.jpg)
Prateek Bal,
Soa National Institute Of Law
Introduction
Jallikattu, alternatively known as sallikkattu, is a traditional sport in Tamil Nadu. It is essentially a bullfight that dates back centuries. In this sport, a bull is released into a crowd, and the money affixed to its horn is awarded to the person who manages to calm it. The sport's participants attempt to halt the animal by clinging to its hump. Occasionally, they follow the bull.
Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja & Ors (2014) was a case wherein the appellant primarily challenged whether Jallikattu, bullock cart races and so on violated the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960. The Supreme Court held that the Jallikattu, bullock cart races and so on did violate the PCA Act 1960.
This case and the discourse that followed were significant in its seeking of a balance between upholding cultural practices and upholding ethical ones. Most importantly, it emphasised upholding the law while preventing animal cruelty. Additionally, it served as a precedent for future cases regarding similar cultural practices, such as Kambala, a buffalo race held in Karnataka.
Facts
The legality of the Maharashtra corrigendum that forbade any bullock cart races, sports, training, exhibition, etc., as well as the Tamil Nadu Regulation of the Jallikattu Act were challenged by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) as well as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
Section 4 of the PCA Act established the ABWI, a statutory board whose mission is to protect animals from needless suffering and to promote animal welfare. The Board specifically declared that events such as Jallikattu, bull/bullock cart races, etc., held in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, respectively, are fundamentally against the PCA Act. More specifically, they were held to be contrary to Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the PCA Act, 1960.
Through its reports, affidavits, and images, ABWI brought attention to the practices of Jallikattu, particularly in the southern region of the state of Tamil Nadu, and the physical and psychological suffering of the bulls involved for the amusement and pleasure of humans. Additionally, information about the bullocks' suffering and torment during bullock-cart races in different regions of Maharashtra was provided.
Additionally, ABWI asserted that the bulls used in Jallikattu, bullock-cart races, and other similar events are not "performing animals" as defined by Sections 21 and 22 of the PCA Act and that, in any case, the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change was right to issue the notification dated 11.7.2011 prohibiting the exhibition of bulls or the training of them as performing animals upon acknowledging the position it had taken before this Court.
The Tamil Nadu state government declared that every effort would be made to ensure that bulls are not cruelly treated in violation of the PCA Act and that sporting events may be governed by the TNRJ Act. The State of Maharashtra was assumed to support the prohibition against the training or display of bulls as performance animals, regardless of whether they have been castrated since they did not contest the Bombay High Court's ruling.
There were four key issues in this case. Firstly, whether Jallikattu, bullock cart races, etc., violate the guidelines given under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Second, whether the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act and Maharashtra's corrigendum prohibiting all bullock cart races, games, training, exhibitions, etc., were valid. Third, whether bulls can be used as performing animals and lastly, whether the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 was inconsistent with the PCA Act, 1960.
Judicial Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s judgement was such that Jallikattu, bullock cart races, etc., were held as violative of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Regarding the second issue, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act and Maharashtra's corrigendum prohibiting all bullock cart races, games, training, exhibitions, etc., were declared invalid. Furthermore, The TNRJ Act was stated as repugnant to the PCA Act and was hence held constitutionally void.
The AWBI was mandated to carry out the PCA Act’s provisions promptly and efficiently in coordination with the SPCA. They were also expected to submit monthly reports to the relevant Governments, and if any breaches were discovered, the governments must take necessary corrective measures. The decisions made regarding the appeals, transferred cases, and writ petition are as follows: the Madras High Court's ruling is overturned. However, the Bombay High Court's decision and the Central Government's Notification dated 11-7-2011 were upheld.
Legal Analysis
This case was succeeded by the Chief Secretary to the Government, Chennai, Tamil Nadu & Ors v. Animal Welfare Board (2016), which challenged the decision of the Supreme Court to declare the TNRJ Act unconstitutional and violative of the PCA Act. In this case, the Supreme Court stood by their previous ruling and held that there was no error in their previous decision.
From the Indus Valley Civilization site, a seal depicting the sport was discovered and is kept at the National Museum in New Delhi. Additionally, a 1500-year-old white kaolin cave painting has been discovered close to Madurai in Tamil Nadu. Another legend has it that Lord Shiva cursed Basava, his bull, for the turmoil he brought about when he farmed their territory. It can be observed from these facts that Jallikattu has a longstanding history and cultural value in the state of Tamil Nadu. Furthermore, the attached festival has been a part of cultural tourism in the state. These form pertinent reasons behind why this case is so highly debatable as it demands the pressing need for a balance between assuring animal welfare and protecting cultural interests.
