JALLIKATTU

Cultural Preservation or Animal Protection: Jallikattu's Moral Crossroads:

Abstract
The term Jallikattu came into limelight again with Supreme Court’s judgment in May. This paper
will analyze the recent judgment by the Supreme Court . The Marina Beach protest was an effort
towards the cultural preservation of jallikattu. there is a lack of systematic organization and
training in bullfighting in India. On 7 May 2014, the Supreme Court of India ordered the state to
ban Jallikattu. On 8 January 2016, Ministry of Environment and Forests allowed the traditional
game under certain conditions which was stayed by Supreme Court on 16 January 2016 after
Animal Welfare Board of India and PETA filed a case. After a large number of people gathering
and mass protests taking place, the Governor of Tamil Nadu announced an ordinance and the
Tamil Nadu legislature passed a bill for the continuation of jallikattu in January 2017.
 FACTS AND BACKGROUND
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
MY OPINION
FOOTNOTES
REFERENCES
PARAPHRASING

1. (https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/75442/
dsouzajana_Thesis_Jallikattu-Why%20Tamilian%20Bullfighting%20Matters%20Now
%20More%20Than%20Ever_2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
The name Jallikattu comes from the Tamilian words “salli” meaning “coins” and “kattu”
meaning “package” because each bull that participates in Jallikattu has a small purse of coins
attached to its horns (Akilon 1974). Participants of the sport aim to grab and hold on to the large
hump on the bull’s back while the bull tries to buck them off. Their goal is to hold on to the
hump for as long as possible, bring the bull to a stop, and to rip the bag of coins off the horns of
the bull. Support for Jallikattu and the pro-Jallikattu movement became a pan-Tamilian marker of
identity, pride, and nationalism. People from every walk of life in Tamilnadu became involved
in these protests regardless of gender, class, religion, and caste. Protecting Jallikattu was now an
issue of “protecting Tamil culture from outside influences” such as PETA and foreign
corporations that have long resided in India. Jallikattu takes place during Pongal, the harvest
festival celebrated by Tamil people. Also known as Thai Pongal, this festival is a celebration of
the sun god, when prayers are made for a successful harvest in the upcoming Tamil calendar
year. The motivation for Pongal is not only a cultural one – the Indian economy, and the Tamilian
economy in particular, thrives on agriculture. people across Tamilnadu are invested in Pongal
every year and they associate the celebration to their Tamilian culture and heritage.
In 2006, the first legal opposition against Jallikattu was filed with the Supreme Court of India by
the “foreign” entity PETA after hearing reports of vicious animal cruelty against Jallikattu bulls.
PETA India used the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, which stated that animals
should be protected “from unnecessary pain and suffering,” to put a temporary stop to Jallikattu
(PETA India 2014). In 2009, organizers agreed to a set of terms put forth by the Supreme Court
that ensured tougher regulation of safety standards in order to procure a license for Jallikattu to
happen. By doing this, they were once again free to hold Jallikattu during Mattu Pongal. This
type of back and forth legal argument has been ongoing for over the past decade. It is important
to remember that the major ban on Jallikattu that was erected and enforced in 2014 was not the
first ban against Jallikattu ordered by the national Indian government. In 2009, the Tamilnadu
government had passed an ordinance to regulate Jallikattu on the grounds of protecting the bulls’
rights in order to keep being able to have Jallikattu during Pongal. However, this ordinance was
quickly overturned by the national Indian government after an amendment diverted power to
address cows under animal protection laws from the state to the central government. The struggle
between the local and national governments eventually settled in 2011 in favor of not allowing
Jallikattu to proceed regardless of any introduced regulations. The following years also saw more
