ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD V. UNION OF INDIA

Published On: 6th September, 2024

Authored By: Palak Duneja

Delhi Metropolitan Education

Citation: (2023) 9 SCC 322

Bench: Justice K.M Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Bose and Justice C.T. Ravikumar [1]

Case No. W.P.(C) No.-23 / 2016

Petitioner: Animal Welfare Board, PETA[2], Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations and Animal Equality

Petitioner’s Advocate: Sr. Advs Sidharth Luthra, Shyam Divan, V. Giri, Anand Grover, and Krishnan Venugopal

Respondent: Union Of India, State of Tamil Nadu, and State of Maharashtra
Respondent’s Advocate: Sr. Advs Kapil Sibal, Nagamuthu, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Solicitor General of India

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Relating Laws: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (Also known as PCA ACT, 1960, 1960 or 1960 Act), Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (conduct of Jallikattu) Rules, 2017.

Judgment Date: 18 May 2023

FACTS OF THE CASE

The following are the facts of the case:

(2006)

The Madras High Court, while hearing the solicitation filed by K. Munisamythevar who sought authorization to conduct a bullock wain race, refused to allow it and directed the state government to take way to help atrocity to animals.

(2007)

Originally, The Jallikattu organizers filed an appeal and the single bench order was stayed by the division bench to conduct the event again. Further, the division bench set aside the single bench order. Eventually, on 27 July 2007, The Animal Welfare Board filed a special leave solicitation to which the Supreme Court upheld the judgment given by the division bench, which removed the conduction of bull-related sports events in Tamil Nadu leading to a ban.

(2008)

As usual, the Tamil Nadu Government had filed several desires before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for a stay order and conduction of the carnivals involving bulls. The Court rejected the desires. On 15 January 2008, the Supreme Court heard about the operation for revision on Pongal day and abandoned the ban on Jallikattu as part of Pongal fests. This was done on the condition that the Tamil Nadu government would see that the animals aren’t being tortured and a necessary way would be taken to help the detriment and injuries caused to the actors as well as the bystanders.

(2009)

The Tamil Nadu Government constructed the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009.

(2011)

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 was successively challenged by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ministry of Environment and Timbers (MoEF) issued an announcement declaring bulls as non-performing animals under Section 22(ii) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

(2014)

The Sport of Jallikattu and the bullock-cart race in Maharashtra were banned due to them being contrary to the vittles of Section, 3, 11(1)(a), 11(1)(m), and 22 of PCA ACT, 1960, 1960[3], 1960. This ban was initiated by the Supreme Court in the case of the Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja & Ors.[4] The court also struck down the state law grounded on a plea by the Animal Welfare Board of India and PETA[5].

(2016)

Ministry of Environment and Timbers modified the announcement they gave in 2011, allowing the bulls to be performing animals and also A stay was granted by the Supreme Court on the Centre’s announcement after hearing Pleas of AWBI[6] and PETA. Tamil Nadu government had filed a review solicitation for reviewing the judgment of the ban on the sport which was rejected by the court later due to the vittles’ being in non-compliance with the Nagaraja case.[7]

(2017)

The government of Tamil Nadu legislated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which allowed Jallikattu in the state under the 1960 Act. The government also issued the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (conduct of Jallikattu) Rules, 2017. In agreement with the above-mentioned Act and Rules, several desires were filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court to put a stay on the perpetration of these but the court refused the stay.

(2018)

The Supreme Court appertained all desires filed against this sport to a constitution bench headed by Justice K.M Joseph.

(2022)

The Supreme Court’s reticent judgment. The primary question involved and raised was whether the Jallikattu sport should be granted Indigenous protection under Article 29(1)[8] considering it as a Cultural Right.

(2023)

Eventually, on 18 May 2023, the Supreme Court allowed the sport of Jallikattu upholding the Tamil Nadu Law. The court upheld the Amendment Act and the Rules passed by the Tamil Nadu Government by saying that the sport of Jallikattu has been an artistic or a traditional practice for the last century. [9]

ISSUES RAISED

Within the year 2022, The Seat Raised 5 fundamental questions or 5 primary Issues on the premise of which the choice had been made[10]. These questions were:

Can Jallikattu be secured as a social practice?
Is Tamil Nadu’s Correction opposite to the SC’s ban on Jallikattu in A. Nagaraja v Animal Welfare Board of India (2014)?
Does Jallikattu abuse the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, of 1960?
Did the President consent to the Alteration without adequate data?
Does the Alteration Abuse the Rights to Equality and the Life of Creatures?

CONTENTION

The five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K. M. Joseph, maintained the Tamil Nadu Laws expressing that the Sport of Jallikattu has been going on within the state for over a century amid the celebration celebrations of Pongal, making it a convention. The concern concerning the Cruelty towards animals has been taken care of by Tamil Nadu through their corrections and subsequently, no hampering has been done to the law. In any case, the court did not dive into the address of whether Jallikattu was an “integral” portion of the culture of Tamil Nadu.

Justice Anniruddha Bose held that this address cannot be replied to through legal procedures and requires more noteworthy consideration, representation, and support of the individuals.

RATIONALE

Jallikattu can be protected as a cultural practice

The Act envoys an ocean alter within the way Jallikattu is conducted as an occasion, bringing rigid shields into put to maintain a strategic distance from threat to both man and animal.

