Animal Welfare Board Of India

VERSUS
A. Nagaraja & Ors (2014) 7 SCC 547

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Renuka Ma’am Seema Kumari
School of Law 11713351
Lovely Professional University L1704
Facts of the case:
• Jallikattu has derived from the words, ‘calli’ and ‘kattu’ which refers to ‘coins’ and ‘package’ respectively. It is a
traditional and ritualistic sport that involves the daring stance of men trying to establish a claim over a bundle of coin
tied to the horn of a raging bull. That act is synonymous to valor and pride (and occasionally the hope of getting a
bride), because, what brings more masculinity and pride, than being able to pull a stunt before a raging bull,
jeopardizing one’s own as well as the cattle’s life, that too all in the name of traditional and cultural values.

• The Indian legislature, with the bona fide intent in order to prevent such sufferings and unnecessary infliction of
pain on an animal, promulgated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Also, the Tamil Nadu government
has passed the Tamil Nadu Registration of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (hereafter referred to as TNRJ Act) because Tamil
Nadu had communicated its hesitance to the thought of banning the diversion expressing that slants of local
sentiments will be harmed. The SC had previously banned the practice in January 2008, but reversed its order four
days later, saying the sport could be allowed if certain particular guidelines were followed.
• Jallikattu of Tamil Nadu and Bullock cart racing of Maharashtra was being
practiced for over twenty-five thousand and four hundred and fifty years
respectively. The term Jallikattu refers to silver or gold coins tied on the bulls’
horns. In Tamil Nadu, it is a sport played on the third day of Pongal. On this day
a running bull is released into a crowd, where participants either, grab and ride on
the bull to stop it, or take the flag attached in the bull’s horn. The bulls which
perform well in this game are used for breeding and they fetch a high price in the
market. Similarly, rekla race of Maharashtra is organized after Makara
Sankranthi, on Chaitra Ashtami. On this day various cart owners organize bullock
cart race where bullock carts run miles and the winning team is rewarded.
The roller coaster of the bull games controversy started in the year 2004 with the petition
filed by the South Indian Humanitarian League and Blue Cross of India to the Petitions’
Committee of the TN state legislature to ban Jallikattu and other sports using bulls. Though
the judgment of the said petitions held by Justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla permitted the “sport”
with a rider, that the bulls used in the game should be unharmed. In 2006 judgment held by
Madras HC by Justice R. Banumathi and Pinki Chandra Ghose, by expanding the scope on a
writ of mandamus filed against a police officer for the willful omission in granting permissio
for the condonations filed by villagers seeking permission for conducting the game by
Ramanathapuram Police the court along with dismissing the writ with reference to the 1996
judgment of Panaji Bench, Bombay HC, banned conducting all games involving harsh
training of animals like rekla race, oxen race and jallikattu.
The petition was initially filed in Madras HC as a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 and in
2007 the division bench consisting of Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and P. P. S Janarthana
Raja reversed the previous judgment. SLPs were filed in SC under article 136, 133, 142,
and Art. 32 against the judgment and the bench headed by Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan
granted the leave.
BACKGROUND

• In India, there is the Central enactment “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Act,1960(hereafter referred to as PCA Act)” which manages how tormenting against
animals must be precluded and further the Tamil Nadu government has passed the Tamil
Nadu Registration of Jallikattu Act, 2009(hereafter referred to as TNRJ Act) on the
grounds that Tamil Nadu had communicated its hesitance to the thought of banning the
diversion expressing that slants of local sentiments will be harmed. The Supreme Court
had previously banned the practice in January 2008, but reversed its order four days
later, saying the sport could be allowed if certain guidelines were followed.
MoEF as ahead of schedule as on 2.3.1991, issued a notice under Section 22 of PCA Act
banning preparing and show of bears, monkeys, tigers, and dogs, which was challenged by
the Indian Circus Organization in the witness of the Delhi High Court yet, later, a
corrigendum was issued, whereby dogs were excluded from the notification. On the
heading issued by the Delhi High Court, a Committee was constituted and, taking into
account its report, a warning dated 14.10.1998 was issued barring dogs from its domain,
the lawfulness of the notice was challenged in N. R. Nair Others vs. Union of India and
Others, which upheld the notification. Later, MoEF issued a new notice dated 11.7.2011,
particularly including bulls additionally, so as to ban their exhibition or training as
performing animals.
Issues
• The AWBI reported important violations of the PCA Act during Jallikattu, evidencing
the inherent cruelty of such a practice. The AWBI contends that the practice of Jallikattu
should not be exempted from the PCA Act because Jallikattu does not constitute an
unavoidable activity where the pain and suffering caused to animals can be justified and
that the PCA Act should not allow for the exhibition of bulls as performing animals.
Whether the events that are being conducted in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra violate
Sections 3, 11(1)(a)& (m), 21 and 22 of the PCAAct read with Articles 51A(g) and (h) of the
Constitution and the notification dated 11.7.2011?
Contentions By The Appellant