legal battle during which Jallikattu was allowed by the state and then knocked down by the
central government (Mogul 2016).
 2. https://academicjournals.org/journal/JMCS/article-full-text-pdf/75BE85960500
THE HISTORY AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF JALLIKATTU
Tamil Nadu in South India is home to a traditional annual rural sport known as „Jallikattu‟
(Tamil form of bullfight which is referred to as ‘Eru Tazhuvudhal‟ or ‘Manju Virattu‟) held
around the Tamil harvest festival Pongal in the middle of January. It involves the challenge of
trying to hold onto the horns or the hump of a bull for a specified time within an enclosed arena.
As an intrinsic part of the annual harvest festival celebrations and rituals in the region, Jallikattu
manifests in different forms today. Historically, it sought to display mastery of bull by men, who,
singly or in small groups, try to take a cloth from its horns or to overpower it (Duff, 2012).
According to Kalaiarasan (2017), the literal meaning of Jallikattu is Jalli/salli (coins) and kattu
(tie) wherein the men, gathered in the arena, try to take a prize of coins that are tied to the horn
of the bull. In that sense, it is not so much about „bull taming‟ but more as a sport of „bravery‟
and gaining a prize from the bull unleashed in the arena. It was, therefore, intrinsically bound
with masculinity and heroism of the men who take part and aim to „tame‟ the bulls. As an act of
chivalry and male prowess, according to legend, men successful at Jallikattu were chosen by
women to be their husbands. There are references to other versions of the sport, including one
where the bull is left free in an open ground for any person to challenge and another where the
bull is tied and a group tries to tame it (Ramesh et al., 2014).Based on petitions by animal rights
groups, the Supreme Court of India banned the ancient sport of Jallikattu in 2014 on the grounds
of animal cruelty. The ban of this traditional sport ignited protests culminating in a large-scale
15-day movement across the state from January 8 to 23, 2017 with a massive mobilization on the
world’s second longest beach, the Marina in the state capital of Chennai. Largely propelled by
the youths, the ban was perceived as an attack on Tamil culture and identity. The sport was
banned in 2014 by the Indian courts. After successive efforts to reinstate the sport failed, a series
of protests broke out from January 8 to 23, 2017
Jallikattu ban
The Jallikattu sport was banned by the Supreme Court, the apex court of India, in May 2014
citing violation of animal rights and recognizing animals as part of the environment of human
beings and, therefore, needing to be protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The
verdict imposed a complete ban on Jallikattu, bullock-cart races and other such events, holding
them to be in violation of several sections of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960,
(Sharma and Singh, 2015). The court found there were 12 violations of the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act (PCA), 1960, of the Government of India under Section 11(1). This section
specifies the cruelty to animals as entailing "beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads,
tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering" (PCA,
1960: pp 8). The Section details various instances and circumstances which may be construed as
cruelty and violation of the Act. it also detailed the injuries that took place in the three events that
had been observed by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). These arguments laid out by
AWBI have been endorsed by the court. Similar arguments against the bullock cart races in the
state of Maharashtra in central India are also in the same judgment, citing violation. While
Jallikattu was claimed to be an ancient and traditional sport by respondents, the court struck
down this claim and contended that it was not performed in the traditional manner. It accepted
the arguments of the Animal Welfare Board of India and ruled that bulls could not be used in
Jallikattu or in bullock cart race

