Supreme Court permits Jallikattu; upholds Tamil Nadu amendments to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court Thursday upheld the validity of amendments made by Tamil Nadu to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), thereby permitting bovine sport Jallikattu. [Animal Welfare Board of India and ors vs Union of India and ors]..A Constitution Bench of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar said that the amendments have been introduced to reduce pain and suffering of bovines and to allow the sport to continue. "There is no flaw in State action.. It is a bovine sport and participation will be allowed as per the rules. Act is not relatable to Article 48 of the constitution. Incidental impact may fall upon certain types of bulls affecting agricultural activity but it is referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India," the judgment said. The Court also upheld laws allowing Kambala and bull cart racing in Karnataka and Maharashtra. The Court further said that the laws do not violate Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and thus do not infringe Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. "All three amendment acts are valid legislations and we direct that all laws are strictly implemented and the DM and competent authorities shall be responsible for strict implementation of the amended law," the Court said. .The Supreme Court had in May 2014 held that Jallikattu, popular in Tamil Nadu, was violative of the rights of the animals involved as well as the Prevention of Cruelty (PCA) Act. Specifically with regard to the cultural aspect of the sport, the apex court had held that Jallikattu, as it is practiced today, has never been the culture or tradition of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Jallikattu Regulation Act of 2009 (TNJR Act), which regulated the practice, was struck down.In January 2016, the Central government issued a new notification carving out an exception for Jallikkattu and bullock cart races from the scope of the PCA Act. That notification came to be challenged in the Supreme Court.Later, The State government enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 These, in effect, paved way for bull-taming sports like Jallikatu to take place.The notification and the amendments came to be challenged before the top court.The following were the questions of law were considered by the apex court: Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or does it further and perpetuate cruelty to animals; and can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals? Is it colourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List? The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of India? Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to ensure the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls? Is the Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India? Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary to the judgment in A Nagaraja, and the review judgment dated 16th November, 2016 in the aforesaid case, and whether the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be said to have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature by enacting the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that material on record showed that Jallikattu was a bloodsport that the bulls had to take part in even as they cannot give their consent.It was argued that Article 14 (right to equality) would apply since only certain sports have been permitted to allow cruelty to animals. Further, the test of reasonableness cannot be done away with citing cultural rights.The President could not have given his assent to the legislation at all, and even the right to dignity came in as humans did not wish to see animals being ill-treated, it was submitted.Jallikattu is not part of rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) or an essential religious practice of any community, it was stressed..Senior Counsel Siddharth Luthra, Shyam Divan, Anand Grover, Krishnan Venugopal and V Giri appeared for the petitioners..Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar as well as advocates Siddhartha Dharmadhikari, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Aaditya Pande, Shrirang Varma, Bharat Bagla and Shreya Saxena appeared for the State of Maharashtra.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.[Read Judgment]