Case Summary: Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2023 SC 2654

Case Details

• Full Name: Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
• Citation: AIR 2023 SC 2654
  
• Court: Supreme Court of India
  
• Bench: Constitution Bench (5 Judges):  Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar
• Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023

Brief Facts

In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court banned Jallikattu, holding that it was inherently cruel and violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Following widespread protests, Tamil Nadu enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, allowing Jallikattu under regulated conditions. Animal rights groups, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Animal Welfare Board of India, challenged the amendment, alleging it was a colourable exercise of legislative power intended to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Key Legal Issues

1. Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act of 2017 truly cures the defects pointed out in the A. Nagaraja judgment or merely seeks to overrule a judicial decision?
2. Whether Jallikattu can be protected as a cultural right under Article 29(1) of the Constitution of India?
3. Whether the amending Act violates the fundamental duties of citizens to have\ compassion for living creatures under Article 51A(g)?
   

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Contentions:

1. Absolute Cruelty: Argued that bulls are anatomically and behaviourally unsuited for running or being handled in the manner Jallikattu requires. Forcing them to participate inherently inflicts fear, distress, and physical injury.
2. Legislative Overreach: Contended that the State Amendment was an illegitimate attempt to nullify a binding judicial precedent (A. Nagaraja) without changing the factual basis of the underlying cruelty.
3. Fundamental Duties: Asserted that statutory interpretation must align with Article 51A(g) (compassion for living creatures) and that animals possess an inherent right to life and dignity under Article 21.

Respondent’s Contentions:

1. Legislative Competence: Argued that the State has the power to legislate under Entry 17 of List III (Concurrent List) regarding the “Prevention of cruelty to animals,” and since the amendment received Presidential Assent under Article 254(2), it is entirely valid.
2. Cultural Preservation: Maintained that Jallikattu is an essential cultural heritage deeply intertwined with the agrarian lifestyle of Tamil Nadu, protected under Article 29(1).
3. Regulated Safety: Claimed the 2017 rules completely altered the factual matrix by introducing strict regulatory oversight, minimizing potential pain, and eliminating the extreme cruelties observed in 2014.

Judgment

The Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka amendments permitting traditional bull sports (Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock-cart racing), dismissing all writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Curing Judicial Defects: The Court ruled that the legislature can cure a defect highlighted by a judgment. The 2017 Amendment changed the legal framework by introducing strict regulations, thereby transforming Jallikattu from an unregulated, inherently cruel event into a legally monitored sport. It was not a blunt nullification of A. Nagaraja.
2. Deference to Cultural Fact: The Bench held that the judiciary is not the appropriate forum to determine whether a practice is an integral part of a culture under Article 29(1). Once the legislature has deemed it a matter of cultural heritage, the court will defer to that determination unless it is patently arbitrary.
3. Balancing Statutes: While animals deserve protection from unnecessary pain under the PCA Act, the degree of protection and the exceptions allowed are matters of legislative policy, not absolute constitutional rights under Article 21.

Critical Analysis 

• The Supreme Court of India’s 2023 ruling on Jallikattu marks a definitive focal point in the evolution of animal rights jurisprudence in India. By upholding amendments that permitted the traditional bull-taming sport, the Court did more than resolve a localised dispute; it signalled a profound philosophical pivot. A critical examination of this judgment reveals a stark shift in judicial philosophy, the systemic risks of a deferential approach to culture, and the persistent chasm between statutory intent and ground reality.
• To understand the magnitude of the 2023 ruling, it must be juxtaposed against the landmark Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) judgment.

1. The Nagaraja Benchmark: In 2014, the Supreme Court adopted a progressive, eccentric approach. It courageously expanded the horizon of Article 21 (the Right to Life), ruling that life encompasses more than human existence, it includes the right of animals to live with dignity, free from human-inflicted cruelty and suffering. The 2014 Court acted as a protective guardian, viewing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, as a remedial statute that trumped traditional practices. 
2. The 2023 Retreat: In sharp contrast, the 2023 judgment executes a significant pull-back, retreating into anthropocentric formalism. Rather than advancing animal rights as intrinsically valuable, the Court prioritized a strict, literal reading of legislative powers. By focusing heavily on whether the state legislature had the competence to amend the law, the Court opted for procedural formalism over substantive justice.

• One of the most legally troubling aspects of the 2023 ruling is the Court’s reluctance to look behind the legislative curtain regarding what constitutes cultural heritage.

1. Deference Trap: The state amendments explicitly claimed Jallikattu as an integral part of Tamil Nadu’s culture, invoking protection under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. The 2023 Court largely deferred to this legislative determination, stating that a court of law is ill-equipped to decide whether a practice is deeply rooted in culture or not.
2. Slippery Slope: This hesitation sets a deeply problematic precedent. By accepting a legislature’s cultural branding at face value, the judiciary risks weakening its own role as a counter-majoritarian institution. If culture becomes a self-authenticating shield, the floodgates could open for other regressive, discriminatory, or harmful traditional practices to claim immunity from constitutional scrutiny.

• Historically, social evils like Sati, child marriage, and gender-discriminatory practices were all fiercely defended under the banner of inviolable culture. The moment the judiciary abdicates its duty to measure cultural practices against evolving standards of humanity and constitutional morality, constitutional progress stalls.
• Finally, the judgment highlights the recurring tragedy of Indian governance: the profound disconnect between law on paper and law in practice.

1. Fallacy of Humane Regulations: The 2023 ruling rests heavily on the premise that the new amendments implemented strict regulations to minimize animal suffering (e.g., proper veterinary checks, double barricading, and bans on toxic substances). While these conditions look pristine in legislative drafts, they fail to account for the inherent nature of the event itself.
2. Behavioural Reality: Jallikattu is fundamentally predicated on provoking a massive, stressed animal into a fight-or-flight response within a crowded, chaotic public arena. No amount of statutory drafting can regulate the adrenaline, fear, and unpredictable reactions of a bull surrounded by shouting crowds.

• The persistent tension between statutory compliance (ensuring no cruelty) and the operational reality of the sport means that minor infractions are virtually guaranteed, and enforcement remains a systemic nightmare. By validating the practice based on the promise of safety, the Court chose systemic optimism over empirical reality.
• Ultimately, the 2023 Jallikattu verdict reflects a judiciary that chose the path of least resistance, preferring political and legislative deference over the demanding, protective stance it took nearly a decade prior. In doing so, it has left animal rights vulnerable to majoritarian sentiment, leaving a framework where culture can successfully push back against the tide of constitutional empathy.

References

[1] Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 2023 SC 2654), available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124059674/