3. https://ir.nbu.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/3865/1/Vol.%2012%2C%20March-October
%202016_05.pdf
Once again it is proved that no community of the universe will allow anybody to take away their
natural rights from them.
What Is ‘Jallikattu’?
Jallikattu is a traditional Tamil sports which involves Tamil culture, tradition and the Tamils do
not like having ban on it. It has a very long history and was practiced since Tamil classical period
(400-100 BC). It is known in Tamil Nadu by different names. Another literary meaning of
Jallikattu is ‘bull chasing’. But the banning of Jallikattu has brought a large numbers of people
together to protest against the ban to preserve their native culture.
Conflict Between Cultural Traditions And State Law: ‘the ban is being opposed by Tamils
who’ve probably never seen Jallikattu. Now, let’s have a quick look into the developments
relating to Jallikattu ban. In March 2006, Madras High Court bans Jallikattu for the first time on
the ground of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. In July 2009, Tamil Nadu government
passes law allowing the sport after setting certain conditions. Supreme Court permits the event
for 5 months in a year under state law in November 2010 and directed the District Collectors to
make sure that the animals that participate in the event are registered to the Animal Welfare
Board. The Government of Tamil Nadu ordered that two lakh be deposited by the organizers in
case of an accident or injury during the event. In July 2011, Union Environment Ministry bans
the use of bulls as performing animals. But the practice continued under Tamil Nadu Regulation
of Jallikattu Act of 2009. On 7 May 2014, the apex court strikes down Tamil Nadu law and
banned Jallikattu all together. In January 8, 2016 the Ministry of Environment and Forests
permitted the event to be continued. However, on 14 January 2016, the Supreme Court issued a
stay on this order upholding the ban, after a petition filled by the Animal Welfare Board of India
and PETA India, leading to protests all over Tamil Nadu. Then the Apex Court refused to review
its decisions on 26 January 2016. On 16 January 2016, the World Youth organization (WYO)
protested and urged for the lifting of ban. On 8 January 2017, several hundred protesters
conducted a rally at Chennai opposing the ban on Jallikattu. On January 13, Supreme Court turns
down plea to give verdict on ban before the 3 day pongal festival. Stalin-led DMK calls for stir
against centre and Tamil Nadu government. In the next day Stalin calls for an ordinance and
launches agitation. Numerous Jallikattu events were held across the state in protest of the ban
and hundreds of participants were detained by police in response. Due to these protests, on 21
January 2017, the Governor of Tamil Nadu issued a new ordinance that authorised the
continuation of Jallikattu events. On 23 January 2017, Tamil Nadu legislature passed a bill,
exempting Jallikattu from the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act (1960). However, the legal
problem surrounding Jallikattu is as yet not clearly resolved. It can be solved if the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act is amended as local ordinances and state laws cannot triumph over Indian
federal law.
Side by side the Constitution of India and various legislations also guarantee the rights of animal.
Here, some of the provisions are mentioned below:
1. It is the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to have compassion for all living creatures.
Article 51 A (g). 8
2. To kill or harm any animal is a punishable offence. IPC Sections 428 and 429.
3. No animal including chickens can be slaughtered in any place other than a slaughter house.
Sick or pregnant animals shall not be slaughtered. Rule 3 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
Slaughter House Rules 2001, Food Safety and Standards Regulations 2011.
4. Neglecting an animal by denying her sufficient food, water, shelter and exercise or by keeping
him chained for long hours in punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 3 months or both.
Section 11(1) (h), PCA Act 1960.
5. Monkeys are protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and cannot be owned.
6. Bears, monkeys, tigers, lions, panthers and bulls are prohibited from being trained and used
for entertainment purposes. Section 22(ii), PCA Act 1960.
7. Organizing of or participating in any animal fight is a major offence. Section 11(i) (m, n), PCA
Act 1960. 8. Use of cosmetics on animals is banned. Rules 148-C and 135-B of Drugs and
Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
9. Teasing feeding or disturbing the animals in zoo is an offence punishable by a fine of Rs.
25000 or imprisonment of up to 3 years or both. Section 38J, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
10. Capturing, trapping, poisoning or baiting of any wild animal or even attempting to do so is
punishable by law. Section 9, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
11. Under the same act it is an offence to disturb, destroy eggs or nests of birds. 12. Conveying
or carrying animals whether in or upon any vehicle is an offence if it causes discomfort, pain or
suffering. Section 11 (1) (d) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Transport of Animals Rules, 2001
and Motor Vehicles Act 1978 (Humane Society International, India, Feb 19, 2016).
Rather than having a healthy debate, the masses gathered at Marina beach in January 2017 put
the law and order at stake increasing the possibility of an aggressive protest turning into a violent
one.
 4. https://3fdef50c-add3-4615-a675-a91741bcb5c0.usrfiles.com/ugd/
3fdef5_8779fb0120b8406bb8602bb497a080d6.pdf- LOOKING OVER THE
PRACTICES OF ‘JALLIKATTU, KAMBALA & BULLOCK-CART RACES’: A DEEP
ANALYSIS OF ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA V. UNION OF INDIA
This case follows a series of events right from 2014 where in one case named ‘Animal Welfare
Board of India v Nagarajan & ors.’ where Hon’ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on the such
practices on the grounds that these practices amounts to animal cruelty. But in the recent
judgment the constitutional bench of five judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld these practice
as valid and practicable, subject to the amendments made to Prevention of cruelty of Animals,
2017 by the concerned states because these practices forms a vital part of cultural heritage of
Tamil Nadu for over 2000 years. The major concern is to justify the re-continuance of such
practices which are detrimental to animal rights.

