Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A Nagaraja and Ors140418COM143339

MANU/SC/0426/2014
Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2014(4)ABR556, 2014(4)BomC R26, 2014(4)FLT618, 2014 INSC 370, JT2014(7)SC 1, 2014(2)KLT717(SC ),
(2014)4MLJ89, 2014(6)SC ALE468, (2014)7SC C 547, 2014 (5) SC J 614, [2014]6SC R646
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11686 of 2007), Civil Appeal
No. 5388 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10281 of 2009), Civil Appeal Nos. 5389-
5390 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18804-18805 of 2009), Civil Appeal No. 5391
of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13199 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 5392 of 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13200 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 5393 of 2014 (Arising out
of SLP (C) No. 4598 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 5394 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.
12789 of 2014) (Arising out of SLP to Petition (C) 4268 of 2013), Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 145 of 2011 and Transferred Case (Civil) Nos. 84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 127 of 2013
Decided On: 07.05.2014
Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appearing Parties: Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG, Raj Panjwani, Huzefa Ahmadi, V.K.
Bali, Rakesh Dwivedi, V.A. Mohta, Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advs., Subramonium Prasad,
AAG., Anjali Sharma, Surabhi Aggarwal, Rajiv Dewan, Rishi Kesh, Aniruddha Rajput,
Yashvardhan, Rohan Sharma, S.K. Sabharwal, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohammad,
Sandeep Kumar, L.K. Pandey, P. Soma Sundaram, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Anish R. Shah,
Prashant R. Dahat, Ananda Selvam, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Ravinder Kumar Verma,
Seema Rao, Priyanka Sinha, Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, Mohit Nagar, Anirudh Tanwar, Ragini,
Shreekant N. Terdal, C. Paramasivam, P. Ramesh, Y. Anuragiri, M.P. Parthiban, Aditya
Soni, Christine Aey Kumar, M. Yogesh Karma, A.Ã¯Â¿Â½Santha Kumaran, Vanita
Chandrakant Giri, Devansh A. Mohta, Neelkanth Nayak, Subodh S. Patil, Supriya
Deshpande, Vinay Navare, Satyajeet Kumar, Keshav Ranjan, Abha R. Sharma, Reena
Choudhary, Shankar Chillarge, Aniruddha P. Mayee, V. Prabhakar, Revathy Raghavan,
Jyoti Parashar, Vijay Panjwani, B. Balaji, K. Shivraj Choudhuri, Naresh Kumar, K.V.
Vijaya Kumar, Purnima Bhat, V.N. Raghupathy and Shekhar Kumar, Advs.
Case Note:
Miscellaneous - Cruelty to animals - Bullock cart race - Determination thereof
- Sections 3, 11(1)(a), 21 and 22 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 - Present appeal filed against Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such
events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a), 21 and 22 of PCA Act - Whether
events of bullock-cart race that were being conducted in States of Tamil Nadu
and Maharashtra were in violation of Sections 3, 11(1)(a), 21 and 22 of PCA
Act - Held, facts showed that during Jallikattu, many animals were observed
to engage in flight response as they try to run away from arena when they
experience fear or pain, since area was completely enclosed - Jallikattu
demonstrated link between actions of humans and fear, distress and pain
experienced by bulls - Studies indicatef that rough or abusive handling of
Bulls compromises welfare and for increasing Bulls fear, often, they were
pushed, hit, prodded, abused, causing mental as well as physical harm -
Organizers of Jallikattu were depriving rights guaranteed to bulls under
23-11-2024 (Page 1 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University
Section 3 of PCA Act - Sadism and perversity was writ large in actions of
organizers of Jallikattu and event was meant not for well-being of animal, but
for pleasure and enjoyment of human beings - Bulls cannot be used as a
Performing Animals for Jallikattu and Bullock-cart Race, since they are
basically draught and pack animals, not anatomically designed for such
performances - Therefore, Appellant was right in stand that Jallikattu,
Bullock-cart Race and such events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a), 21 and
22 of PCA Act - Bulls cannot not be used as performing animals, either for
Jallikattu events or Bullock-cart Races in State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or
elsewhere in country - Appeal disposed of. [paras 26, 27, 28, 36, 41, 76 and
77]
Case Category:
LETTER PETITION AND PIL MATTER - SLPs FILED AGAINST JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
PASSED BY THE HIGH COURTS IN WRIT PETITIONS FILED AS PIL
JUDGMENT
K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We are, in these cases, concerned with an issue of seminal importance with regard to
the Rights of Animals under our Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion and
ethology, which we have to examine, in connection with the conduct of Jallikattu,
Bullock-cart races etc. in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with particular
reference to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short
'the PCA Act'), the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (for short "TNRJ Act")
and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government Under Section
22(ii) of the PCA Act.
3. We have two sets of cases here, one set challenges the Division Bench judgment of
the Madras High Court at Madurai dated 09.03.2007, filed by the Animal Welfare Board
of India (for short "AWBI"), Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011 filed by an organisation
called PETA, challenging the validity of TNRJ Act and few other writ petitions transferred
from the Madras High Court at Madurai challenging/enforcing the validity of the MoEF
Notification dated 11.07.2011 and another set of cases, like SLP No. 13199 of 2012,
challenging the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12.03.2012
upholding the MoEF Notification dated 11.07.2011 and the corrigendum issued by the
Government of Maharashtra dated 24.08.2011 prohibiting all Bullock-cart races, games,
training, exhibition etc. Review Petition No. 57 of 2012 was filed against the judgment
of the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court on 26.11.2012,
against which SLP No. 4598 of 2013 has been filed.
4 . ABWI, a statutory Board, established Under Section 4 of the PCA Act for the
promotion of animal welfare and for the purpose of protecting the animals from being
subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering has taken up a specific stand that Jallikattu,
Bull/Bullock-cart races etc., as such, conducted in the States of Tamil Nadu and
Maharashtra respectively, inherently violate the provisions of the PCA Act, particularly,
Section 3, Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) and Section 22 of the PCA Act. ABWI, through its
reports, affidavits and photographs, high-lighted the manner in which Jallikattu is being
conducted, especially in the Southern Part of the State of Tamil Nadu, and how the bulls
involved are physically and mentally tortured for human pleasure and enjoyment.