• The appellants contended that the game exposes the animal to immense physical and
mental quality which is against article 50 1A (g) and Article 21(11) in addition to being
in violation to section three and 11 of PCA Act and also stated that the TNRJ Act doesn’t
have the effect of law since the president has not given assent.
Contentions By The Respondent

• The respondent argued that the game was conducted during the days of a
particular festival as a custom in practice for years. Proper care has been taken by
the organizers and the owners, for whom it is means of livelihood. They also
stated that they ensure its safety and no such cruelty as being argued, showed,
and mentioned under section 11 (1) (a) are being committed. Also, it was proved
that procedure and the game is being conducted in the presence of collectors,
doctors, and police officials, etc to ensure the prohibition of such cruelty. These
apprehensions were met by the TNRJ act.
It was also argued by the state that the non-applicability of tickets for the event relieves
them from being mere human entertainment does exclude them from the purview of
section 22 of the PCA act. The matter of previous notification of MoEF was also discussed
with reference to N. R. Nair & Ors. V. Union of India, where the court formed a
committee to discuss the corrigendum of exclusion of dogs from the initial list whereas the
same was not done in the present situation.
RELIEF
• The parties sought the court to hold that TNRJ Act was Ultra Virus to PC Act and
the game and the notification are inappropriate to the social morality,
Constitution and protection of animals.
SCOPE
• The said judgment not only strengthen the PCA Act, 1960 but also elevated the rights of the animals to that of a
fundamental right under Art 21 and imposed strict observance of Art 51-A. The judgment also guaranteed that
right of animals under S.3 and 11 of PCA Act read with Art. 51A (g) & (h) should not be compromised, unless as
per S. 11(3) and 28 of PCA Act, also recommended the state and other authorities to take reasonable steps to
ensure the protection of the animals.
Judgement
• The Supreme Court sided with the applicant (AWBI), considering that Jallikattu did not
constitute an exception to the PCA Act based on human necessities because the pain, suffering
and anxiety inflicted to bulls during Jallikattu events is solely for human pleasure and can thus
be avoided. The special leave petition was granted and the case was disposed of, setting aside
the Madras HC order of upholding the TNRJ act, holding the Act unconstitutional and void,
upheld the Bombay HC judgement validating 2011 notification whereby bulls were included in
the list of animals prohibited from being exhibited and trained.
CONCLUSION
• The court in the same case considered the rights of animals as a “Constitutional Rights”. The
Court also brought into the aspect of Article 51-A (g)[vii]&(h)[viii] ,which are Fundamental
Duties on the part of the citizens. The impact was the case would be tremendous on the States,
especially those of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. The States revenue has decreased since large
number of spectators does come to attend the Jallikattu every year. The step was memorable
and demonstrates the political will of the parliamentarians of Catalonia. The message is loud
and clear, individuals can’t dispense agony and enduring on a panicked and befuddledanimal
all for the sake of safeguarding social legacy.
It is indeed a ‘dangerous sport’, both for the bulls and the people watching it. The question
whether the law or a custom which has been prevailing for hundreds of years must prevail or not
is the issue in this case. Definitely the law must prevail. Considering the fact that thousands of
people are injured and that lives are lost and moreover the fact that brutal cruelty and harassment
are shown to these voiceless creatures of the earth, the decision of the court can be justified to ban
the much renounced “Jallikattu and Bullock Cart racing”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fve7UzjqlxM