STATUTES INVOLVED – Art. 14, 21 and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India; Section 3, 11(1)
(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of
Jallikattu) Rules of 2017

TIMELINE OF EVENTS 1. A report suggesting that Jallikattu is a practice which does not treat
animals with compassion and amounts to animal cruelty under the provisions of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. This report was submitted by Animal Welfare Board of India.
2. In 2006, a suit was instituted in Madras High Court against this practice and in the valuable
decision the court imposed a ban on this practice throughout the state.
3. In 2009, Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act was passed by the state government to
bypass the ban imposed by court.
4. Amidst this ongoing debate, in 2011 Parliament has tried to again stop this practice by
including bulls in the category of animals whose training and exhibition was prohibited but the
same was revoked by Environment Ministry in 2016.
5. In 2014, in a case Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & ors. a petition on the same
lines to prevent the practices of Jallikattu, Kambala and bullock cart races in their respective
areas was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble bench of the Supreme
Court landed to the decision that Jallikattu do amount to animal cruelty to bulls and is violative
of statutes involved so it is liable to be banned.
6. Tamil Nadu state govt. was determined to rejuvenate Jallikattu and keep it going so for that
the government filed a review petition against the above-mentioned judgment which was
dismissed. So, in 2017 the state government of Tamil Nadu passed Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of
Jallikattu) Rules which are aimed to prevent the application of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act 1960 to Jallikattu.
7. In February 2018, Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme court referred the case to the
constitutional Bench to address the challenge made by Animal Welfare Board of India and PETA
to the validity of amendment act and rules of 2017 in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v.
Union of India.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the case of Ajay Marathe vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Others before the High Court of Bombay, challenging the rules proposed by State of
Maharashtra in 2017 for permitting bullock-cart races and Court restrained these races but the
same was opposed by an agriculturist farmer named Vikramsinh Nivrutti Bhosale by instituting
special leave petition. So in the backdrop of the case, the court decided to hear the issues of
Jallikattu of Tamil Nadu, Kambala of Karnataka and Bullock cart races of Maharasthra
combinely and Division Bench of the Supreme Court framed following legal questions to be
dealt by Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court;
 5. http://languageinindia.com/jan2021/v21i1jan2021.pdf#page=140
Jallikattu has been practised for thousands of years in Tamil Nadu and it had been referred to in
Sangam literature. Historical references indicate that this sport was popular among warriors
during the Tamil classical period. ’ Jallikattu is believed to be a tradition practiced since at least
last 2,500 years. There were references of people enjoying witnessing and participating in
Jallikattu in Silappatikaaram written by Ilango Adigal which was one of the five great epics of
Tamil literature. The harvest festival Pongal includes a number of social, cultural and traditional
events and one of the traditional sport events was Jallikattu. In Tamil Nadu, the traditional
Jallikattu sport festival involving young men competing against bulls is described as one of the
ancient living sports in the modern era.
Court Interference against Jallikattu:
A single-judge Bench of the Madras High Court on 29th March 2006 directed the Tamil Nadu
government to ban Jallikattu which, according to the Bench, involved cruelty to animals, by
implementing the provisions of Preventing Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), 1950. Also many
cases were filed against as well as in favour of Jallikattu. In the year 2007 on March 9 Justice
Banumathi issued the order to perform Jallikattu with certain restrictions and norms. On 12th
January 2008, the Apex court refused permission to conduct Jallikattu but granted permission for
Rekla race.

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act of 2009) The court banned the
Jallikattu in January 2008, therefore, the Tamil Nadu government under the Chief Minister M
Karunanidhi passed the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act in 2009. This ‘Tamil Nadu
Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009’ regulated the conduct of Jallikattu with the introduction of
restriction in holding such events to safeguard animals, participants and the spectators (10) . This
act also describes the procedures, venue, registration of bulls, and tamers and so on
(In the year 2011, PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a petition against
conducting Jallikattu in the Supreme Court of India challenging the Regulation of Jallikattu Act,
2009 to ban the Jallikattu, with report and evidence of photographs and video. The Supreme
Court of India passed final judgment on 7th May 2014 banning the Jallikattu on the ground of
animal cruelty. After this verdict, Jallikattu could not be conducted in 2015 and 2016.