The Supreme Court’s decision to ban Jallikattu triggered widespread protests in Tamil Nadu in January 2017. It also sparked a 15-day uprising in Chennai in protest of the ban. The PCA Act, 1960, was consequently modified by the Tamil Nadu government in 2017 to permit "Jallikattu" within the state. The concerned government, along with several other groups, argued for the lifting of the prohibition because Jallikattu was an essential component of their culture and needed to be permitted under appropriate guidelines and protections. The amending Act aimed to protect the local bull breeds' survival and well-being as well as Tamil Nadu's cultural legacy.
However, since this decision fell under the ambit of state law and not at the Apex level, the question of whether the Supreme Court could ban it again was raised by Salman Khurshid, then Congress leader and senior advocate. Given the adverse reactions from the primary case ruling, though, this situation seems unlikely. There may be negative political consequences as the repeated abolition of Jallikattu may lead to a dispute between the Centre and State, i.e. a section of Tamil Nadu might believe that the Centre does not wish to safeguard their cultural interests.
Jallikattu (Tamil Nadu) and Bullock Cart Race (Maharashtra) were held to go against Section 3 of the PCA Act, 1960, in the 2014 case. This section deals with the duties of persons in charge of animals. It states that “It shall be the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.” In 2017, the Maharashtra State Amendment was added to this section.
Clause 2 under the same states, “The bullock cart race may be conducted with the prior permission of the Collector, subject to the condition that no pain or suffering as envisaged by or under the Act is caused to the animal by any person or person in charge of the animal used to conduct bullock cart race and subject to such other conditions as may be prescribed by rules under section 38B by the State Government.”
Clause 3 states, “If any person or person in charge of the animals conducts bullock cart race in contravention of the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) or rules made thereunder relating to the bullock cart race or causes pain or suffering to the animal, he shall be punished with fine which may extend up to rupees five lakhs or imprisonment for a term which may extend up to three years.”
The 2018 Karnataka Amendment states that Kambala (bullock cart race) shall be permitted under the condition that no harm comes to the animals involved therein. This clause is subject to any conditions the State Government may choose to impose.
It is noteworthy that this section does not have a State Amendment about Tamil Nadu.
Regarding the case in discussion, the violation of Section 11 of the PCA Act was also brought into question, particularly clause (1)(a) and (m). The former is concerned with the kinds of physical harm the owner “permits” the animal to go through. The latter states “solely with a view to providing entertainment--
(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary) to make it an object of prey for any other animal; or
(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal;
Once again, the State Amendments given herein are of Maharashtra and Karnataka only.
Furthermore, the Court did not set down any legal precedents regarding the rights which animals are entitled to. The decision only pertained to bovine sports including but not limited to Jallikattu and Kambala, it did not lay down any provisions that pertained specifically to what must be done in cases where the protection of cultural activities clashes with animal welfare.
Judging by the current situation wherein Jallikattu is permitted due to the large-scale protests that occurred following its ban, the concern of social pressure on the judiciary is brought to light. The question of whether judgements should be overturned solely because they may cause unrest must be assessed here. While public interest must no doubt be considered when making a decision that impacts such a large group of people, existing statutes must be given due importance as they were put in place for a reason. Moreso because this case involved the violation of animal welfare, a topic that is often brushed past since the beings in question do not have a voice of their own and depend on animal rights activists, organisations and so on.
Conclusion
Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja & Ors (2014) is a crucial case in areas of law concerning both animal rights and cultural interests. While the case in question placed greater importance on the prevention of cruelty towards animals, subsequent circumstances led to the overturning of this decision.
Nevertheless, this case does not set down legal precedent regarding rights which animals are entitled to despite its judgement. Ultimately, public opinion played a huge role in its upholding.
To accomplish the goal and purpose of the welfare legislation, the court should not hesitate to invalidate any regulations or recommendations, whether they are statutory or not, if they attempt to weaken or undermine the welfare legislation and the fundamental principles of the constitution. According to the theory of parents patriae, the court also has an obligation to protect animals' rights because, unlike people, they are incapable of caring for themselves.
This is a highly debatable case due to the reasons discussed previously in this paper. An ideal way to move forward would be to add Tamil Nadu state-specific amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as the same seems to be missing. This would clarify several questions regarding the practice of Jallikattu and project the image of the judiciary’s decision holding equal weight to that of the public.
List of References
2. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, 7 SCC 547
3. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, ss. 3, 4, 11
4. Chief Secretary To v. Animal Welfare Board, 2016 AIR SC 5522
Comments