The court moreover said that any infringement of the statutory law, in this case, the 2017 law, within the title of “cultural tradition”, would pull in the penal law. Social convention will not be a defense in case the practice annoys the law, it said. “The Amendment Act takes off small room for pitilessness to the Animals. It cures the mischiefs which were in fashion sometime recently the enactment came into existence”[11] the Summit court said passing on the judgment on a clump of supplications challenging Tamil Nadu. On the address of whether Jallikattu was a social legacy, the court said this was best chosen within the House of the People of the State. Such an address cannot be conclusively decided by a court of law in a summons request.

The court said the Amendment Act “substantially decreased torment and cruelty” to the taking part animals. The Amendment Act and Rules passed after the A. Nagaraja’s judgment[12] which prohibited Jallikattu in 2014, must be entirely taken after.

The Tamil Nadu Amendment is not contrary to the Judgement made under the A. Nagaraja’s Case

The Apex Court had said that regardless of the brutality included in Jallikattu, it cannot be named a blood sport as no one is utilizing any weapon and the blood may as it was a coincidental thing[13].

The Court mentioned that the Tamil Nadu government via their Amendment made to the PCA ACT, 1960 and the Jallikattu Rules which they have made, created a different case and they do not violate the PCA ACT, 1960 as they have minimized the suffering and pain of animals.

Due to the different sets of facts established, the Doctrine of Res Judicata was not applicable.

Jallikattu does not violate the PCA ACT, 1960

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, of 1960 encompasses Cruelty towards animals causing them unnecessary suffering and pain. This act defines the powers, functions, and duties of the board towards the Protection of animals. Various types of Cruelties and exceptions have been mentioned as well.

Having this act in exercise, The Animal Welfare Board has challenged multiple sports that are doing cruelty towards Animals. A similar point was taken in the case of Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nataraja[14], wherein Jallikattu was banned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Later, The Tamil Nadu government formulated an Act regarding this particular sport called “Jallikattu” which Mentions minimizing the unnecessary Pain and suffering the bulls have to go through. The act was withheld by the court and hence, stated that the sport of Jallikattu does not violate the PCA ACT, of 1960. [15]

No flaw in obtaining presidential assent to the amendment

The petitioners put forth that the president had given assent before the framing of the Rules and hence, he could not have made an informed decision. To this, the Respondents had argued that the ground on which the petitioners arguing was entirely based on speculations, having no grounds to consider the material considered by the president.

The court agreed with the Respondents.

No fundamental rights to Animals given by the Constitution

Fundamental Rights are referred to as basic rights every citizen of India gets through the Constitution of India. These Rights, when infringed, carry the power for every citizen to ask for a Remedy before the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226[16] and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32[17] of the Indian Constitution.

However, the constitution guarantees these fundamental rights only to the Citizens of India not to the Animals. The rights of Animals are conferred by the Legislature.

DEFECTS OF LAW

The Animal Welfare Board falls flat to clarify the scope of the state “unnecessary pain and Suffering” said beneath section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Since this phrase’s scope isn’t characterized, abuse has been conducted and the poor animals have to endure.

The Constitution needs to give the status of ‘Important‘ to the animals. The constitution does not give the poor animals the opportunity of having ‘Fundamental Rights’ because they cannot inquire for Remedy. Indeed, even though the laws have been defined for the protection of animals, still there are a few escape clauses left. People were too once animals, and giving extraordinary and superior benefits to only one species is out of line[18].

INFERENCE

The Supreme Court did the proper thing when it prohibited the sports of Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock-cart Racing, within the year 2014. These exercises ought to be prohibited due to they cause gigantic enduring torment to the guiltless animals who cannot battle for themselves. These sports ought to not be permitted to be played within the title of religion and social exercises, which makes it protected beneath Article 29(1) of the Indian Constitution. The court should’ve considered the emotions of the poor animals and the agonizing harm they are being caused.
The Tamil Nadu Amendments may have minimized the enduring torment but they have not vanished it. Dowry taking was too once a vital portion of our traditions because of which gigantic deaths happened. Dowry death, indeed even though dowry taking was an indispensable portion, was afterward turned into an offense under Section 304B (Inserted by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1986) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as made into an act known as “The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961”.
If one convention hampering equality can be prohibited at that point all the conventions and social merriments including hampering equality and killing a blameless, when it can be anticipated can moreover be prohibited.

Reference(s):

[1] Challenge to the Practice of Jallikattu, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/challenge-to-the-practice-of-jallikattu/amp/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17001318332298&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com (Last Visited Nov 17, 2023)

[2] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

[3] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

[4] Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja & Ors, (2014) 7 SCC 547

[5] Supra Note 2

[6] Animal Welfare Board

[7] Animal Sports v. Animal Welfare: The Debate Continues, https://www.vidhikarya.com/legal-blog/animal-sports-v-animal-welfare-the-debate-continues (Last visited 17 Nov, 2023)

[8] INDIA CONST. art. 29 cl. 1.

[9] The What, Why, And How of The Jalikattu Judgment by The Supreme Court, https://www.newsclick.in/what-why-and-how-jalikattu-judgment-supreme-court (Last visited Nov 17, 2023).

[10] Judgement Matrix: Challenge to Jallikattu, https://www.scobserver.in/reports/judgement-matrix-challenge-to-jallikattu/amp/ (Last visited Nov 18, 2023).

[11] Animal Welfare Board V Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 322