Tamil Nadu Students and Youth Protest for Jallikattu

The Supreme Court of India banned the Jallikattu from 2014 onwards. The Centre issued special
notification on 8th January 2016 to perform Jallikattu with certain conditions. But the Supreme
Court of India stayed this notification on 12th January 2016. Therefore, the government of Tamil
Nadu didn’t permit the performance of Jallikattu in the consecutive years in 2015, 2016 and
2017. At the same time, the students and people of Tamil Nadu felt that it was an attack on Tamil
culture and pride. At the Marina beach, Chennai, thousands of students from various colleges in
the city assembled to hold a massive, non-violence and spontaneous protest. Everyone became a
volunteer, a protester, a leader, and everyone got a chance to address in the crowd to save their
old tradition. Many people felt that it was a threat to their Tamil identity. When they impose
nationalism, they felt that Tamils have a strong regional identity too. The matter also reached the
High Court of Madras, but it refused to intervene, pointing out that neither the Supreme Court
nor the State government had the powers to do intervene in a matter.
Jallikattu Bill, 2017 Passed Unanimously
the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was conducted a special meeting for bill amendment. The
Bill was introduced by the Chief Minister O. Paneerselvam and was whole heartedly welcomed
by M. K. Stalin, the leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, and Jallikattu
amendment bill, 2017 was passed unanimously on 23rd January 2017 (15-17) by saving the
culture and tradition of Tamil Nadu.

The bull taming sports festival “Jallikattu” was a part of Tamil culture and it was an age old
tradition, and it was saved and practiced/played for everyone to remember their tradition and
traditional value. Today, the ancient tradition of Jallikattu has been saved. Thanks to all the
students of Tamil Nadu who took part in the agitation against the Supreme Court order to save
the Jallikattu sports festival in Marina and other places. Tamil identity has been recognized by
the entire world by enjoying the Tamilian sports festival Jallikattu through YouTube, etc
6. Jallikattu – Animal Abuse or Culture?
7. Article 48A of the Constitution of India, 1949 lay out that the State shall attempt to
protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 proffers protection against the
cruelty and ill-treatment to the animals. The harvest festival Pongal in the Southern
State of Tamil Nadu in India append a number of social and cultural events. One of
them is a sporting event called, Jallikattu encourage hold onto a bull as it runs through the
pathway of an arena.
With increasing demands to validate cultural practices made from various States in India and
particularly of outlawed sports, it is important to find a fine balance between preservation of
cultural identities whilst maintaining the humane treatment of animals.
History of Jallikattu
Jallikattu or Sallikattu (Eruthazhuvuthal 'embracing a bull') is a traditional sport played in many
districts of Tamil Nadu during the celebration of the harvest festival of Pongal, usually on the
third day of the festival known as Mattu Pongal. It is said to symbolise and celebrate the native
indigenous life of the villages in the state of Tamil Nadu. The history of this sport is said to be
traced as far back as the Tamil Classic Period (400-100 BC). A seal discovered at Mohenjodaro
shows bull-taming and is said to be a reference to Jallikattu. In Silappatikaaram which is one of
the five great epics of Tamil literature, there are references to people participating in this sport.
Other ancient literary works like Kalithogai and Malaipadukadaam also have similar references.
For the famers participating this is not some sport of mere leisure. It is their chance to display not
only their personal strength but also the strength of the bulls and their skills and taking great care
of them in order to breed such powerful cattle. Moreover, it was also considered a ceremony to
select a groom i.e. whoever managed to tame the bull would marry the daughter of its owner.