Details have also been furnished by the 2nd Respondent, in SLP No. 13199 of 2012,
along with photographs explaining how the Bullock-cart race is being conducted in
various parts of the State of Maharashtra and the torture and cruelty meted out to the
bullocks. ABWI has taken up the stand that, by no stretch of imagination, it can be
gainsaid that Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race conducted, as such, has any historical,
cultural or religious significance, either in the State of Tamil Nadu or in the State of
Maharashtra and, even assuming so, the welfare legislation like PCA Act would
supersede the same, being a Parliamentary legislation. ABWI has also taken up the
specific stand that the bulls involved in Jallikattu, Bullock-cart race etc. are not
"performing animals" within the meaning of Sections 21 and 22 of the PCA Act and that
the MoEF, in any view, was justified in issuing the notification dated 11.7.2011 banning
the exhibition of Bulls or training them as performing animals on accepting the stand
taken by it before this Court. Further, it has also taken up the stand that the TNRJ Act is
repugnant to the provisions of the PCA Act and the rules made thereunder and State
cannot give effect to it in the absence of the assent of the President under Article 254 of
the Constitution of India. Further, ABWI also submits that the Bulls which are forced to
participate in the race are subjected to considerable pain and suffering, which clearly
violates Section 3 and Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) of the PCA Act read with Article 51A(g)
and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence exhibition or training them as
performing animals be completely banned.
5. Organizers of Jallikattu and Bullock-cart races, individually and collectively, took up
the stand that these events take place at the end of harvest season (January and
February) and sometimes during temple festivals which is traditionally and closely
associated with village life, especially in the Southern Districts of the State of Tamil
Nadu. Organizers of Bullock-cart races in the State of Maharashtra also took the stand
that the same is going on for the last more than three hundred years by way of custom
and tradition and that extreme care and protection are being taken not to cause any
injury or pain to the bullocks which participate in the event. Organizers also submitted
that such sport events attract large number of persons which generates revenue for the
State as well as enjoyment to the participants. Further, it was also stated that no cruelty
is meted out to the performing bulls in Bullock-cart races so as to violate Section 11(1)
(a) of the PCA Act and the District Collector, Police Officials etc. are always on duty to
prevent cruelty on animals. Further, it is also their stand that the sport events can only
be regulated and not completely prohibited and the State of Tamil Nadu has already
enacted the TNRJ Act, which takes care of the apprehensions expressed by the Board.
6. The State of Tamil Nadu has also taken up the stand that every effort shall be made
to see that bulls are not subjected to any cruelty so as to violate the provisions of the
PCA Act and the sport event can be regulated as per the provisions of the TNRJ Act.
Further, it was also pointed out that the bulls taking part in the Jallikattu, Bullock-cart
Race etc. are specifically identified, trained, nourished for the purpose of the said sport
event and owners of Bulls spend considerable money for training, maintenance and
upkeep of the bulls. Further, the State has also taken up the stand that the Bulls are
"performing animals", and since there is no sale of tickets in the events conducted,
Section 22 will not apply, so also the notification dated 11.7.2011. State has also taken
up the stand that complete ban on such races would not be in public interest which is
being conducted after harvest season and sometimes during temple festivals as well.
The State of Maharashtra has not challenged the judgment of the Bombay High Court
and hence we have to take it that the State is in favour of banning the exhibition or
training of Bulls, whether castrated or otherwise as performing animals.
7 . MoEF, as early as on 2.3.1991, issued a notification Under Section 22 of PCA Act
banning training and exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs, which
was challenged by the Indian Circus Organization before the Delhi High Court but, later,
a corrigendum was issued, whereby dogs were excluded from the notification. On the
direction issued by the Delhi High Court, a Committee was constituted and, based on its
report, a notification dated 14.10.1998 was issued excluding dogs from its purview, the
legality of the notification was challenged before this Court in N.R. Nair Others v.
Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0284/2001 : (2001) 6 SCC 84, which upheld the
notification. Later, MoEF issued a fresh notification dated 11.7.2011, specifically
including "Bulls" also, so as to ban their exhibition or training as performing animals,
while this Court was seized of the matter.
8 . MoEF has now abruptly taken up the stand that though "Bull" has been included in
the list of animals, not to be exhibited or trained as "performing animal" vide
Notification dated 11.07.2011, it has been pointed out that, in order to strike a balance
and to safeguard the interest of all stakeholders, including animals, and keeping in
mind the historical, cultural and religious significance of the event, and with a view to
ensure that no unnecessary pain or suffering is caused to the animals, participants as
well as spectators, the Government proposes to exempt bulls participating in Jallikattu
in the State of Tamil Nadu from the purview of the Notification dated 11.07.2011,
subject to the guidelines, copy of which has been provided along with the affidavit filed
by the Deputy Secretary, MoEF.
9 . Shri Raj Panjwani, learned senior Counsel appearing for AWBI as well as for the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011, submitted that the event Jallikattu, even if
conducted following the TNJR Act, would still violate the provisions of PCA Act,
especially Section 11(1)(a). Learned senior Counsel submitted that Jallikattu, as an
event, involves causing the Bull pain and suffering and cannot be free from cruelty and
hence falls within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a). Further, it was pointed out that,
during Jallikattu, the Bulls, it is observed, carry out a flight response, indicating both
fear and pain and suffering. Shri Panjwani made considerable stress on the words "or
otherwise" in Section 11(1)(a) and submitted that any act which inflicts unnecessary
pain or suffering on an animal is prohibited unless it is specifically permitted under any
of the provisions of PCA Act or the rules made thereunder. Shri Panjwani also submitted
that since the event Jallikattu, as such, is an offence Under Section 11(1)(a), through a
State Act, it can neither be permitted nor regulated and hence the State Act is void
under Article 245(1) of the Constitution, in the absence of any Presidential Assent.
10. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior Counsel appearing for State of Tamil Nadu,
referring to Section 11(3) of PCA Act, submitted that the Act does not prohibit the
infliction of all forms of pain or suffering on animals and hence Section 11(1)(a) has to
be read and understood in that context. Referring to Sections 11(1)(a), (g), (h), (j),
(m) and (n), learned senior Counsel submitted that the expression "unnecessary pain or
suffering" is not used in those clauses and hence the events like Jallikattu, which do not
cause that much of pain or suffering on the animal, cannot be completely prohibited,
but could only by regulated.
1 1 . Shri Bali, learned senior Counsel appearing for the organizers, highlighted the
historical and cultural importance of Jallikattu event and submitted that, taking into
consideration the nature of the event, the same would not cause any unnecessary pain
or suffering to the Bulls which participate in that event, so as to violate Section 3 or
Section 11(1)(a) of PCA Act. Learned senior Counsel submitted that such events could
be regulated under the Regulations framed under TNRJ Act as well as the additional
safeguards taken by the State Government and the proposed guidelines framed by
MoEF. Learned senior Counsel also submitted that the mere fact that there has been
some violation of the Regulations would not mean that the entire event be banned in
the State of Tamil Nadu which, according to the learned senior Counsel, will not be in
public interest. Learned senior Counsel also referred to the manner in which such events
are being conducted world-over, after taking proper precaution for the safety of the
animals used in those events.
12. We have to examine the various issues raised in these cases, primarily keeping in
mind the welfare and the well-being of the animals and not from the stand point of the
Organizers, Bull tamers, Bull Racers, spectators, participants or the respective States or
the Central Government, since we are dealing with a welfare legislation of a sentient-
being, over which human-beings have domination and the standard we have to apply in
deciding the issue on hand is the "Species Best Interest", subject to just exceptions, out
of human necessity.
Bulls Behavioral ethology
13. Bulls (Bos Indicus) are herbivores, prey by nature adopted to protest themselves
when threatened engaging in a 'flight response', that is run away stimulus, which they
find when threatening. Bulls, in that process, use their horns, legs, or brute force to
protect themselves from threat or harm. Bulls are often considered to be herd animals.
Bulls move in a relaxed manner if they are within a herd or even with other Bulls.
Individual Bull exhibits immense anxiety if it is sorted away from the herd. Bulls
vocalize when they are forced away from the rest of the herd and vocalization is an
indicator of stress. Bulls exhibit a fight or flight response when exposed to a perceived
threat. Bulls are more likely to flee than fight, and in most cases they fight, when
agitated.
14. Bulls usually stand to graze and pattern of grazing behavior of each herd member is
relatively similar, which moves slowly across the pasture with the muzzle close to the
ground and they ruminate resting. Bull is known to be having resting behavior and will
avoid source of noise and disturbance and choose non-habitual resting sites if the
preferred ones are close to the noise or disturbance, which is the natural instinct of the
Bull. Study conducted also disclosed that Bulls have long memories. Factors mentioned
above are the natural instincts of Bulls.
15. Bulls, as already indicated, accordingly to the animal behavior studies, adopt flight
or fight response, when they are frightened or threatened and this instinctual response
to a perceived threat is what is being exploited in Jallikattu or Bullock-cart races.
During Jallikattu, many animals are observed to engage in a flight response as they try
to run away from arena when they experience fear or pain, but cannot do this, since the
area is completely enclosed. Jallikattu demonstrates a link between actions of humans
and the fear, distress and pain experienced by bulls. Studies indicate that rough or
abusive handling of Bulls compromises welfare and for increasing Bulls fear, often, they
are pushed, hit, prodded, abused, causing mental as well as physical harm.
JALLIKATTU
16. Jallikattu is a Tamil word, which comes from the term "Callikattu", where "Calli"
means coins and "Kattu" means a package. Jallikattu refers to silver or gold coins tied
on the bulls' horns. People, in the earlier time, used to fight to get at the money placed
around the bulls' horns which depicted as an act of bravery. Later, it became a sport
conducted for entertainment and was called "Yeruthu Kattu", in which a fast moving bull
was corralled with ropes around its neck. Started as a simple act of bravery, later,
assumed different forms and shapes like Jallikattu (in the present form), Bull Race etc.,
which is based on the concept of flight or fight. Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu,
Oormaadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu, Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of
bulls.
17. AWBI gives a first hand information of the manner in which the event of Jallikattu is
being conducted in Southern parts of Tamil Nadu, through three reports submitted
along with the additional affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Animal Welfare Board,
MoEF, Government of India on 7.9.2013, flouting the various directions issued by this
Court, High Court and the regulatory provisions of TNRJ Act. Dr. Manilal Vallyate and
Mr. Abhishek Raje, the Observers of AWBI, have submitted the first report regarding
Jallikattu events that took place at Avnlapuram on 14.1.2013, Palamedu on 15.1.2013
and Alanganallur on 16.1.2013. Relevant portions of the reports read as under:
I. Executive Summary
In a comprehensive investigation authorized by the Animal Welfare Board of
India, investigators observed jallikattu events at venues in Avaniapuram,
Palamedu and Alanganallur on the 14th , 15th and 16th of January 2013,
respectively. During the course of the investigation, one bull died and many
more were injured. Investigators observed that bulls were forced to participate
and were deliberately taunted, tormented, mutilated, stabbed, beaten, chased
and denied even their most basic needs, including food, water and sanitation.
The findings of this investigation clearly show that bulls who are used in
jallikattu are subjected to extreme cruelty and unmitigated suffering.
All the acts of cruelty to animals detailed in the below observations
contravene the orders of the Supreme Court of India and Madurai High
Court, which mandate that bulls should not be harmed or tortured in
any way. Such animal abuse is also in violation of numerous clauses of
Section 11(1) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
II. Welfare Implications and Violations of the Law
1. Ear Cutting/mutilation
At least 80 per cent of the bulls observed had their ears cut, with three-fourths
of the external ear pinna absent. When asked about the reason for the
mutilation, many bull owners explained that by cutting the ear, the animal
would be able to hear sounds even from the back, which they deemed to be
very important while the animals are in the jallikattu arena.
Welfare Concerns
Cutting the external ear in no way helps to improve a bull's hearing. Instead,
the bull loses his natural ability to receive sounds signals with appropriate
positioning and movement of the ear pinna. Cutting the ear causes intense pain
and distress as the external ear pinna consists of cartilage and is highly
vascular with a rich nerve supply. The procedure leads to physiological,
neuroendocrine and behavioural changes in the animal. Bulls strongly resist
being touched on the head or around the ear because of painful past
experiences. Many animals get agitated if someone tries to do so.
Violation
This is a violation of Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary
pain or suffering, and Section 11(1)(l), which prohibits the mutilation of an
animal's body.
2. Fracture and Dislocation of Tail Bones
Many bulls suffered from dislocated or even amputated tails caused by
deliberate pulling and twisting.
Welfare Concerns
The tail, which has nearly 20 small bones, is an extension of the spinal cord
and vertebral column. Dislocation and fracture of the tail vertebrae are
extremely painful conditions.
Violation
animal's body.
3. Frequent Defecation and Urination
Ninety-five per cent of the bulls were soiled with faeces from below the base of
their tails and across the majority of their hindquarters.
Welfare Concerns
Bulls were forced to stand together in accumulated waste for hours on end.
Frequent defecation and urination are indicators of fear and pain in cattle.
Violation
Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, prohibits
treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering.
4. Injuries and Death
Because of the absence of a contained "collection area" in Avaniapuram, a bull
died after a head-on collision with a moving passenger bus. In Palamedu, a
terrified bull sustained a crippling leg injury after he jumped more than 10 feet
off a narrow road to escape a mob carrying sticks. In Alanganallur, two bulls,
who were terrified after being chased by onlookers, ran amok and fell into open
wells in an agriculture field. Both sustained serious injuries.
Welfare Concerns
An injury involving muscles, bones, nerves and blood vessels causes an animal
tremendous pain. A complete fracture of a lower joint in large animals takes
time to heal and leads to a deformation of the leg that leaves the animal unfit
for any kind of work. Bulls also suffer from chronic pain as well as mental
trauma brought on by the injury and the handlers' and bull tamers' cruel
treatment.

Violation
III. Cruel Practices and Violations of the Law
1. Biting a Bull's Tail
On many occasions, bulls' tails bitten by the organizers and owners of the
animals in the waiting area and inside the vadi vassal. The vadi vassal is a
chamber that is closed off from public view. Abuse runs rampant in vadi vasals.
Bulls are poked, beaten and deliberately agitated before they are forced into the
jallikattu arena, where more than 30 "bull tamers" are waiting.
Welfare Concerns
Considered an extremity of the body, a bull's tail has many vertebrae but very
little muscle or subcutaneous tissue to protect it. Any direct pressure or injury
to the tail bones causes extreme pain that sends bulls into a frenzy.
Violation
2. Twisting a Bull's Tail
Owners routinely beat the bulls and twist their tails in order to induce fear and
pain while they are in the waiting area and the vadi vassal. Many bulls had
dislocated or even amputated tails.
Welfare Concerns
The tails, which has nearly 20 small bones, is an extension of the spinal cord
and vertebral column. Frequent pulling and bending of the tail causes extreme
pain and may lead to a dislocation and/or fracture of the tail vertebrae. This
causes severe chronic pain and psychological changes that make an animal
easily frightened when someone goes behind him or tries to catch or hold his
tail.
Violation
This is violation of Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
animal's body.
3. Poking Bulls with Knives and Sticks
Many bulls were poked with sticks by owners, police officials and organizers
inside the vadi vassal and near the collection yard. People inside the vadi vassal
often poked bulls on their hindquarters, aces and other parts of their bodies
with pointed wooden spears, tiny knives, sticks and sickle-shaped knives used
for cutting nose ropes.

Welfare Concerns
Poking bulls with sticks or sharp knives causes immense pain and agitation.
Distressed bulls often adopt a flight response and desperately try to escape
through the half-closed gates of the vadi vasals. While attempting to flee from
people in the arena, agitated bulls often injure themselves when they run into
barricades, electric polls, water tanks, tractor carriages and police watch towers
placed inside the jallikattu arena.
Violation
4. Using Irritants
Irritant solutions were rubbed into the eyes and noses of bulls inside the vadi
vassal in order to agitate them.
Welfare Concerns
Eyes and noses are very sensitive, sensory organs, and the use of any irritating
chemicals causes pain, distress and an intense sensation. Bulls who try to
escape from such torture often end up injuring themselves by hitting walls,
gates, fencing and other erected structures inside the Vadi Vasal and jallikattu
arena.
Violation
This practice violates Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
pain or suffering. It also violates Section 11(1)(c), which prohibits the willful
and unreasonable administration of any injurious drug or substance to any
animal.
5. Using Nose Ropes
Nose ropes were frequently pulled, yanked or tightened in order to control bulls
before they were released into arenas and collection yards. Some animals were
even bleeding from the nose as a result of injuries caused by pulling the rope.
Welfare Concerns
Pulling or twisting the nose rope exerts pressure on the nerve-rich and
extremely sensitive septum, causing bulls pain and making it easier for
handlers to force them to move in a desired direction. According to one study,
47 per cent of animals whose noses were pierced had lacerations and
ulcerations, and 56 per cent had pus in their nostrils. They study also pointed
out that 57 per cent of cattle had extensive and severe nose injuries.
Violation

