Published on: 06th March 2026
Authored by: Ayushi Mishra
Renaissance Law College Indore, affiliated to DAVV
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Citation: (2023) 9 SCC 322
Date Of Judgement: May 18, 2023
Case No.: Writ petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016
Relevant Provisions: Article 14, Article 21, Article 29, Article 48, Article 51A(g) and Article 51A (h) of the Constitution.
Brief Facts
The Animal Welfare Board of India and Ors. V union of India is one of the landmark cases of 2023. This case revolves and addresses important legal questions regarding the animal rights, cultural rights and state laws. The case was about the traditional bull – taming sports Named jallikattu from Tamil Nadu. This case came into the picture because it was the concern about the animal cruelty and human safety. The case comprises of the 5 – judge bench namely: Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar, justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice K.M. Joseph. They lifted this case and ban on Jallikattu and the similar sports on 18th may, 2023 with the strict regulations. It was the traditional sport practiced in Tamil Nadu which was considered the crucial part of their culture and heritage of the Tamils. The bulls were released into a crowd where participants attempt to control it and grab its hump.
It was criticized for allegedly harming animals by using the chemicals and physical violence to provoke them. The main concern was the human cruelty. It was not only about the human cruelty but leading to the severe injuries and fatalities to the human participant. Before this case there was the S.C. judgement regarding the legality of Jallikattu in the Supreme Court. There was the case named ‘A Nagaraja Case’ banned the sport in 2014 in which they stated and highlighted the violations of animal rights under the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The main objective to ban this was to promote the welfare of animals over cultural practices. In the year 2016 the notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment for restrictions for the use of bulls in performances but made an exception for jallikattu.
In the year 2017 another act was passed by the government of the Tamil Nadu named as the prevention of cruelty to animals (Tamil Nadu amendment) Act. The government of the Tamil Nadu legalize the practice of the jallikattu despite the earlier ban was imposed by the supreme court. The two states enacted the similar amendments i.e. Maharashtra and Karnataka to allow comparable traditional sports. The writ petition was filled in the year 2018 on these amendments questioning the legality of these legislative changes. After all these amendments and challenges before the Supreme court the case was referred to the five judge bench for determining these amendments whether would strike an appropriate balance between cultural traditions and the animal welfare. There were many issues raised regarding this.
Issues Raised
The main issues raised in this case are as follows:
- Does the Tamil Nadu amendment act, 2017 contradict the legislative intent of the prevention of cruelty to Animal’s act, 1960?
- Does the Tamil Nadu amendment act violate entry 17 the of the concurrent list under the constitution of India by promoting cruelty to animals?
- Can the practice of jallikattu be safeguarded as a cultural right under article 29 of the constitution of India?
Arguments
By petitioner
The petitioner argued several points. Those are as discussed below:
Firstly, the petitioner argued the violation of the fundamental rights. They argued that the animals have a right to live with dignity and without pain. The several amendments made in 2017 in the states like the Maharashtra, Karnataka and the Tamil Nadu violated the prevention of cruelty to animals (PCA) act, 1960. The state amendments were unlawful in the nature as the legislature lacked the competence to amend the prevention of cruelty to Animal’s act, 1960.
Secondly, there was the contradiction of the supreme court ruling where a Nagaraj judgment in the year 2014 was maintained and in this case the supreme court declared the jallikattu sports an illegal and also stated that animals have the legal rights against all such tortures.
Thirdly, the petitioner also contended of the misuse of the animals. As in these sports sometimes the people were using the animals which were not of the bred for the racing. These animals were forced to be in the sports, causing them the severe distress.
Fourthly, there was no cultural protection as these cruel practices are associated with jallikattu which could not be protected under the guise of culture or article 29. The petitioner contended to uphold for 2014 ban and also focusing on the welfare and protection of the bulls from unnecessary pain and suffering.
By respondent
The respondent argued various points. Those are as discussed below:
Firstly, the respondent successfully argued regarding the cultural heritage and the custom. They argued that the sports like the jallikattu are the practices which are followed from the long time and these practices are deep rooted in the religious traditions and it is mostly continued in the rural Tamil Nadu. Also, they argued that it is the crucial part of their heritage which is being protected by the Indian constitution.
Secondly, the respondent argued about the safeguards and the regulations over prohibition of such acts. The PCA established the specific guidelines to ensure the safety of the bulls and their welfare. They argued that the amendments which was made in the year 2017 was successfully removed the defects which were the 2014 case of a Nagaraj.
Thirdly, the respondent contended about the preservation of the native breeds. They argued that these events are helpful in encouraging and preserving the bull breeds which might be vanish otherwise.
Fourthly, the respondent argued that this practice is not cruel in its current form. The practice of the jallikattu has been modified and regulated and the practice does not cause any unnecessary pains or suffering to the animals or the humans, which distinguish it from the cruel activities banned by the 2014 supreme court ruling in a Nagaraj case.
Hence, the SC ultimately upheld the legality of these state amendments.
Judgement
In the 2014 case of a Nagaraj the supreme court held the ban on the bull-based sports such as jallikattu in the Tamil Nadu. However, the constitution bench overturned the decision of the 2014 case.
There were the 5 – judge bench of the supreme court which was comprised of justice CT Ravikumar, justice Hrishikesh Roy, justice Aniruddha Bose, justice Ajay Rastogi and justice K.M. joseph and these all upheld the constitutional validity of the 2017 amendment act by the Tamil Nadu. Hence, the SC held that these were similar to the rulings which was passed by the Karnataka and the Maharashtra to the prevention of cruelty to animal’s act, 1960. The more sports similar to the jallikattu like kambala and bailgada sharyat was permitted by these amendments. Also, the SC upheld all the amendments regarding these practices constitutionally valid.
However, the supreme court stated that these kinds of practices must be strictly enforced and implemented by the state according to the provisions of the act, rules and the notifications. Not only these the supreme court also ensure the strict compliance with the amended laws and associated regulations to the district magistrate and the other officials to work upon it.
Also, the supreme court stated that this practice was not arbitrary, hence it is constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi
There was the legislative competence as the amendments made by the state falls under the entry 17, list iii of 7th schedule which falls within the concurrent list. There is the validity of the state amendments which provided that they received the presidential assent under article 254(2). There were the various amendments before this case. There were the substantial changes in the regulatory framework. There was the argument regarding the cultural heritage and the court stated that these practices and events are the parts of the cultural heritage of the states, and the amendments are done to ensure the preservation of these practices.
The regulatory framework in which the rules and the laws were passed by the states that regulations and the framework were considered to minimize pain and suffering to the animals, making them constitutionally valid.
As these practices are the cultural practices which are continued to be performed from the long time this judgment of the supreme court allowed these practices to be followed continued in the particular states, with the strict safeguards and the safe protocols mandated by the states to reduce the suffering of the animals and the humans involved.
Critical Analysis
- There are the shifts in the judicial approach.
- There is the competency of the legislation.
- The framework of these practices is prohibitory in nature.
- There are the cultural significance and welfare of the animals.
