CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PSDA

SUBMITTED BY – PARVATI VENU

SEMESTER AND SECTION – IIIA

ENROLLMENT NO – 00517703821

RESPONDENT – ISSUES ALLOTTED - 3 & 4

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA VS UOI

ISSUES -

3. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that its objective is to preserve the
cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the impugned Act be stated to
be part of the cultural heritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to
receive the protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of India?

The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that an amendment has been done to the
principal act that is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 so as to preserve
the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu and to ensure the survival and
wellbeing of the native breeds of bulls. Now as the issue speaks whether this act is fit
to be under the shade and protection of Article 29? Article 29 as we know deals with
protection of interests of the minorities and it reads as –

1. Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof
having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to
conserve the same.
2. No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution
maintained by the state or receiving aid out of the State funds on grounds of
religion, caste, language, race or any of them.

In the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College vs. State of Gujarat and Ors it was held
that –

Although the marginal note of Article 29 mentions protection of minority right, the
rights conferred by this Article are not restricted merely to the minorities. According to
the clause (1) any section of citizens residing in India or any part therefore having a
distinct language, script, or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the
same in order to invoke the benefit of this clause what needs to be proved is that the:

1. Section of citizens residing in India and,

2. Should gave a distinct culture, language, script or culture of its own,
Once this is proved the community can avail protection under Article 29 irrespective of
whether they belong to the minority or majority community.

Herein we look at a distinct culture of a state that is in the territory of India and the
distinct culture in challenge is the bull-taming sport “Jallikattu” which is not merely
an act of entertainment or amusement but an event with great historic, cultural and
religious value. People of Tamil Nadu without any distinction to caste or creed
celebrate Jallikattu as a religious and cultural event and it is conducted around or
during the festival of Pongal which is the harvest festival of Tamil Nadu. It also draws
a huge crowd of foreign tourists who come exclusively to witness the events. Jallikattu
traces its origins to Indus Valley Civilization and there are Terracotta Tablets that
depict the organization and celebration of the same. Even the ancient literature speaks
about the practice of Jallikattu like in Pattinapalai and Silappathikaram there are
references of the same.

In the case of A.Nagaraj the SC had banned the observance of this practice where the
court failed to see that in the whole point is about the prevention of cruelty even the
legislation is to look into the prevention of acts of cruelty and not imposition of a
complete ban. In the said case the Animal Welfare Board of India argued that this
event is violative of Sec 3, 11, and 22 of the PCA Act, 1960 and that unnecessary pain
and suffering have been inflicted on the bulls. Now if we look at it this way then there
is a lot of pain and suffering that goes into the domestication of these bulls, so how to
know as to what would be a necessary scale of pain to be inflicted? While discussing
the necessary scale of pain I would just like to refer to Sec 11(3)(e) and Sec 28 of the
PCA Act which allows for killing of animals for the purpose of human food and
religious purposes respectively. My question is if killing of an animal can be allowed on
the basis that it’s a religious practice then why is a cultural and religious practice like
Jallikattu being prohibited? Throughout we have been referring to this legislation
called Prevention of Cruelty the very title of the act which means there is a legislative
presumption that there is an existence of cruelty and that it is to prevent cruelty that
the legislation has been elected. Therefore the underlying principle in the legislation
itself is that domesticated animals are subjected to cruelty. Being said that main
question arising is does the animal have any rights per say? The animals do not have
any independent right; it is more like a moral duty of a living being towards another
which places restrictions on the human beings.

It needs to be understood that what is needed is no complete ban rather an effective

regulation along with the regulating body which is served by the TNRJ Act, 2009
which lays down the guidelines to regulate Jallikattu and failing to adhere to these
guidelines would call for penal sanctions, the sec 3 of the said act deals with
regulation. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act,2017
which supports Jallikattu saying that it is of historic and cultural importance and
that it ensures the well-being and survival of the native breed of bulls also their safety
and security ,thus additions to Sec 2, 11 , 27 and adding Sec 28A to the Act. The
amendment allowing Jallikattu works hand in hand with the TNRJ Act 2009, having
procedures to protect the bulls from brutality. Unlike the dismal manner in which
animals were treated prior to the coming of the Act, the changes in the new regime,
according to which prior permission of the collector is to be taken by the organizers for
the persons and the bulls participating in it. The collector is supposed to inspect the
venue and they shall form a committee on jallikattu to monitor the event. The
committee consists of various officials such as those from the animal husbandry and
the police departments. The bull is put to proper test and no performance-enhancing
drugs must be administered to it.