6. Cramped Conditions
Bulls were packed so tightly into narrow waiting corridors that they were unable
to take a step forwards or backwards. Forced to stand for more than eight hours
in line at the waiting area for a health examination and in the vadi vassal, bulls
had no protection from the blistering sun and the crowds of people, who
shouted and hooted at them, harassed them and frightened them. Bull owners
start lining up the night before the jallikattu event, and they are given serial
numbers. Some were in line until the events ended at 2 p.m. the next day.
Welfare Concerns
Bulls were denied shade and were not allowed to lie down and rest. This causes
exhaustion and extreme distress and discomfort.
Violation
pain or suffering, and Section 11(1)(f), which prohibits trying an animal for an
unreasonable time with an unreasonably short rope.
7. Forcing Bulls to Move Sideways
The animals were forced to move sideways at a slow pace for more than eight
hours over a distance of approximately 500 to 1000 metres.
Welfare Concerns
Forcing bulls to walk sideways - which is an unnatural gait for any animal - for
a long duration causes them extreme discomfort.
Violation
pain or suffering, and Section 11(1)(d), which prohibits conveying any animal
in such a manner or position as to cause unnecessary pain or suffering.
8. Lack of Food and Water
All the bulls observed were not offered food, water or shelter from 8 am, when
they were forced to line up, until the jallikattu events ended at 2.30 p.m.
Though concrete water troughs were available at the registration area and
collection yards, none of the animals were offered water. Bulls were so terrified
and focused on surviving at the collection yards in Palamedu and Alanganallur
that they did not drink water. Several bulls became recumbent and were unable
to stand up because of dehydration and exhaustion. Many people kicked, beat
and bit the bulls in order to force them back onto their feet.
Welfare Concerns
As ruminants, bulls normally graze for several hours a day in an open field or
eat a bulk quantity of feed when kept in stalls. They loiter around chewing their
cud before grazing or eating again. During jallikattu, the animals are starved
and prevented from chewing their cud (they won't do it when they are
frightened or in pain distress). No intake of food and water and the absence of
shade lead to dehydration and exhaustion. This often results in injuries or
death.
Violation
pain or suffering, and Section 11(1)(h), which states that failing to provide
animals with sufficient food, drink or shelter is an act of cruelty.
9. Forcing Bulls to Drink Liquids
On many occasions, bulls were forced to drink fluids that were likely liquor.
Animals' heads were raised by pulling on the nose ropes, and the fluids were
forced into their mouths using a plastic bottle.
Welfare Concerns
Forcing bulls to drink causes them physical discomfort and fear. They often
become excited and frenzied as the alcohol affects their central nervous system.
Forcing them to drink can also cause the aspiration of fluid in the upper and
lower respiratory tracts (lungs). This can cause pneumonia, a serious
respiratory disease that can lead to death. Normally, bulls drink water at their
own pace from a bucket, but no such allowances were witnessed during any of
the jallikattu events.
Violation
pain or suffering, and Section 11(1)(c), which states that giving any injurious
drug or substance to any animal is prohibited.
10. Forcing Bulls to Stand in their Own Waste
In the waiting areas, bulls were forced to wait for more than eight hours while
standing in their own faces and urine.
Welfare Concerns
No sanitation facilities were made available, and bulls were forced to stand
together in the accumulated faeces and urine for hours. The accumulated waste
attracts flies that bother the animals and cause them discomfort. The eggs laid
by the flies may lead to maggot infestation of any wounds the bulls may have.
Violation
This is a violation of Supreme Court and Madurai High Court orders, which
mandate that sanitation facilities should be made available during jallikattu
events and that bulls should not be allowed to suffer in any. Section 11(1)(a)
of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibits treating any animal
in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering.

11. Spectators Beating and Agitating Bulls
When collection yards were not present or not used, injured, exhausted bulls
were tormented by spectators as they exited. "Parallel jallikattu" events
happened at each venue as the aggressive crowds agitated the bulls exiting the
arena by shouting at them, beating them and jumping on them. Many people,
including police officials, beat exhausted bulls with sticks and jumped in front
of the bulls in an effort to frighten them. Running for their lives, terrified bulls
ran amok, stumbling into shops and houses and slamming into barricades and
vehicles parked nearby. Both the bull who died after a head-on collision with a
passenger bus in Avaniapuram and the bull who fractured his leg after jumping
off a road in Palamedu were running loose when their injuries occurred "Parallel
jallikattu" is often considered to be the "real jallikattu", as the most risky action
takes place during the deliberate harassment by spectators.
Welfare Concerns
When bulls are not afraid, they stand still and engage in normal behaviour to
the species, such as grazing, chewing cud, lying down or grooming. None of
these types of behavior were seen at any point during any of the jallikattu
events. Jallikattu causes bulls severe mental and physical anguish. When bulls
are frightened or in pain, they adopt a flight response that can often lead to
serious physical injuries and even death. Near the collection area, the
spectators didn't allow the bulls to calm down and relax - they instead induced
further fear, distress, discomfort and pain.
Violation
Act, 1960, which states that beating, kicking, torturing or otherwise treating
any animal so as to subject the animal to unnecessary pain or suffering is an
act of cruelty.
12. Restraining and Roping
When bulls entered the collection yard, they were caught using looped rope that
was attached to a long stick. At no point were the frightened bulls allowed to
calm down. After a long struggle, bulls were captured by handlers who inserted
two fingers into their noses and pulled them to the nearest tree while three to
four men held their horns and necks using multiple ropes. Once an animal was
tied to a tree, a new thick nose rope was forcefully inserted through the
existing hole in the nasal septum. Often the rope was very thick, and pulling it
vigorously caused injuries to the nasal septum, which led to profuse bleeding in
many animals.
Welfare Concerns
As a prey animal, bulls are better controlled using behavioural techniques
instead of crude and painful restraining techniques that cause intense mental
suffering and physical injuries. Such a painful experience will cause long-
lasting psychological and behavioural changes in bulls.
Violation

IV. xxx xxx xxx
V. Injuries and Deaths
Jallikattu is dangerous not only to bulls but also to humans. Many participants
and spectators sustained serious injuries at all three jallikattu events. A total of
58 participants and 56 spectators were injured in the three jallikattu events.
One police constable was also injured in Avaniapuram.
1 . In Avaniapuram, a total of 55 persons were injured during the
jallikattu event. of the 26 people who were injured while trying to tame
the charging bulls by clinging to their backs, five were seriously
injured. Twenty-four spectators, including a police constable, were
injured following a melee after some bulls ran into the crowd. Five
people were injured when a section of the gallery erected for spectators
collapsed because of severe crowing.
2 . In Palamedu, 21 people, including 11 tamers, were injured during
the jallikattu event. Ten spectators were injured by bulls who escaped
the fighting arena. The 21 people who suffered injuries were admitted
to the Palamedu Primary Health Centre. One onlooker, who was hit in
the abdomen, was later moved to the Government Rajaji Hospital in
Madurai while others were treated as outpatients.
3 . In Alanganallur, 38 people were injured during the jallikattu event.
Twenty-one were tamers, and others injured included onlookers and
owners. Two people who were seriously wounded were admitted to the
government hospital in Madurai.
VI. xxx xxx xxx
VII. xxx xxx xxx
VIII. Conclusion
Bulls are prey animals. According to animal behavioural studies, bulls adopt a
flight or fight response when they feel frightened or threatened. This instinctual
response to a perceived threat is deliberately exploited by jallikattu organizers.
During jallikatt, many animals are observed to engage in a flight response as
they run away from people when they experience pain or fear. This flight
response is not surprising, given the amount of pain and terror bulls are
subjected to before, during and after jallikattu. Bulls are beaten, poked,
prodded, harassed and jumped on by numerous people. They have their tails
bitten and twisted and their eyes and noses filled with irritating chemicals.
Many peer-reviewed papers demonstrate a link between the actions of humans
and the fear, distress and pain experienced by animals. Research has shown
that rough or abusive handling of animals compromises welfare by increasing
an animal's fear of humans. Bulls - who are pushed, hit, prodded and abused in
jallikattu - suffer mentally as well as physically.
Detailed Reports on Jallikattu in Avaniapuram, Palamedu and

Alanganallur
The cruelty and animal abuse detailed below in sections A, B and C also violate
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Observations of three jallikattu
locations have been grouped broadly under four categories:
• Waiting area
• Vadi vasal
• Arena
• Collection yard
Avaniapuram - 14 January 2013
Waiting Area
• Bulls were forced to stand in long lines for more than eight hours
without shade, food and water or room to move.
• Many animals were forced to drink fluids, likely alcohol, to disorient
them.
• Bulls were continuously pulled and yanked by nose ropes.
• Handlers forced bulls to move in the lines sideways by painfully
pulling and yanking their tails.
• Some reluctant bulls jumped out of the line and attacked their owners
out of fear.
• None of the animals had the JK number given to them by the Animal
Welfare Board of India on their horns, which is a registration
requirement.
Vadi Vasal
• Bulls were pulled by nose ropes into the narrow, closed enclosure.
Participants also pushed on the bulls' backs as the animals resisted.
• Inside the vadi vasal, nose ropes were cut with a sharp sickle. At
times, bulls were poked with these sickles in order to force them to
enter the arena. Much of the cruelty the bulls were subjected to during
jallikattu happened inside the vadi vasal.
• Closed off from the public, the high-walled vadi vasal is a torture
chamber. Here, organizers hit the bulls with wooden sticks and owners
bit and brutally twisted bulls' tails. Organisers and owners of bulls also
beat bulls with their bare hands, whipped them with snapped nose
ropes and poked them with small, sharp knives.
• Some animals returned to the vadi vasal after being terrified by the
jallikattu participants.
Arena
• The Supreme Court's guideline for arena barricades calls for them to
be no less than 8 feet high. This guideline was flagrantly ignored, and
the barricade in the main area was as low as 5-1/2 feet. The non-
compliance of a guideline as basic as the barricade's height endangers
the lives of spectators.
• The Supreme Court's guideline of double barricading was not
implemented anywhere around the arena or along the path from the
main arena to the town's street.
• As many as six to eight matadors jumped onto bulls to take them.
Unable to carry the weight, the bulls often feel to the ground.
Collection Yard
• There was no collection yard.
• Because of the absence of a collection yard, the bulls ran amok in the
streets, which were lined with unruly crowds eager to hit the scared
animals.
• Many spectators pounded on the petrified bulls and tried to perform
jallikattu on the streets.
• Bulls entered bylanes and trampled both men and parked vehicles.
• Because of the lack of a collection area, one bull lost his life after a
head-on collision with a moving passenger bus.
2. Palamedu - 15 January 2013
Waiting Area
• The bulls were forced to move sideways for hours as they inched
closer to the vadi vasal. This sideways gait is unnatural and
uncomfortable to them.
• Even though there were water troughs near the medical examination
area, bulls were not allowed to drink water because the owners did not
want to lose their place in line.
• There was no food or fodder for the bulls who were forced to stand in
line the night before the event.
• The bulls in line defecated constantly, which is a sign of fear.
• The ears of almost all the bulls were cut and mutilated.
• Several bulls in line were dragged by their tails.
• Owners dragged bulls around by inserting their fingers into bulls'
noses and pulling them.
• Bulls were forcibly beaten, pushed and pulled into the vadi vasal. The
reluctant bulls had their tails painfully twisted, broken and bitten.
These abusive practices, though common, were particularly rampant in
Palamedu.
• Bulls were hit and poked with wooden sticks. One of the organiser's
sole duty was to force bulls into the vadi vasal by striking and prodding
them with a wooden stick.
• Shockingly, police in uniform blatantly hit and poked the bulls with
their wooden lathis instead of stopping the abuse.
• On the sly, owners forced suspicious liquids, likely alcohol, down the
throats of bulls in order to disorient them.
Vadi Vasal
• The vadi vasal is hidden from the view of the public and media and
can be accessed and viewed only by select jallikattu personnel.
• The vadi vasal was a permanent cement structure. Its walls hid some
of the cruelty from spectators and TV cameras.
• The practice of inflicting pain by poking and hitting the bulls is
common. Almost every bull that stayed in the vadi vasal for more than
a couple of seconds after his nose rope was cut was subjected to
physical torture. This rampant cruelty proves that the court's guidelines
regarding jallikattu are completely disregarded.
• Bulls' tails were brazenly twisted and broken in order to force bulls to
run out of the vadi vasal into the arena.
• A bull's anus was deliberately injured to cause pain to the animal.
• Inside the vadi vasal, bulls' eyes and noses were forcibly rubbed with
irritant liquids to disorient and agitate them.
• Feeling immense fear, some bulls jumped against the exit door of the
vadi vasal to try to flee the enclosure.
Arena
• The path from the arena to the collection area was dotted with
dangerous obstructions, such as tractor carriages, water tanks, and a
small truck. These obstructions posed serious threats to speeding bulls
who were being chased away by participants.
• The Supreme Court's guidelines were not implemented as the
barricades were not 8 feet high.
• An electric pole posed grave danger to speeding bulls who charged
out of the vadi vasal.
Collection yard
• The Collection yard was nowhere close to half an acre in size as
instructed by the court guidelines.
• The collection area was also impractical by design as bulls sped right
through its narrow enclosure, which was erected in the path from the
main arena to the town's streets.
• Because of the insufficient collection yard, bulls ran along streets and
into moving traffic.
• Bull were brutally beaten by unruly spectators who drew sadistic
pleasure in landing blows with their fists and sticks. As the loud crowd
hooted, bulls ran for cover.
• Some bulls injured themselves when they jumped off the narrow
roads into fields that were 10 feet below. Others jumped into dry river
beds.
• One bull who was being chased and beaten by a mob jumped into a
field and fractured his font leg. It took 90 minutes for the suffering
animal to receive medical attention proving that having ambulances on
standby is of no use.
• Several bulls trampled the metal barricades and ran into residential
homes and bylanes.
• One bull entered a house.
• Another bull plunged into a sewage drain that was more than 10 feet
below the road.
• Several young people were injured when bulls trampled them on the
streets.
4. Alanganallur - 16th January 2013 Waiting Area
• The waiting area had long lines.
• No shade or fodder was supplied to the bulls.
• The breaking, twisting and biting of bulls' tails was rampant in the
line.
• One person's sole job was to force bulls into the vadi vasal by beating
them with sticks.
• Bull owners were seen rubbing suspicious liquids into the eyes of
bulls moments before the bulls were taken inside the vadi vasal.
Vadi Vasal
• The vadi vasal at Alanganallur was no different from those in previous
jallikattu locations. Bulls were subjected to barbaric cruelty inside the
enclosure, which was shielded from public view.
• Organisers armed with sticks perched inside the vadi vasal and
repeatedly hit bulls who were reluctant.
• The practice of biting tails was most rampant in this vadi vasal, as