Background of the Issue

The controversy surrounding the sport of Jallikattu began the enactment of the Tamil Nadu
Regulation of Jallikattu Act of 2009 which was followed by a notification issued by the Ministry
of Environment and Forest (MOEF) on 11 July, 2011 banning use of various animals including
bulls as performing animals. A series cases were filed challenging both the Act and the
Notification which were then comprehensively decided by the Supreme Court of India in Animal
Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 where the Court struck down
the Tamil Nadu Regulation of JallikattuAct of 2009, as repugnant to the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 and unconstitutional and violative of the 2011 MOEF notification. Hence, a
ban was imposed on this sport. The judgment largely relied on tenets of the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act (PCA) terming it a welfare legislation.
But given the public furore in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Central Government through MOEF
issued a subsequent notification on 6 January 2016 that permitted the use of bulls as performing
animals. It also set certain safety measures that had to be maintained but in effect permitted the
sport of Jallikattu. The notification stated that“bulls may continue to be exhibited or trained as a
performing animal, at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bullock cart races in
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat in the manner by the customs of
any community or practiced traditionally under the customs or as part of culture.” This
Notification was challenged by the Animal Welfare Board of India, People for Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PETA) and other organizations. Contempt petitions were also filed arguing that the
notification violates the ban imposed by the Supreme Court in 2014. Since the Supreme Court
imposed a stay on the 2016 Notification and refused to lift the ban on the sport, mass protests
erupted in the state of Tamil Nadu in January 2017 around the time of the Pongal festival.

Amidst this, while the case was sub judice, the Governor of Tamil Nadu in January 2017
promulgated an ordinance for conducting the sport to which the President gave his assent. It was
titled the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 and
sought to amend the PCA Act on which the Supreme Court had relied in its 2014 judgment. It
was said to be promulgated with a view to ensuring survival and well-being of the native breed
of bulls and preserving cultural traditions of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, the Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries Department of Tamil Nadu Government framed Tamil Nadu Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules, 2017. Eventually, the Central Government
withdrew its earlier notification on 7 January 2016. Hence, the Petitioners in the pending cases
filed against the (now withdrawn) Notification were permitted to amend their prayers and
pleadings and the Supreme Court

Legal Framework for Protection of Cultural Rights in India and under International
Covenants
The Constitution of India provides for protection of cultural rights (Article 29) and also places
obligation on the State to organise animal husbandry (Article 48) which includes taking steps to
preserve and improve breeds and protect draught cattle.
Entry 17 of the Concurrent List of Seventh Schedule empowers both the Centre and the States to
make laws to prevent cruelty to animals and a maze of laws have been legislated including the
model legislation being the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960.

