyewitnesses investigated
jallikattu events that took place in Avaniapuram, Palamedu, Alanganallur,
Thirunallur, and Maravapatti between 5 and 12 February 2017 and documented
profuse cruelty to animals and flagrant disregard for the public’s safety and
the law.
CONCLUSION
The following case, where in the debate upon animal
cruelty and a century custom, there holds a strong stance over various laws, The
judgement in Animal Welfare Board v. Union of India (2023) marked a significant
shift in the legal landscape surrounding Jallikattu. By upholding the
constitutional validity of state amendments regulating the practice, the court
acknowledged the cultural importance of Jallikattu while prioritizing animal welfare.
However, the judgement doesn't signal a complete victory for either side.
The onus
now falls on the implementing authorities to ensure strict adherence to the
regulations. Effective enforcement will be critical in minimizing animal
suffering during Jallikattu. Additionally, ongoing dialogue between animal
rights activists, cultural proponents, and scientific experts can pave the way
for further refinements in regulations.
Ultimately,
the Jallikattu case serves as a springboard for a more balanced approach to
cultural practices involving animals. Striking a sustainable equilibrium
between tradition and ethics requires ongoing efforts from all stakeholders.
REFERENCES
Legal websites
1. Jurist – Legal News
2. Law Wire
3. Supreme Court Observer
Research Papers
1. International Journal of Legal science and innovation
2. Journal of Legal Research and Juridical sciences
Statutes
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Prevention of cruelty to animals, 1960
3. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu
Amendment) Act, 2017
[1]Challenge
to the Practice of Jallikattu, Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/challenge-to-the-practice-of-jallikattu/
(visited May 1, 2024).
[4]Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, No. 59 of 1960, § 11(m)
[6]Jallikattu, Traditional Practice in
Tamil Nadu, India
[7]Jallikattu"
Movement and Cultural Identity: The Mobilising Structure of Media Paradigm and
its Dimensions, 25 Int'l J. Commun. 123 (2023).
[9]Ajay
Marathe v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2022 SCC Online Bom 1234
(India).
[10] People for Ethical Treatment of
Animals, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), https://www.peta.org (visited May 6th,
2024).