every other bull had his tail bitten by people sitting inside.
• Bulls had their tails pulled, twisted and broken inside the vadi vasal.
• Some bulls were brutally hit on the bridge of the nose right before
their nose ropes were cut open.
• Bulls were kicked in their hindquarters.
• People guarding and sitting on top of the vadi vasal smoked beedis,
completely disregarding the safety of the bulls.
• Cruelty was most rampant and brazen in this vadi vasal.
Collection Yard
• In Alangannlur, the collection area did not prevent bulls from running
amok and injuring spectators and villages standing outside the
barricades.
• Many bulls ran straight out of the collection area and into the nearby
fields. Two bulls fell into wells filled with water and injured
themselves.
• The fact that bulls fell into wells in spite of a collection yard that was
erected as per the Supreme Court's guidelines proves that the lives of
bulls are at stake even if the guidelines are followed. The scope for
mishaps is immense.
• Several bulls who ran into the collection yard were frightened by the
bull catchers and ran back into the barricaded passageway to the main
arena.
• Cops standing on a tractor carriage in the passageway between the
main arena and collection yard often hit the bulls with long wooden
sticks.
• Bulls who escaped from the collection yard ran amok and stayed into
nearby fields. The bulls also trampled and injured spectators around
the collection yard.
Manoj Oswal, Animal Welfare Officer to the Board, submitted the second interim report
on 25.1.2012 with regard to the events witnessed at various places like Avanlapuram
and Palamedu. The operative portion of the report reads as under:
Primary observation:
While it is not possible to conduct animal sport like Jallikattu without causing
trauma and cruelty to animals, it was anticipated that the guidelines and rules
would ensure that the cruelty is minimum.
The events at the surface looked very organized and orderly but scratching a
little below the surface showed that the abuse and violations now have been
hidden away from the main arena. The unruly people have been found their
own place away from media glare and eyes of Animal Welfare Officers.

The fundamental issue remains that a large section of people come to the
events with a hope-expectation that they are also a part of the action, which
indeed has been a way of Jallikattu always. Such people continue to handle
bulls in crude fashion, continue to risk their own lives and create hazard for
themselves and others and they undo whatever the system has built as check
and balance.
Queuing of bulls
The most stressful time for the animals is the long wait, particularly when
events are back to back. The same animals participate in many events and
travel to new events every day. No animal has the possibility of basic shelter
from sun and wind, food or water while it awaits its turn.
The situation in all districts remain the same as it was last year. Between 200 to
400 bulls come to the venue but the facility of pens and shelter are symbolic,
holding at the most 10-12 animals. These poster boys are shown as how well
bulls were treated. However, in reality they are not even a fraction of the bulls
that participate.
The bull are held tightly by their ropes. There is no possibility to move even an
inch. The bull that cannot even lower hold itself to its natural position, it is held
up tightly that is how it remains in that single position for hour at a stretch. If
the bull stands naturally the holder will have bend himself in an awkward
position.
In such a situation there is no possibility of either feeding or watering the
animal. The bull start queuing from 1 a.m. and they are held that way till 4
p.m. till then the program usually ends. The bull coming first may get released
about 2 hours earlier.
Cruelty before release
The bull does not want to go into the arena. It does not like people and does
not like the crowd. The only way to get it go before the crowd is to prod it and
threaten it. Cause the animal so much pain and fear that it believes that going
before the thousands of people is a better escape than being tortured here in
the small box like enclosure.
The methods of torture vary, but the essence remains the same. The bull has to
run for its life. The bull is scared of both scenarios the large crowd outside and
the captive and painful life with the current owner. Given an opportunity the
bull prefers to stay in the small enclosure than run into a crowd of strangers,
the way the bull is made to run is to give it immediate pain or restrain it
unnaturally.
Despite ban, people were seen giving alcohol to the animal in the sly. The tail
of the animal is one of the sensitive part of the body, so is the nose and the
eyes. Torture to these parts is one quick way to get the bull run.
Cruelty within arena:
Mental Torture
Physical abuse is not the only kind of injury that is illegal and hurtful. Mental
abuse is also amongst the worst kind of abuse as it leaves a lifelong mark on
the mind.
It is a known fact that victims of accident, crime or disasters recover from their
physical injuries in certain time but mental injuries remain etched for decades,
play havoc in day to day life. Animals, irrespective of the fact whether they can
express it or not, in this particular case were seen going through the same
shock and terror as a person goes into in a hostage situation. Constant fear of
death and continuous torture.
Physical torture
With the entire world watching at the events, it was not expected that the
animals will be harassed in the arena. The animals got a respite from physical
abuse in the arena that was well covered by media, however, as soon as they
left the main arena, the tale of torture remained the same what it has been for
long.
Outside the Arena:
What has changed
- Registered bulls marked in five out of six venues (not so in
Previyasuriyal).
- Symbolic testing done for alcohol (actual testing done in
Previyasuriya, rest of the places the test was just a cover up).
- Obvious and visible forms of cruelty disallowed in public view.
- The double barricades were less porous and so it was not easy for
unruly people to enter arena. (not so in Siravayal)
Everything else, the issues highlighted in the report in 2011 remain
active
1. Queuing of animals and holding them in unnatural position for hours
without food and water.
2. In the secluded and enclosed area, all forms of animal abuse.
3 . The animals are invariably not going into the yard but onto the
street, groves, cluttered vegetation, dry canals and other free-for-all
areas, all misnamed as yards.
4 . Animals running out the yard to escape brutality straying into the
streets of the village.
5 . Jallikattu barricades punctured at certain points or that they being
open at one end leading to non participants indulging in the same kind
of cruelty that were seen last year.
6 . A complete parallel set of jallikattus happening with the crowd as
people release the unregistered bulls into the crowd, this is more
particular and obvious in Sivagangai.

7. A less obvious but with same effect, parallel Jallikattu happening in
areas designated as bulls yards. So instead of rest, the bull yards are
the areas designated as bull yards. So instead of rest, the bull yards
are the areas where the bulls get tortured the most.
18. We have also perused the recent affidavit filed by Smt. Uma Rani, the Secretary,
AWBI, MoEF, Chennai on 7.4.2014, giving the details of the manner in which Jallikattu
was conducted in various parts of Tamil Nadu, like Avaniapuram, Palamedu etc., and the
torture and cruelty meted out to the Bulls, which is unimaginable.
1 9 . We notice that the situation is the same in the State of Maharashtra also. The
details furnished by the 2nd Respondent in I.A. No. 5/2014 on 20.1.2014 along with the
photographs, depict the state of affairs, which is also cruel, barbaric, inhuman and
savage. Report highlights the manner in which it is being conducted.
BULLOCK-CART RACE IN MAHARASHTRA:
20. We notice, in various parts of Maharashtra, varied types of Bullock-cart races are
being organized. Bailgada Sharyat is a race where no person rides the cart. In such a
race, at times, Bullocks are brought to the venue blind folded through trucks and let
free, through a ghat either side of which spectators, large in number, assemble. Due to
sudden exposure to the light, after unfolding, and the huge noise source made by
spectators, Bullock get terrified and run in straight on the slope. Many of the Bullocks
are tortured and whipped to make them run and the price is decided on the basis of
time taken to cover gap of approximately 300 meter distance. Races are also there
where Bullocks have to cover 10 kilometres and more. Before and during the course of
the race, cruel practices like beating, twisting of tail, biting tail, poke with spiked
instruments, electric shock etc. is given. Races, such as, Ghoda Bail Sharyat which
involves a horse and a bull on the same cart is also being held. Sometimes, a bigger
Bullock is paired with a smaller one. Various forms of torture are adopted in all these
races.
21. We are sorry to note, in spite of the various directions issued by this Court, in the
conduct of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race etc., the regulatory provisions of TNRJ Act and
the restrictions in the State of Maharashtra, the situation is the same and no action is
being taken by the District Collectors, Police Officials and others, who are in-charge to
control the same, to see that those directions are properly and effectively complied with
and the animals are not being subjected to torture and cruelty. Being dumb and
helpless, they suffer in silence.
2 2 . We notice, following the Central Government notification dated 11.7.2011, the
Committee constituted in the State of Maharashtra to monitor animal welfare laws in the
State, submitted a letter dated 1.8.2011 to the then Chief Minister, with specific
reference to the notification dated 11.7.2011, stating as follows:
Now that the exhibition and training as performing animals of bulls also is
prohibited, bullocks cart races which are very widely organized in the State
become illegal. During the month of Shravan, many such races are organized in
the rural parts of the State and these must be stopped in compliance with the
above notification.
We, therefore, request you to issue instructions through the Collectors all over
the State, prohibiting such bullock cart races with immediate effect.

This issue has been agitated in the State of years now by animal welfare
activists and the Central Government's move should put an end to it. As the
notification may not have come to the notice of people and even administration
at large, we hope you will kindly take necessary action as requested above at
the earliest.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
For Committee to Monitor Animal
Welfare Laws in Maharashtra
Sd/-
C.S. Dharmadhikari
Chairman
The State of Maharashtra, based on the notification dated 11.7.2011 and the letter dated
1.8.2011 of the Committee, issued a notification dated 24.8.2011, the operative portion
of the same reads as follows:
Reference Item No. 1 above, as per the Notification of Environment & Forest
Department of Central Government dated 11.7.2011, has been brought on
training, exhibition and as such the performance of animals like bears,
monkeys, tigers, leopards, lions and bullocks etc. Accordingly, it was under
consideration of the State Government to bring about a ban on the bullock cart
races and various exhibitions taking place in the State.
Accordingly, by this notification, a ban has been imposed on bullock cart
races/games/training/exhibition in the State in accordance with the above
reference item No. (1) Notification of the Central Government.
As per order of the Government of Maharashtra.
Sd/-
C.N. Suryavanshi
Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
The State of Maharashtra later issued a corrigendum dated 12.9.2011 clarifying that the
word "Bull" be read as Valu/Sand, meaning thereby, it would take both Bulls whether
castrated or not. The State of Maharashtra later, through the Government decision dated
20.4.2012 imposed total prohibition in the State of organizing Bull/Bullock-cart Races,
Bulls Fight, Training of Bulls/Bullocks for the sport, sport activities. The operative
portion of the order reads as follows:
PREAMBLE
The organization of animal sports in State, mainly in its rural hinterland
especially sports such as bull ox/bullock cattle exhibition, organizing their race,
their cart race, fight etc., is nothing but violence to these dumb animals for
which, to stop the continuation of the same, to prohibit the same, the State
Government has already taken a decision to prohibit them on 24.8.2011.
Moreover, as in the list in this regard of prohibited animals by Central
Government as bulls, bullock has not been included but not in State
Government, the State Government issued a corrigendum by prohibiting bulls
instead of bullock in State Govt. list too. In this regard, the corrigendum of the
State Government was issued on 12.9.2011. But by opposing this corrigendum
of State Government, above referred No. 1, and No. 2 cases were filed in the
Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai. In accordance with the judgment given by the
Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai in those cases, to the State Government issued
abovementioned circular Nos. 4 and 5 are superseded now and the government
decision in this regard is now being issued as under:
GOVERNMENT'S DECISION:
In compliance of Central Govt.'s Department of Forest and Environment
Departmental Notification dated 11.7.2011 and also in the light of relevant
judgment pronounced by Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai Bullock Cart Race,
Bullock Race/Bull Fight/training of bull/Bullock/Ox for such race, fights/using
them for any animal sport activities is being prohibited herewith now.
In accordance with letter dated 7.10.2011 of Central Government, Bamboo
Cart/Cart/Ox/Cow/Calf etc., are also increased in the broader sense of technical
definitions of 'Bulls' prohibited under this act which must be prohibited for
usage as sort sporting/animal sporting/fighting/right sports related training.
If anybody is found guilty of the aforesaid prohibited act and activities, then on
such offenders, let action be taken stringently and effectively against them
under the provisions of cruelty to animals act and the concerned District
Collectors, Police Superintendents have the entire enforcement responsibility.
Under the directions of and in the name of Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra
State.
Sd/-
(S.T. SHENDE)
Under Secretary
Govt. of Maharashtra
23. We have already indicated that the State of Maharashtra has accepted the judgment
of the High Court and the Government decision dated 20.4.2012 is also not under
challenge.
24. We have to examine, in the light of the above facts, whether the events that are
being conducted in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are in violation of
Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 21 and 22 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) and (h)
of the Constitution and the notification dated 11.7.2011.
PCA ACT:
25. The PCA Act was enacted even before the introduction of Part IV-A dealing with the
fundamental duties, by the Constitutional 47th Amendment Act, 1956. Earlier, the then
British in India enacted the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1890 for the human beings to
reap maximum gains by exploiting them with coercive methods with an idea that the
very existence of the animals is for the benefit of the human beings. During the course
of administering the above mentioned Act, many deficiencies were noticed by the
Government of India and a Committee was constituted to investigate and suggest
measures for prevention of cruelty to animals. Following that, a Bill was introduced in
the Parliament and, ultimately, the PCA Act, 1960 was enacted so as to prevent the
infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to amend the law relating to
prevention of cruelty to animals.