So my humble submission before the court would be that the ban should be lifted
and the impugned act should get protection under Article 29 of the Indian
Constitution.

4. A. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to ensure the
survival and wellbeing of the native breed of bulls? Is the Act, in pith and
substance, relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India?

Breed conservation as it is said is a story of numbers, where the numerical strength of

cattle under the mission increases the odds of recognising the stronger individuals
and improving the group’s genetic strength as a whole. This allows sports
like jallikattu become incentives for our farmers to hold and maintain indigenous
bulls. Jallikattu, at the outset, incentivizes the holding of bulls across various districts
and with time, there will be a pool of bovines that are highly diverse, paving the way
for extensive scientific studies to enhance conservation.

So here the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act says that the amendment has been made to
ensure the well-being of the native breed of bulls. The reasoning behind this statement
can be 2 twofold. First, jallikattu becomes an incentive for rearing a breed – rather, it
provides for an effective system of breeding. Second, the offspring of the bull winning
the jallikattu will be decidedly stronger. The native breeds that are used for the event
are Kanagyam, Umblachary, Bargur, Alambadi, and Pulikulam which are
characterized by a prominent hump. If we look into the act it can be seen that it only
talks about the native breed of bulls and not the milch breeds.

In E.Seshan vs. The Secretary, The Department of Law Government of Tamil

Nadu and Ors the High Court of Madras gave certain guidelines –

1. Only the native breeds alone can participate in Jallikattu events; `

2. Imported /hybrid /cross bulls are prohibited in Jallikattu events;

3. A certificate from Vetenary doctors certifying bulls, which are participating in
Jallikattu events, are native breeds and not imported /hybrid /cross breeds along with
application for participation in Jallikattu from owners of bulls are to be submitted

4. Encourage bull owners /farmers to groom native breeds by way of subsidy or

incentives so that farmers will be encouraged to groom native breeds;

5. Avoid as far as possible artificial insemination of animals,

In this case it was held by the court that only native breeds may be allowed to take
part in Jallikattu, which in turn leads to the conservation of the breed.

As can be observed from the wordings of the amended act in simple sense points out
that the Jallikattu is to be allowed but why? The reasoning being that it is to preserve
the native breeds’ survival and from the above case it can be concluded that since only
the native breeds are allowed to take part in the event, it plays a vital role in ensuring
the conservation of the said native breeds in question.

On the basis the above said observations I would humbly submit before this court that
the state amended act in question is in pith and substance to ensure the survival and
well-being of the native breed of bulls.

B. Is the Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of

India?

Article 48 of the constitution reads as-

Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall endeavor to

organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall,
in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the
slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

The TNRJ Act, 2009 lays down the directions that are to be followed by the tamers and
owners of the bulls so registered for participation, in particular Sec 5 which says –

1. Arrange to provide adequate medical facilities including the ambulance at the

place where the event is held, to give medical treatment and constitute a
medical team for such purpose;
2. Arrange for necessary drinking water supply as well as sanitation facilities in
the place where the event is to be held;
3. Authorise an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector to look after each
item of event and arrangement like checking up of bulls, checking up of bull
tamers, checking up of the barricading and gallery arrangements, medical
facilities, water supply, sanitary arrangements and safety of spectators and any
other requirement in connection with the event;
 4. Arrange to give wider publicity of the provisions of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the rules framed thereunder and the risk
involved in participating in the event;
5. Ensure the presence of Animal Welfare activists representing the Animal
Welfare Board established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
during the conduct of the event;

Sec 7 of this act lays the penalty for defaulters, which is read as

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
ten thousand rupees or with both.

The TNRJ works on ensuring that the improvement in the treatment of the bulls lined
for the event, aiming to control the excesses inflicted by imposing penalty.

The amended act allowing Jallikattu is in pith and substance with Article 48 as the
very goal of this article i.e. the preservation and improvement of the breed in question
is being satisfied by the TNRJ of 2009.

I would like to conclude my argument on a note that the banning of jallikattu on the
base of few isolated cases of cruelty then it does little justice to bigger pic of
conservation of a breed in its entirety.