AUTHOR: DIKSHA SONI, CHHAJU RAM LAW COLLEGE, GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY
Date of judgement – 18 May, 2023
JUDGES - C.T. Ravikumar, Hrishikesh Roy, Aniruddha Bose, Ajay Rastogi, K.M. Joseph
BACKGROUND
In the year 2014, the supreme court held in Animal welfare board vs. A. Nagaraja (2014) that the practice of Jallikattu and Bullock-cart racing cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the bulls and also it subjected to cruel treatment according to Prevention to cruelty to animals’ act, 1960 (PCA). Hence the court banned these activities.
But in the year 2016, this ban was undone by the union government’s notification and allowed this practice. But with the same the government imposed several restrictions that must be adhered to while organising the ritual of Jallikattu. But after a year, in 2017, the Tamil Nadu government made an amendment to the PCA Act which allows Jallikattu to be practiced. Both the Maharashtra and Karnataka legislatures made similar amendments to the PCA Act and allow the bullock-cart practice.
After these amendments, a group of animal rights activists and organisations challenged the notification of the union government and these amendments in the Supreme court.
This case was further referred to the 5-judge constitution bench, in the year 2018, to decide whether the culture of Jallikattu and bullock-cart is protected under Article 29 of the constitution.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, the Animal welfare board is the petitioner and the union of india is the respondent.
The present case, the first writ petition has been brought by Animal Welfare Board of India and the other writ by Anjali Sharma. However, during the ongoing hearing, the animal welfare board shifted and attempted to support the state and the union of india, on the grounds that the PCA Act 1960 and some of the state amendments that were enacted in 2017 were not objectionable and the board has established the guidelines for the protection of these animals during these cultural events. The previously mentioned writ petition was prosecuted as a single writ petition which was filed by the second writ petitioner, Anjali Sharma, who was the member of the board and also practising as an advocate in the court.
LEGAL ISSUES
The following issues were raised from the present case:
1.Can Jallikattu be protected under article 29(1) as a cultural practice under Indian constitution?
2.Does the culture of Jallikattu violate the prevention of cruelty act (PCA) 1960?
3.Do the amendments by state governments violate the right to equality and life of animals?
4.Are the amendments by Tamil Nadu’s government contrary to the Supreme court’s ban on the practise of Jallikattu in A. Nagaraja v. Animal welfare board (2014)?
These issues are very necessary to understand the validity of the case and the ban on cultural practices of the natives by the court in india.
ARGUMENTS
The petitioner says that the amendments made by the state governments over Jallikattu and the Bullock-carts, are illegal because of their continuing infliction of pain and injuries on Bulls, violates the PCA Act provisions. They argue that those amendments by the state do not provide remedial measures to cure them legally. They also argue that those amendments were only introduced to male those sports permissible in the PCA Act 1960. They further argued that the state does not have legislative power to make amendments in the present cases.
The respondent makes the further arguments and said, that this is the fact that the sport of Jallikattu has been played for hundreds of years. They argued that the act which is describing unnecessary pain and suffering, that amount is necessary for domestication. They said that the amendments come under their power as this subject comes under concurrent list and the state can use its power for the amendments. They further argued that this event should be recognised as a cultural practice.
JUDGEMENT
The Tamil Nadu’s government declared the event of Jallikattu as a cultural practice, but the judiciary is not the body to determine whether the event of Jallikattu is the part of Tamil Nadu’s culture. It was held that the PCA Act 1960 comes under concurrent list, in which both the state and the central government can make amendments, so amendments by the state government are valid. The amendments minimize the pain and suffering which was suffered by inflicted animals, which creates a different situation from A. Nagaraja case. Amendments in PCA are basically based on minimizing the pain and sufferings of the animals. It was also held to clarify that the constitution does not grant fundamental rights to animals, only the legislature can grant rights to animals.
IMPLICATIONS
The legislature creates the laws in favour of these cultural events, as by this they wanted to create the balance between the cultural practices, animal welfare, spirituality of people and the custom of the natives. By protecting the practice of Jallikattu which is the ritual of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme court also upheld the rulings of the state of Karnataka and Maharashtra. Through the implication of this judgement both socially and politically we have seen the consequences, it results in strengthening animals’ rights and welfare, this case has raised public awareness for animals wellbeing.
ANALYSIS
According to me, the ban on the practice of Jallikattu by the Supreme court violates the right of the cultural practice of the natives of Tamil Nadu. The amendments made by the state governments of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra on the practice of Jallikattu and Bullock-carts are valid. These amendments were made to minimize the pain suffered on the inflicted animals. The matter that the writ petitioner thought about was also right but violating the cultural rights of the natives is not valid. So, the judgments given by the supreme court on the validation and legality of these cultural events are right. This judgement will further help in the future as it balances between the welfare of animals and the cultural practice of natives.
If we see it has resulted in numerous outcomes, some positive and some may be negative. It has been seen in the increasing awareness of the public for the welfare of animals. Politically, there have been stricter and appropriate steps for animals, to minimize their pain and suffering. Furthermore, it can be seen that by increasing the regulation on animals’ welfare, it can increase the tensions between the animal welfare board or activists with those who rely on animals for their earning. So basically, everything has both negative and positive effects. It depends on the future cases and their judgments which probably amend the acts and implement new laws.
CONCLUSION
This case provides the balance between preserving cultural practices and securing animal welfare. The supreme court in this judgement held that the amendment act and the rules were not contrary to the case of A. Nagaraja and the defects which were taken out have been overcome by the State amendment act. This case serves as an important precedent for future legal interpretations which concerns animal rights and differences between the cultural traditions and constitutional principles.
Related Posts