JUDICIAL EVALUATION
26. PCA Act is a welfare legislation which has to be construed bearing in mind the
purpose and object of the Act and the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is trite law
that, in the matters of welfare legislation, the provisions of law should be liberally
construed in favour of the weak and infirm. Court also should be vigilant to see that
benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle
devices. Court has got the duty that, in every case, where ingenuity is expanded to
avoid welfare legislations, to get behind the smoke-screen and discover the true state of
affairs. Court can go behind the form and see the substance of the devise for which it
has to pierce the veil and examine whether the guidelines or the Regulations are framed
so as to achieve some other purpose than the welfare of the animals. Regulations or
guidelines, whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport to dilute or defeat the welfare
legislation and the constitutional principles, Court should not hesitate to strike them
down so as to achieve the ultimate object and purpose of the welfare legislation. Court
has also a duty under the doctrine of parens patriae to take care of the rights of
animals, since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings.
2 7 . The PCA Act, as already indicated, was enacted to prevent the infliction of
unnecessary pain, suffering or cruelty on animals. Section 3 of the Act deals with duties
of persons having charge of animals, which is mandatory in nature and hence confer
corresponding rights on animals. Rights so conferred on animals are thus the antithesis
of a duty and if those rights are violated, law will enforce those rights with legal
sanction. Section 3 is extracted hereunder for an easy reference:
3. Duties of persons having charge of animals.-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.
Section 3 of the Act has got two limbs, which are as follows:
(i) Duty cast on persons-in-charge or care to take all reasonable measures to
ensure the well-being of the animal;
(ii) Duty to take reasonable measures to prevent the infliction upon such animal
of unnecessary pain and suffering.
Both the above limbs have to be cumulatively satisfied. Primary duty on the persons-in-
charge or care of the animal is to ensure the well-being of the animal. 'Well-being'
means state of being comfortable, healthy or happy. Forcing the Bull and keeping the
same in the waiting area for a number of hours and subjecting it to scorching sun, is
not for the well-being of the animal. Forcing and pulling bulls by nose ropes into the
narrow closed enclosure of vadi vassal, subjecting it to all forms of torture, fear, pain
and suffering by forcing it to go the arena and also over-powering it at the arena by the
Bull tamers, are not for the well-being of the animal. The manner in which the Bull
tamers are treating the bulls in the arena is evident from the reports filed before this
Court by ABWI. By forcing the bull into the vadi vassal and then into the arena, by no
stretch of imagination, can be said to be "for the well-being of such animal". Organizers
of Jallikattu are depriving the rights guaranteed to the bulls Under Section 3 of PCA Act.
Sadism and perversity is writ large in the actions of the organizers of Jallikattu and the
event is meant not for the well-being of the animal, but for the pleasure and enjoyment
of human beings, particularly the organizers and spectators. Organizers of Jallikattu feel
that their bulls have only instrumental value to them, forgetting their intrinsic worth.
First limb of Section 3, as already indicated, gives a corresponding right to the animal
to ensure its well-being. AWBI, a body established to look after the welfare of the
animals has to see that the person-in-charge or care of the animals looks after their
well-being. We have no hesitation to say that Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race, as such, is
not for the well-being of the animal and, by undertaking such events, organizers are
clearly violating the first limb of Section 3 of the PCA Act.
28. We will now examine whether the second limb of Section 3 which casts a duty on
the person in-charge or care of animal to prevent the infliction upon an animal,
unnecessary pain or suffering, discharges that duty. Considerations, which are relevant
to determine whether the suffering is unnecessary, include whether the suffering could
have reasonably been avoided or reduced, whether the conduct which caused the
suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment. Another aspect to be
examined is whether the conduct causing the suffering was for a legitimate purpose,
such as, the purpose for benefiting the animals or the purpose of protecting a person,
property or another animal etc. Duty is to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or
suffering, meaning thereby, no right is conferred to inflict necessary/unnecessary pain
or suffering on the animals. By organizing Jallikattu and Bullock-cart race, the
organizers are not preventing the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, but they
are inflicting pain and suffering on the bulls, which they are legally obliged to prevent.
Section 3 is a preventive provision casting no right on the organizers, but only duties
and obligations. Section 3, as already indicated, confers corresponding rights on the
animals as against the persons in-charge or care, as well as AWBI, to ensure their well-
being and be not inflicted with any unnecessary pain or suffering. Jallikattu or Bullock-
cart race, from the point of the animals, is not an event ensuring their well-being or an
event meant to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, on the contrary,
it is an event against their well-being and causes unnecessary pain and suffering on
them. Hence, the two limbs of Section 3 of PCA Act have been violated while conducting
Jallikattu and Bullock-cart race.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS:
29. Section 11 generally deals with the cruelty to animals. Section 11 confers no right
on the organizers to conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race. Section 11 is a beneficial
provision enacted for the welfare and protection of the animals and it is penal in nature.
Being penal in nature, it confers rights on the animals and obligations on all persons,
including those who are in-charge or care of the animals, AWBI etc. to look after their
well-being and welfare.
The relevant portion of Section 11 reads as follows:
11. Treating animals cruelty.-(1) If any person-
(a) Beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise
treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes
or, being the owner permits, any animals to be so treated; or
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) willfully and unreasonably administers any injuries drug or injurious
substance to any animal or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to
cause any such drug or substance to be taken by any animal; or
(d) xxx xxx xxx
(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not
measure sufficiently in height, length or breadth to permit the animal a
reasonable opportunity for movement; or
(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an
unreasonably short or unreasonable heavy chain or cord; or
(g) xxx xxx xxx
(h) being the owner of any animal, fails to provide such animal with sufficient
food, drink or shelter; or
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(j) xxx xxx xxx
(k) xxx xxx xxx
(l) mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the
method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel
manner; or;
xxx xxx xxx
(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), an owner shall be deemed to have
committed an offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and
supervision with a view to the prevention of such offence:
Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty by reason only
of having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to
imprisonment without the option of a fine.
(3) xxx xxx xxx
Section 11(1)(a) uses the expressions "or otherwise", "unnecessary pain or suffering"
etc. Beating, kicking etc. go with the event so also torture, if the report submitted by
AWBI is accepted. Even otherwise, according to AWBI, the expression "or otherwise"
takes in Jallikattu, Bullock-cart race etc. but, according to the State of Tamil Nadu, that
expression has to be understood applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis. In our view,
the expression "or otherwise" is not used as words of limitation and the legislature has
intended to cover all situations, where the animals are subjected to unnecessary pain or
suffering. Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races and the events like that, fall in that expression
Under Section 11(1)(a). The meaning of the expression "or otherwise" came up for
consideration in Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay MANU/SC/0018/1957 : 1957 SCR
721 and the Court held that the words "or otherwise" when used, apparently intended to
cover other cases which may not come within the meaning of the preceding clause. In
our view, the said principles also can be safely applied while interpreting Section 11(1)
(a).
30. Pain and suffering are biological traits. Pain, in particular, informs an animal which
specific stimuli, it needs to avoid and an animal has pain receptors and a memory that
allows it to remember what caused the pain. Professor of Animal Welfare, D.M. Broom
of University of Cambridge in his articles appearing in Chapter fourteen of the Book
"Animal Welfare and the Law" Cambridge University Press (1989) says:

Behavioural responses to pain vary greatly from one species to another, but it
is reasonable to suppose that the pain felt by all of these animals is similar to
that felt by man.
Suffering has the same function, but instead of informing the animal about stimuli to
avoid, which informs it about a situation to avoid. An animal might be regarded as
suffering, if is in pain, distress, or acute or unduly prolonged discomfort. Consequently,
to experience the suffering, the animal needs an awareness of its environment, the
ability to develop moods that coordinate a behavioral response, and the capacity to
change adverse situation or avoid them. Reports submitted by AWBI clearly indicate that
Bulls are being treated with extreme cruelty and suffering, violating the provisions of
Section 11(1) of the PCA Act. Over and above, Section 11(1), Clauses (b) to (o) also
confer various duties and obligations, generally and specifically, on the persons in
charge of or care of animals which, in turn, confer corresponding rights on animals,
which, if violated, are punishable under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the PCA Act.
DOCTRINE of NECESSITY:
3 1 . Section 11(3) carves out exceptions in five categories of cases mentioned in
Section 11(3)(a) to (e), which are as follows:
11(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to-
(a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-
roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner; or
(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other
methods as may be prescribed; or
(c) the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority
of any law for the time being in force; or
(d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or
(e) the commission or omission of any act in the course of the
destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for
mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by
the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.
Exceptions are incorporated based on the "doctrine of necessity". Clause (b) to Section
11(3) deals with the destruction of stray dogs, out of necessity, otherwise, it would be
harmful to human beings. Clause (d) to Section 11(3) deals with matters dealt with in
Chapter IV, incorporated out of necessity, which deals with the experimentation on
animals, which is for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of physiological
knowledge or of knowledge which would be useful for saving or for prolonging life or
alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or
plants, which is not prohibited and is lawful. Clause (e) to Section 11(3) permits killing
of animals as food for mankind, of course, without inflicting unnecessary pain or
suffering, which clause is also incorporated 'out of necessity'. Experimenting on animals
and eating their flesh are stated to be two major forms of speciesism in our society.
Over and above, the Legislature, by virtue of Section 28, has favoured killing of animals
in a manner required by the religion of any community. Entertainment, exhibition or
amusement do not fall under these exempted categories and cannot be claimed as a
matter of right under the doctrine of necessity.

32. Sections 3 and 11, as already indicated, therefore, confer no right on the organisers
of Jallikattu or bullock-cart race, but only duties, responsibilities and obligations, but
confer corresponding rights on animals. Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (o) and other related
provisions have to be understood and read along with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution
which cast fundamental duties on every citizen to have "compassion for living
creatures". Parliament, by incorporating Article 51A(g), has again reiterated and re-
emphasised the fundamental duties on human beings towards every living creature,
which evidently takes in bulls as well. All living creatures have inherent dignity and a
right to live peacefully and right to protect their well-being which encompasses
protection from beating, kicking, over-driving, over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering
etc. Human life, we often say, is not like animal existence, a view having
anthropocentric bias, forgetting the fact that animals have also got intrinsic worth and
value. Section 3 of the PCA Act has acknowledged those rights and the said section
along with Section 11 cast a duty on persons having charge or care of animals to take
reasonable measures to ensure well-being of the animals and to prevent infliction of
unnecessary pain and suffering.
PERFORMING ANIMALS
3 3 . All animals are not anatomically designed to be performing animals. Bulls are
basically Draught and Pack animals. they are live-stock used for farming and agriculture
purposes, like ploughing, transportation etc. Bulls, it may be noted, have been
recognized as Draught and Pack animals in the Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and
Pack Animals Rules, 1965. Draught means an animal used for pulling heavy loads. Rules
define large bullock to mean a bullock the weight of which exceeds 350 Kgs. Bullocks
have a large abdomen and thorax and the entire body has a resemblance to a barrel
shape, which limits ability to run. Bulls have also limitations on flexing joins and the
rigid heavily built body and limited flexion of joints do not favour running faster. Due to
that body constitution, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals
on Foot) Rules, 2001, especially Rule 11 says that no person shall use a whip or a stick
in order to force the animal to walk or to hasten the pace of their walk. Bulls, it may be
noted, are cloven footed (two digits) animals and two digits in each leg can comfortably
bear weight only when they are walking, not running. Horse, on the other hand, is a
solid hoofed plant-eating quadruped with a flowing mane and tail, domesticated for
riding and as a draught animal. Horse power, we call it as an imperial unit of power,
equal to 550 foot-pounds per second. Horse's anatomy enables it to make use of speed
and can be usefully used for horse racing etc., unlike Bulls.
3 4 . Bulls, therefore, in our view, cannot be a performing animal, anatomically not
designed for that, but are forced to perform, inflicting pain and suffering, in total
violation of Sections 3 and Section 11(1) of PCA Act. Chapter V of the PCA Act deals
with the performing animals. Section 22 of the PCA Act places restriction on exhibition
and training of performing animals, which reads as under:
22. Restriction on exhibition and training of performing animals: No person
shall exhibit or train
(i) any performing animal unless he is registered in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter;
(ii) as a performing animal, any animal which the Central Government may, by
notification in the official gazette, specify as an animal which shall not be
exhibited or trained as a performing animal.

35. The words 'exhibit' and 'train' are defined in Section 21 of the PCA Act, which is as
follows:
21. "Exhibit" and "train" defined: In this Chapter, "exhibit" means exhibit or
any entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets, and
"train" means train for the purpose of any such exhibition, and the expressions
"exhibitor" and "trainer" have respectively the corresponding meanings.
36. Section 23 of the PCA Act deals with the procedure for registration. Section 24 of
the PCA Act deals with the powers of the court to prohibit or restrict exhibition and
training of performing animals. Section 25 of the PCA Act confers powers on any
authorised person to enter into the premises to examine as to whether the statutory
requirements are properly complied with. Section 26 of the PCA Act deals with the
offences and Section 27 of the PCA Act deals with exemptions. Performing Animals
Rules, 1973 define 'performing animal' to mean any animal which is used at, or for the
purpose of any entertainment to which public are admitted through sale of tickets.
Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races, it was contended, are conducted without sale of tickets
and hence Section 22 of the PCA Act would not apply, so also the notification dated
11.7.2011. We find no substance or logic in that submission. It may be noted that when
Bull is specifically prohibited to be exhibited or trained for performance, the question
whether such performance, exhibition or entertainment is conducted with sale of tickets
or not, is irrelevant from the point of application of Sections 3 and 11(1) of the PCA
Act.
37. We may, in this respect, refer to Section 11(1)(m) which reads as follows:
11. Treating animals cruelty.-(1) If any person-
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(m) 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) so as to make it an
object of prey for any other animal; or
(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or.
Section 11(1)(m)(ii), therefore, says, if any person, solely with a view to providing
entertainment incites any animal to fight, shall be punishable under the proviso to
Section 11(1). In Jallikattu, Bull is expected to fight with various Bull tamers, for which
it is incited solely to provide entertainment for the spectators by sale of tickets or
otherwise. Inciting the Bull to fight with another animal or human being matters little,
so far as the Bull is concerned, it is a fight, hence, cruelty. Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race,
therefore, violate not only Sections, 3, 11(1)(a) & (m) and Section 22, but also the
notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government Under Section 22(ii) of
the PCA Act.
3 8 . We may, in this connection, also refer to the Performing Animals (Registration)
Rules, 2001. Rule 8 deals with the general condition of registration. Rule 8(v) states
that the owner shall ensure that any animal is not inflicted unnecessary pain or
suffering before or during or after its training or exhibition. Rule 8(vii) specifically

caution that the owner shall train the animal as a performing animal to perform an act
in accordance with the animals' natural instinct. Bull is trained not in accordance with
its natural instinct for the Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race. Bulls, in those events, are
observed to carry out a "flight response" running away from the crowd as well as from
the Bull tamers, since they are in fear and distress, this natural instinct is being
exploited.
39. Animal Welfare Division of MoEF, represented by its Director, submitted a note file
on 27.1.2011 to the Minister specifically referring to the affidavit filed by the AWBI
before this Court in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011 and the relevant portion of the
affidavit reads as follows:
I affirm on behalf of the Animal Welfare Board of India that Jallikattu is indeed
an extremely cruel and barbaric sport, in which the Bulls that are forced to
participate are brutalized and subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering.
Surrounded by huge crowds of shouting, screaming people intent upon seeing
them cruelly subdued and overpowered, regardless of what they endure, the
bulls are subjected to terrible acts of cruelty. They are beaten, kicked, and
chilly-powder rubbed into their eyes. Their humps and horns are seized and
twisted and turned during the course of the 'sport', leading to injuries, tears
and bleeding and the animals toppling over. All of this occurs while they are
surrounded by the jeering, frenzied crowd. In fact, the tails of the animals are
routinely pulled, twisted and turned, leading to painful injuries and often to
broken tails. By no stretch of imagination can the bulls be termed as
"performing animals" or "trained for the sport". In fact, what occurs during the
event is that the participating bulls are forced to endure unnecessary pain and
suffering beyond measure. It is for this reason that the answering Respondent
had represented to the Central Government that this barbaric, pre-historic event
masquerading under the guise of sport, be banned.
(Emphasis supplied)
Further, it was also stated in the affidavit that:
I also affirm on behalf of the Answering Respondent that seeking to 'regulate' a
barbaric event involving unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals forced
to participate in the same cannot legalize or confer legitimacy upon the event.
Moreover, that the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act 2009 is ultra vires
the Constitution of India, and repugnant to the provisions of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act.
Note referred to above also made a reference to the Madras High Court judgment
pointing out that Jallikattu and other related events are exhibition of performance of
trained animals, permitted under Chapter V of PCA Act. Noticing all those aspects,
especially taking note of the stand of AWBI, it recommended that all such events be
stopped, especially Bulls as performing animals Under Section 22 of PCA Act, similar to
the ban already introduced in the case of Bears, Tigers etc.
4 0 . Stand of the Animal Welfare Division of MoEF and AWBI was accepted by the
Central Government (MoEF) and a notification dated 11.7.2011 was issued, which was
also gazetted on the same date, including Bull also in the category of banned animals.
Power is conferred on the Central Government Under Section 22(ii) to ban the
exhibition or training of any animal as a performing animal. Following its earlier
notification dated 14.10.1998, as already stated, the MoEF issued another notification
dated 11.7.2011 including "Bull" also as an animal not to be exhibited or trained for
exhibition as a performing animal, which is a conscious decision taken by the MoEF on
relevant materials, while this Court was seized of the matter. AWBI's advice Under
Sections 9(a) and (l) as well as the note of Animal Welfare Division of MoEF was
accepted by the Central Government and now it cannot take a contrary stand, that too,
without consulting the AWBI, whose advice was already accepted and acted upon.
41. Jallikattu as well as the Bullock-cart races etc., as an event, according to the Board,
violate Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) & (m) of the PCA Act read with Article 51A(g) of the
Constitution of India. MoEF, in exercise of its powers conferred Under Section 22 of the
PCA Act, as already stated, after noticing the stand of the Board, issued a notification
specifying that Bulls shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals, that
position still stands. MoEF, it is seen, so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, is
not recognising that Bullock-cart race is part and parcel of the tradition of the people of
Maharashtra and that it has any cultural, historical or religious significance. The State of
Maharashtra, in its order dated 20.4.2012, has clearly acknowledged that the
organisation of animal sports in the State, mainly in its rural hinterland, like
Bull/Ox/Bullock-cart race etc. is nothing but violence to the dumb animals and has to be
prohibited. The State Government evidently did not give its stamp of approval to the so-
called cultural, historical importance to the Bullock-cart Race and that order has not
been challenged. But, so far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, now a proposal
has been made to exempt bulls, participating in Jallikattu from the purview of the
notification dated 11.07.2011 stating that it has historic, cultural and religious
significance in the State.
CULTURE AND TRADITION
42. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the TNRJ Act refers to ancient culture and
tradition and does not state that it has any religious significance. Even the ancient
culture and tradition do not support the conduct of Jallikattu or Bullock cart race, in the
form in which they are being conducted at present. Welfare and the well-being of the
bull is Tamil culture and tradition, they do not approve of infliction of any pain or
suffering on the bulls, on the other hand, Tamil tradition and culture are to worship the
bull and the bull is always considered as the vehicle of Lord Shiva. Yeru Thazhuvu, in
Tamil tradition, is to embrace bulls and not over-powering the bull, to show human
bravery. Jallikattu means, silver or gold coins tied to the bulls horns and in olden days
those who get at the money to the bulls horns would marry the daughter of the owner.
Jallikattu or the bullock cart race, as practised now, has never been the tradition or
culture of Tamil Nadu.
43. PCA Act, a welfare legislation, in our view, overshadows or overrides the so-called
tradition and culture. Jallikattu and Bullock cart races, the manner in which they are
conducted, have no support of Tamil tradition or culture. Assuming, it has been in
vogue for quite some time, in our view, the same should give way to the welfare
legislation, like the PCA Act which has been enacted to prevent infliction of unnecessary
pain or suffering on animals and confer duties and obligations on persons in-charge of
animals. of late, there are some attempts at certain quarters, to reap maximum gains
and the animals are being exploited by the human beings by using coercive methods
and inflicting unnecessary pain for the pleasure, amusement and enjoyment. We have a
history of doing away with such evil practices in the society, assuming such practices
have the support of culture and tradition, as tried to be projected in the TNRJ Act.
Professor Salmond states that Custom is the embodiment of those principles which have
commended themselves to the national conscience as the principles of justice and
public utility. This Court, in N. Adithayan v. Thravancore Dewaswom Board and
Ors. MANU/SC/0862/2002 : (2002) 8 SCC 106, while examining the scope of Articles
25(1), 2(a), 26(b), 17, 14 and 21, held as follows:
18. .... Any custom or usage irrespective of even any proof of their existence in
pre-constitutional days cannot be countenanced as a source of law to claim any
rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social equality and the
specific mandate of the Constitution and law made by Parliament. No usage
which is found to be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of the law
of the land or opposed to public policy or social decency can be accepted or
upheld by courts in the country.
44. As early as 1500-600 BC in Isha-Upanishads, it is professed as follows:
The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land. No creature is
superior to any other. Human beings should not be above nature. Let no one
species encroach over the rights and privileges of other species.
45. In our view, this is the culture and tradition of the country, particularly the States
of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
46. PCA Act has been enacted with an object to safeguard the welfare of the animals
and evidently to cure some mischief and age old practices, so as to bring into effect
some type of reform, based on eco-centric principles, recognizing the intrinsic value
and worth of animals. All the same, the Act has taken care of the religious practices of
the community, while killing an animal vide Section 28 of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL APPROACH TO ANIMALS WELFARE
47. We may, at the outset, indicate unfortunately, there is no international agreement
that ensures the welfare and protection of animals. United Nations, all these years,
safeguarded only the rights of human beings, not the rights of other species like
animals, ignoring the fact that many of them, including Bulls, are sacrificing their lives
to alleviate human suffering, combating diseases and as food for human consumption.
International community should hang their head in shame, for not recognizing their
rights all these ages, a species which served the humanity from the time of Adam and
Eve. of course, there has been a slow but observable shift from the anthropocentric
approach to a more nature's right centric approach in International Environmental Law,
Animal Welfare Laws etc. Environmentalist noticed three stages in the development of
international environmental law instrument, which are as under:
(a) The First Stage: Human self-interest reason for environmental protection
- The instruments in this stage were fuelled by the recognition that the
conservation of nature was in the common interest of all mankind.
- Some the instruments executed during this time included the Declaration of
the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (1875), Convention Designed to
Ensure the Protection of Various Species of Wild Animals which are Useful to
Man or Inoffensive (1900), Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1931)
which had the objective of ensuring the health of the whaling industry rather
than conserving or protecting the whale species.
- The attitude behind these treaties was the assertion of an unlimited right to

exploit natural resources - which derived from their right as sovereign nations.
(b) The Second Stage: International Equity
- This stage saw the extension of treaties beyond the requirements of the
present generation to also meet the needs to future generations of human
beings. This shift signaled a departure from the pure tenets of
anthropocentrism.
- For example, the 1946 Whaling Convention which built upon the 1931 treaty
mentioned in the preamble that "it is in the interest of the nations of the world
to safeguard for future generations the great natural resource represented by
the whale stocks". Similarly, the Stockholm Declaration of the UN embodied
this shift in thinking, stating that "man...... bears a solemn responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for present and future generations" and
subsequently asserts that "the natural resources of the earth.... must be
safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful
planning and management". Other documents expressed this shift in terms of
sustainability and sustainable development.
(c) The Third Stage: Nature's own rights
- Recent Multinational instruments have asserted the intrinsic value of nature.
- UNEP Biodiversity Convention (1992) "Conscious of the intrinsic value of
biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic,
educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity
and its components.... [we have] agreed as follows:...... ". The World Charter
for Nature proclaims that "every form of life is unique, warranting respect
regardless of its worth to man." The Charter uses the term "nature" in
preference to "environment" with a view to shifting to non-anthropocentric
human-independent terminology.
4 8 . We have accepted and applied the eco-centric principles in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0122/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 277,
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 362 and
in Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India and
Ors. MANU/SC/0373/2013 : (2013) 8 SCC 234.
49. Based on eco-centric principles, rights of animals have been recognized in various
countries. Protection of animals has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Germany by
way of an amendment in 2002 when the words "and the animals" were added to the
constitutional clauses that obliges 'state' to respect 'animal dignity'. Therefore, the
dignity of the animals is constitutionally recognised in that country. German Animal
Welfare Law, especially Article 3 provides far-reaching protections to animals including
inter alia from animals fight and other activities which may result in the pain, suffering
and harm for the animals. Countries like Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia have enacted
legislations to include animal welfare in their national Constitutions so as to balance the
animal owners' fundamental rights to property and the animals' interest in freedom from
unnecessary suffering or pain, damage and fear.
5 0 . Animals Welfare Act of 2006 (U.K.) also confers considerable protection to the
animals from pain and suffering. The Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act also
recognises man's responsibilities towards his fellow creatures and the subject "Federal
Act" aims at the protection of life and well being of the animals. The Animal Welfare
Act, 2010 (Norway) states "animals have an intrinsic value which is irrespective of the
usable value they may have for man. Animals shall be treated well and be protected
from the danger of unnecessary stress and strain. Section 26 of the Legislation prohibits
training an animal to fight with people, the operative portion of the same reads as
follows:
Any person who trains animals and who uses animals which are used for
showing, entertainment and competitions, including those who organise such
activities, shall ensure that the animals:
(a) xxxxxx xxx
(b) xxxxxx xxx
(c) xxxxxx xxx
(d) are not trained for or used in fights with other animals or people.
5 1 . When we look at the rights of animals from the national and international
perspective, what emerges is that every species has an inherent right to live and shall
be protected by law, subject to the exception provided out of necessity. Animal has also
honour and dignity which cannot be arbitrarily deprived of and its rights and privacy
have to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks.
5 2 . Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) is a campaign led by World
Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) in an attempt to secure international
recognition for the principles of animal welfare. UDAW has had considerable support
from various countries, including India. WSPA believes that the world should look to the
success of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to set out what UDAW
can achieve for animals. Five freedoms referred to in UDAW, which we will deal with in
latter part of the judgment, find support in PCA Act and the rules framed thereunder to a
great extent.
53. World Health Organization of Animal Health (OIE), of which India is a member, acts
as the international reference organisation for animal health and animal welfare. OIE
has been recognised as a reference organisation by the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) and, in the year 2013, it has a total of 178 member countries. On animal
welfare, OIE says that an animal is in good state of welfare if (as indicated by Scientific
evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate
behaviour and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and
distress.
FREEDOM:
54. Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of OIE, recognizes five internationally recognized
freedoms for animals, such as:
(i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;
(ii) freedom from fear and distress;
(iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;
(iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and
(v) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.
Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in its "Legislative and Regulatory Options for
Animal Welfare" indicated that these five freedoms found their place in Farm Welfare
Council 2009 U.K. and is also called Brambell's Five Freedoms. These five freedoms, as
already indicated, are considered to be the fundamental principles of animal welfare and
we can say that these freedoms find a place in Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act and they
are for animals like the rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country under Part III of
the Constitution of India.
55. Animals are world-wide legally recognised as 'property' that can be possessed by
humans. On deletion of Article 19(1)(f) from the Indian Constitution, right to property
is more a fundamental right in India, this gives the Parliament more a leeway to pass
laws protecting the rights of animals. Right to hold on to a property which includes
animals also, is now only a legal right not a fundamental right. We have also to see the
rights of animals in that perspective as well.
5 6 . Rights guaranteed to the animals Under Sections 3, 11, etc. are only statutory
rights. The same have to be elevated to the status of fundamental rights, as has been
done by few countries around the world, so as to secure their honour and dignity.
Rights and freedoms guaranteed to the animals Under Sections 3 and 11 have to be
read along with Article 51A(g)(h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of
animal rights.
COMPASSION:
57. Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of citizens to have compassion for
living creatures. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and
Ors. MANU/SC/1352/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 534, this Court held that by enacting Article
51A(g) and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be
achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48A
are honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. Article 51A(g), therefore, enjoins
that it was a fundamental duty of every citizen "to have compassion for living
creatures", which means concern for suffering, sympathy, kindliness etc., which has to
be read along with Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 22 etc. of PCA Act.
HUMANISM:
58. Article 51A(h) says that it shall be the duty of every citizen to develop the scientific
temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Particular emphasis has been
made to the expression "humanism" which has a number of meanings, but increasingly
designates as an inclusive sensibility for our species. Humanism also means,
understand benevolence, compassion, mercy etc. Citizens should, therefore, develop a
spirit of compassion and humanism which is reflected in the Preamble of PCA Act as
well as in Sections 3 and 11 of the Act. To look after the welfare and well-being of the
animals and the duty to prevent the infliction of pain or suffering on animals highlights
the principles of humanism in Article 51A(h). Both Articles 51A(g) and (h) have to be
read into the PCA Act, especially into Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act and be
applied and enforced.
SPECIESISM:
5 9 . Speciesism as a concept coined by Richard Ryder in his various works on the
attitude to animals, like Animal Revolution, Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), Animal Welfare and the Environment (London: Gerald
Duckworth, 1992) etc. Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "the assumption of
human superiority over other creatures, leading to the exploitation of animals".
Speciesism is also described as the widespread discrimination that is practised by man
against the other species, that is a prejudice or attitude of bias towards the interest of
members of one's own species and against those of members of other species.
Speciesism as a concept used to be compared with Racism and Sexism on the ground
that all those refer to discrimination that tend to promote or encourage domination and
exploitation of members of one group by another. One school of thought is that
Castism, Racism and Sexism are biological classification, since they are concerned with
physical characteristics, such as, discrimination on the ground of caste, creed, religion,
colour of the skin, reproductive role etc. rather than with physical properties, such as
the capacity for being harmed or benefited.
6 0 . We have got over those inequalities like Castism, Racism, Sexism etc. through
Constitutional and Statutory amendments, like Articles 14 to 17, 19, 29 and so on. So
far as animals are concerned, Section 3 of the Act confers right on animals so also
rights Under Section 11 not to be subjected to cruelty. When such statutory rights have
been conferred on animals, we can always judge as to whether they are being exploited
by human-beings. As already indicated, an enlightened society, of late, condemned
slavery, racism, castism, sexism etc. through constitutional amendments, laws etc. but,
though late, through PCA Act, Parliament has recognized the rights of animals, of
course, without not sacrificing the interest of human beings under the Doctrine of
necessity, like experiments on animals for the purpose of advancement by new
discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or
for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of
human beings, animals or plants and also destruction of animals for food Under Section
11(3) of the PCA Act. Legislature through Section 28 also saved the manner of killing of
animals in the manner prescribed by religions, those are, in our view, reasonable
restrictions on the rights enjoyed by the animals Under Section 3 read with Section
11(1). Evidently, those restrictions are the direct inevitable consequences or the effects
which could be said to have been in the contemplation of the legislature for human
benefit, since they are unavoidable. Further, animals like Cows, Bulls etc. are all freely
used for farming, transporting loads etc., that too, for the benefit of human beings,
thereby subjecting them to some pain and suffering which is also unavoidable, but
permitted by the Rules framed under the PCA Act.
NON-ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES:
61. We have, however, lot of avoidable non-essential human activities like Bullock-cart
race, Jallikattu etc. Bulls, thinking that they have only instrumental value are
intentionally used though avoidable, ignoring welfare of the Bulls solely for human
pleasure. Such avoidable human activities violate rights guaranteed to them Under
Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act. AWBI, the expert statutory body has taken up the stand
that events like Jallikattu, Bullock-cart race etc. inherently involve pain and suffering,
which involves both physical and mental components, including fear and distress.
Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson, in their work on "Animals in Translation" say:
The single worst thing you can do to an animal emotionally is to make it feel
afraid. Fear is so bad for animals I think it is worse than pain. I always get
surprised looks when I say this. If you gave most people a choice between
intense pain and intense fear, they'd probably pick fear.

Both anxiety and fear, therefore, play an important role in animal suffering, which is
part and parcel of the events like Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race etc..
RIGHT TO LIFE:
62. Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which
includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while
safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word "life" has been given an
expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all
forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the
meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, in our view,
"life" means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for
human-beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. Animals'
well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognised Under Sections 3 and 11 of the
Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere
and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or
suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals Under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act
read with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get food, shelter is also a
guaranteed right Under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, especially when they are domesticated. Right to dignity and fair treatment
is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to animals as well. Right, not to
be beaten, kicked, over-rider, over-loading is also a right recognized by Section 11 read
with Section 3 of the PCA Act. Animals have also a right against the human beings not
to be tortured and against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. Penalty for
violation of those rights are insignificant, since laws are made by humans. Punishment
prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, hence
being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act, hence the
necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their
duties to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act.
6 3 . Jallikattu and other forms of Bulls race, as the various reports indicate, causes
considerable pain, stress and strain on the bulls. Bulls, in such events, not only do
move their head showing that they do not want to go to the arena but, as pain is being
inflicted in the vadivasal is so much, they have no other go but to flee to a situation
which is adverse to them. Bulls, in that situation, are stressed, exhausted, injured and
humiliated. Frustration of the Bulls is noticeable in their vocalization and, looking at the
facial expression of the bulls, ethologist or an ordinary man can easily sense their
suffering. Bulls, otherwise are very peaceful animals dedicating their life for human use
and requirement, but are subjected to such an ordeal that not only inflicts serious
suffering on them but also forces them to behave in ways, namely, they do not behave,
force them into the event which does not like and, in that process, they are being
tortured to the hilt. Bulls cannot carry the so-called performance without being
exhausted, injured, tortured or humiliated. Bulls are also intentionally subjected to fear,
injury - both mentally and physically - and put to unnecessary stress and strain for
human pleasure and enjoyment, that too, a species totally dedicated its life for human
benefit, out of necessity.
64. We are, therefore, of the view that Sections 21, 22 of the PCA Act and the relevant
provisions have to be understood in the light of the rights conferred on animals Under
Section 3, read with Sections 11(1)(a) & (o) and Articles 51A(g) and (h) of the
Constitution, and if so read, in our view, Bulls cannot be used as a Performing Animals
for Jallikattu and Bullock-cart Race, since they are basically draught and pack animals,
not anatomically designed for such performances.
REPUGNANCY:
65. We may now examine whether provisions of the TNRJ Act, which is a State Act, is
repugnant to the PCA Act, which is a Central Act, since, both the Acts fall under Entry
No. 17 in the Concurrent List. Repugnancy between the Parliamentary Legislation and
State Legislation arises in two ways:
(i) Where the legislations, though enacted with respect to the matters in their
allotted sphere, overlap conflict and
(ii) Where two legislations are with respect to the same matters in the
concurrent list and there is a conflict.
In both the situations, the Parliamentary legislation will predominate in the first by
virtue of the non-obstante clause in Article 246(1), and in the second by reason of
Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The law on this point has been elaborately discussed
by this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka
MANU/SC/0368/1990 : (1990) 2 SCC 562.
66. Instances are many, where the State law may be inconsistent with the Central law,
where there may be express inconsistency in actual terms of the two legislations so that
one cannot be obeyed without disobeying the other. Further, if the Parliamentary
legislation, if intended to be a complete and exhaustive code, then though there is no
direct conflict, the State law may be inoperative. Repugnancy will also arise between
two enactments even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying
the other, if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly
evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field.
67. In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India MANU/SC/0159/1979 : AIR 1979 SC 898,
this Court held that, in order to decide the question of repugnancy, it must be shown
that the two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions, therefore,
they cannot stand together or operate in the same field. Further, it was also pointed out
that there can be no repeal by implication, unless inconsistency appears on the face of
those statutes. Further, where two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room
or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into
collision with each other, no repugnancy results. Further, it was also noticed that there
is no inconsistency, but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and
separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to
operate in the same field.
6 8 . I n Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to
Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State
and Anr. MANU/SC/0269/2000 : (2000) 5 SCC 231, this Court took the view that the
repugnancy may arise between two enactments even though obedience of each of them
is possible without disobeying the other, if a competent legislature of superior efficacy,
expressly or impliedly, evinces by the State legislation a clear intention to cover the
whole field and the enactment of the other legislature, passed before or after, would be
over-borne on the ground of repugnancy.
6 9 . We may, bearing in mind the above principles, examine whether there is any
repugnancy between PCA Act and TNRJ Act so as to have inconsistent and inconceivable
provisions so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field. Both the
legislators trace their legislative power in Entry 17 List III.

Prevention of Cruelty to animals.
7 0 . We have to examine whether while enacting the PCA Act, the Parliament has
evinced its intention to cover the whole field. To examine the same, we have to refer to
the Statement of Objects of the Act, Preamble and other relevant statutory provisions,
which would indicate that the Parliament wanted a comprehensive act with the object of
promoting message of animal welfare and for preventing cruelty to the animals. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows:
Statement of Objects and Reasons
The Committee for the prevention of cruelty to animals appointed by the
Government of India drew attention to a number of deficiencies in the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 (Central Act No. 11 of 1980) and
suggested a replacement by a more comprehensive Act. The existing Act has
restricted scope as:
(1) it applies only to urban areas within municipal limits;
(2) it defines the term 'animal' as meaning any domestic or captured
animal and thus contains no provision for prevention of cruelty to
animals other than domestic and captured animals;
(3) it covers only certain specified types of cruelty to animals; and
(4) penalties for certain offences are inadequate.
The Bill is intended to give effect to those recommendations of the Committee
which have been accepted by the Government of India and in respect of which
Central Legislation can be undertaken. The existing Act is proposed to be
repealed.
Besides declaring certain type of cruelty to animals to be offences and
providing necessary penalties for such offences and making some of the more
serious of them cognizable, the Bill also contains provisions for the
establishment of an Animal Welfare Board with the object of promoting
measures for animal welfare.
Provisions is also being made for the establishment of a Committee to control
experimentation on animals when the Government, on the advice of the Animal
Welfare Board, is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for preventing cruelty to
animals during experimentation. The Bill also contains provisions for licensing
and regulating the training and performance of animals for the purpose of any
entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets.
71. Section 3 has been specifically enacted, as already indicated, to confer duties on
persons who are in-charge or care of the animals, which says, it is the duty of such
persons to ensure the well-being of such animals and to prevent infliction of
unnecessary pain or suffering upon the animals. In other words, the well-being and
welfare of the animals is the paramount and dominant intention of the PCA Act and with
that intention it has conferred duties on the person in-charge or care of the animals and
correspondent rights on the animals. Section 11 confers obligations on all persons,
including persons-in-charge or care of the animals to see that Section 3 has been fully
obeyed. Exemptions to Section 11 have been provided in Sub-section (3) on the

doctrine of necessity, which concept we have already dealt with in the earlier part of the
judgment. Section 22 of PCA Act, which deals with "performing animals", has to be read
along with Sections 3, 11(1), 11(3) of the Act and that expects only the animal to
perform in an exhibition and Bull tamers have no role unlike TNRJ Act. Sections 21 and
22 refer to training of animals for performance and not training to withstand the
onslaught of Bull tamers. Sections 3, 11 or 22 do not confer any right on the human
beings to over-power the animals while it is performing, on the other hand, Under
Section 11(m), inciting an animal to fight is an offence.
72. Section 38 of the PCA Act confers rule-making powers on the Central Government
and, in exercise of its rule-making powers, the Central Government made the
Performing Animal Rules, 1973 and the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001
and thrust of all the substantive and procedural provisions is the welfare and well-being
of the animal and the duties and obligations of the persons who are in-charge of the
animals and also to safeguard the rights conferred on the animals. Rule 8(vii)
specifically refers to animals' "basic natural instinct" and cautions that the basic natural
instinct of the animals be protected and be not exploited.
73. The TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentric legislation enacted not for the welfare of
the animals, unlike PCA Act, which is an eco-centric legislation, enacted to ensure the
well-being and welfare of the animals and to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering of
the animals. The State Act basically safeguards the interest of the organizers and
spectators while conducting the event of Jallikattu. Act has no Preamble and the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows:
STATEMENT of OBJECTS AND REASONS.
"Jallikattu" includes "manjuvirattu", "Oormadu", "Vadamadu" or "Erudhu vidum
vizha". The said function consists of taming of bulls as a part of ancient culture
and tradition of the Tamils. The said tradition is in vogue for more than 400
years. At present, there is no legislation to regulate the conduct of Jallikattu,
manjuvirattu, Oormadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu vidum vizha or any such activity
involving the taming of bulls. The Government have, therefore, decided to bring
out a legislation to regulate the conduct of the Jallikattu in the State of Tamil
Nadu by prescribing norms to hold such events and to ensure the safety of
animals, participants and the spectators.
2. The Bill seeks to give effect to the above decisions.
Section 4 deals with the responsibility of the organizers. Section 4(3) provides for
double barricade area in order to avoid injuries to the spectators and by-standers, the
prime consideration is, therefore, to avoid injuries to spectators and by-standers and
not that of the animal. Section 4(iv) deals with the fixing the gallery for the spectators
to sit and watch the event. Section 4(vi) empowers the Animal Husbandry Department
to test the bulls to ensure that performance enhancement drugs are not administered.
Duties have also been assigned to the District Collector, Under Section 5 of the Act, to
ensure safety of the spectators and to see that bulls are free from diseases and not
intoxicated or administered with any substance like nicotine, cocaine etc. to make them
more aggressive and ferocious. Sections 5(ix) and (x) authorize the District Collector to
give wider publicity to the provisions of the PCA Act and the rules made thereunder and
to ensure the presence of animal welfare activists of AWBI during the conduct of the
event. Section 7 deals with penalty, it says 'whoever contravenes the provisions of this
Act shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one

year or with fine, which may extend to Rs. 10,000/-, or with both'. Section 11 of PCA
Act, it may be noted, provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend maximum
to three months, to that extent, there is inconsistency between Section 7 of the TNRJ
Act as well as Section 11 of the PCA Act.
74. Section 2(d) of the PCA Act speaks of domestic animal and taming the animal for
use of men, which is evidently for domestic use, being domestic animal, not for
entertainment or amusement. Section 11(3), as already stated, excludes five categories
of cases from Section 11 'due to necessity' and Section 28 speaks of killing of animal in
a manner required by the religion of any community. Section 22 of the Act speaks of
performing animal, meaning thereby, exhibition and training only for performance of
the animal. The PCA Act does not speak of 'taming of animals' (over-powering animals).
Taming of animal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition or entertainment
are entirely different. Section 2(c) of TNRJ Act speaks of 'taming of bulls' which is
inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of PCA Act. Sections 4(vii),
(viii) and 5(viii) speak of Bull tamers. Bull tamers, therefore, tame the bulls at the
arena, thereby causing strain, stress, inflict pain and suffering, which PCA Act wants to
prevent Under Section 11 of the Act. Taming of bulls in arena during Jallikattu, as per
the State Act, is not for the well-being of the animal and causes the unnecessary pain
and suffering, that is exactly what the Central Act (PCA Act) wants to prevent for the
well-being and welfare of animals, which is also against the basic natural instinct of the
bulls.
75. PCA Act, especially Section 3, coupled with Section 11(1)(m)(ii), as already stated,
makes an offence, if any person solely with a view to provide entertainment, incites any
animal to fight. Fight can be with an animal or a human being. Section 5 of TNRJ Act
envisages a fight between a Bull and Bull tamers, that is, Bull tamer has to fight with
the bull and tame it. Such fight is prohibited Under Section 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act read
with Section 3 of the Act. Hence, there is inconsistency between Section 5 of TNRJ Act
and Section 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act.
76. TNRJ Act, in its Objects and Reasons, speaks of ancient culture and tradition and
also safety of animals, participants and spectators. PCA Act was enacted at a time when
it was noticed that in order to reap maximum gains, the animals were being exploited
by human beings, by using coercive methods and by inflicting unnecessary pain. PCA
Act was, therefore, passed to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering and for
the well-being and welfare of the animals and to preserve the natural instinct of the
animal. Over-powering the performing animal was never in the contemplation of the
PCA Act and, in fact, Under Section 3 of the PCA Act, a statutory duty has been cast on
the person who is in-charge or care of the animal to ensure the well-being of such
animal and to prevent infliction on the animal of unnecessary pain or suffering. PCA Act,
therefore, cast not only duties on human beings, but also confer corresponding rights
on animals, which is being taken away by the State Act (TNRJ Act) by conferring rights
on the organizers and Bull tamers, to conduct Jallikattu, which is inconsistent and in
direct collision with Section 3, Section 11(1)(a), 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 22 of the PCA
Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution and hence repugnant to the PCA
Act, which is a welfare legislation and hence declared unconstitutional and void, being
violative of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
77. We, therefore, hold that AWBI is right in its stand that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race
and such events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act and
hence we uphold the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government,
consequently, Bulls cannot be used as performing animals, either for the Jallikattu
events or Bullock-cart Races in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in
the country. We, therefore, make the following declarations and directions:
(1) We declare that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls Under Sections 3 and 11
of PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or
curtailed, except Under Sections 11(3) and 28 of PCA Act.
(2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into Sections
3 and 11 of PCA Act, be protected and safeguarded by the States, Central
Government, Union Territories (in short "Governments"), MoEF and AWBI.
(3) AWBI and Governments are directed to take appropriate steps to see that
the persons-in-charge or care of animals, take reasonable measures to ensure
the well-being of animals.
(4) AWBI and Governments are directed to take steps to prevent the infliction
of unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals, since their rights have been
statutorily protected Under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act.
(5) AWBI is also directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii)
scrupulously followed, meaning thereby, that the person-in-charge or care of
the animal shall not incite any animal to fight against a human being or another
animal.
(6) AWBI and the Governments would also see that even in cases where
Section 11(3) is involved, the animals be not put to unnecessary pain and
suffering and adequate and scientific methods be adopted to achieve the same.
(7) AWBI and the Governments should take steps to impart education in
relation to human treatment of animals in accordance with Section 9(k)
inculcating the spirit of Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution.
(8) Parliament is expected to make proper amendment of the PCA Act to provide
an effective deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the Act and for
violation of Section 11, adequate penalties and punishments should be
imposed.
(9) Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of animals to that of
constitutional rights, as done by many of the countries around the world, so as
to protect their dignity and honour.
(10) The Governments would see that if the provisions of the PCA Act and the
declarations and the directions issued by this Court are not properly and
effectively complied with, disciplinary action be taken against the erring
officials so that the purpose and object of PCA Act could be achieved.
(11) TNRJ Act is found repugnant to PCA Act, which is a welfare legislation,
hence held constitutionally void, being violative or Article 254(1) of the
Constitution of India.
(12) AWBI is directed to take effective and speedy steps to implement the
provisions of PCA Act in consultation with SPCA and make periodical reports to
the Governments and if any violation is noticed, the Governments should take
steps to remedy the same, including appropriate follow-up action.

78. Appeals, transferred cases and the Writ Petition are disposed of as above, setting
aside the judgment of the Madras High Court, but upholding the judgment of Bombay
High Court and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A Nagaraja and Ors140418COM143339

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A Nagaraja and Ors140418COM143339

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A Nagaraja and Ors140418COM143339

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANU/SC/0426/2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

23-11-2024 (Page 2 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 7 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 8 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 9 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 11 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 12 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 13 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 17 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 18 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 20 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 21 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 23 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 26 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 27 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 28 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 29 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 32 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 36 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 38 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 39 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 40 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 42 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

23-11-2024 (Page 43 of 43) www.manupatra.com Nirma University

You might also like