Further, the General Comment 21 on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966 of which India is a party, clearly outlines culture as a broad and
inclusive concept.
Article 15 of the ICESCR states that '…Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of
everyone …to take part in cultural life…to achieve the full realization of this right include those
necessary for the conservation […] of culture.' The Committee considers that culture under
Article 15 (1) (a), encompasses, inter alia, ways of life, language, oral and written literature,
music and song, non-verbal communication, religion or belief systems, rites and ceremonies,
sport and games, methods of production or technology, natural and man-made environments,
food, clothing and shelter and the arts, customs and traditions through which individuals, groups
of individuals and communities express their humanity and the meaning they give to their
existence, and build their world view representing their encounter with the external forces
affecting their lives.
Preserving Cultural Rights in India: Lessons from Jallikattu
While the Constitution of India enshrines under Article 51-A a fundamental duty on all citizens
to 'value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture', it also emphasizes on the need
'to have compassion for living creatures'. Such constitutional compasses are seldom recalled in
the ugly mire of public debates. While regulation of such age-old cultural events is certainly
needed given our constant strive as a civilization towards ascription to more humane values
towards all 'living creatures', however, such regulations must not be at the cost of completely
obscuring such 'cultural survivals' like jallikattu. While cultural survivals are often
misunderstood and misused, they represent unique ways in which communities assert their right
to self-determination of charting their futures and ensuring their social integrity.
The Indian legislature had passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to build an
animal welfare regulatory framework. The Act is responsible for preventing unnecessary pain or
suffering to animals. It also governs and penalizes animal cruelty in any form. The government
established the Animal Welfare Board of India in 1962 by exercising its powers under Section
4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The board is responsible for implementing
animal welfare laws and assisting Animal Welfare Organizations in the country. The AWBI
guides the Union and State governments on animal welfare issues. Recently, the AWBI through
a circular dated June 20, 2018, has directed statutory authorities to take all precautionary
measures to implement animal welfare laws to prevent illegal sacrificing of animals on occasions
like Bali Pratha, Bakrid, etc. The subject of animal rights is mentioned both in the State and
the Concurrent List of the Constitution. Therefore, the Union and the State government have
legislative powers on the issue of animal rights. The freedom of religion granted under Article
25 of the Indian Constitution is not an absolute right and the courts have emphasized that the
practice of animal sacrifice under the garb of religious freedom must be restricted. The judiciary
can impose reasonable restrictions under Article 25(1) which might extend to a complete ban on
the slaughter of animals in places of worship when such actions violate the principles of
morality, public order and health.
In the case of the Durgah Committee, Ajmer and Anr v. Syed Hussain Ali and Ors (1961), the
Supreme Court has held that religious practices based on mere superstitions and are extraneous
or unnecessary cannot be protected under Article 25. The protection can be granted only to those
essential practices that form an integral part of a religion. This doctrine of essentiality of
religious practices was borrowed from the judgment in the Shri Shirur Mutt case (1954).
In Ramesh Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), the Court held that the ritual of animal
sacrifice in Hinduism is based on age-old customs and superstitions which cannot be allowed
under the current legal framework. Similarly in the case of Mohd. Hanif Qureshi and Ors v. the
State of Bihar (1958), the Court has held that animal sacrifices on Bakr-Id are not an “obligatory
overt act” for followers of Islam. Therefore, banning the slaughter of animals for religious
festivals does not violate any fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25. However, a
judicial impact assessment pointed out that a nationwide ban on the slaughter of bovine animals
would place a heavy economic burden on the communities dealing with such activities. Hence,
although a state government may be allowed to restrict the killing of bovine animals within its
territorial jurisdiction, the imposition of such a blanket ban on the entire country has been
discouraged.
Gauri Maulekhi v. the State of Uttarakhand (2018), the High Court of Uttarakhand drew a
connection with Section 11(3)(e) of the aforementioned Act. The Court held that while the
legislation does not include ritualistic animal sacrifice within the ambit of animal cruelty, the
sacrificing of animals even for religious purposes can only be allowed on the grounds of
providing food to mankind and not to appease deities. The law mandates that even if the animals
are killed in pursuance of religious activities it must be done without causing unnecessary pain or
suffering to the animal.
The Kerala High Court in the case of N.R. Nair v. Union of India (2001), had deliberated on the
question of extending the fundamental rights to animals and stressed the need to enlarge the
scope of legal rights to non-human living entities. However, the Supreme Court gave a landmark
judgment in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja (2014), by banning the
bullfighting festival called “Jallikattu” in Tamil Nadu.

The decision by the Apex Court championed the cause of animal welfare rights in India and
included animals within the ambit of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. The court adopted a dynamic interpretation of the statutory provisions in the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 which enumerated animal rights like the right to live
in a healthy and clean environment and the right to be treated fairly. The Court held that the
legislative intent of the aforementioned Act was to provide the right to live with “dignity and
honour” to animals. It has been accepted that animals have intrinsic worth and cannot be treated
as mere objects for human use or abuse. In the case of Karnail Singh v. the State of Haryana
(2019), the Court has inculcated the animal kingdom within the notion of a legal person. The
court mandates that every citizen should act as guardians or “loco parentis” to ensure the welfare
and protection of the animals. However, the judgments fail to provide clarity on the legal
obligations that must be incurred by the citizens if there is a violation of rights and duties.

Section 11(1) in The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

(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
(n) 18 [***] organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any place for animal fighting or
for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives
money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes

Section 428 and Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 penalizes actions of cruelty against
animals of PCA,Act 1960

The concept of Constitutional compassion

The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution gave birth to the concept of “Fundamental Duties” in
India. The primary intention behind the imposition of such moral obligations was to build a
virtuous and honourable society and nurture the educative, ethical and cultural code of conduct
to be followed by every citizen. One of these duties is to protect and improve the natural
environment which includes the duty to show compassion towards other living beings. This
Ambedkarite idea of Constitutional compassion enshrined in Article 51A(h) is based on the
belief that animals are sentient beings with their inherent value and should not be treated as
property by mankind.

The idea of Constitutional compassion ushers in an era of scientific temper, humanism and
reformation of age-old customs and superstitions shrouded in ignorance and blind faith. In the
case of N. Adhithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors (2002), the Apex Court held that
traditions based on practices prevalent in historic times and ignorant superstitions cannot be a
source of law. The Supreme Court, while deliberating on the case of Subhash Bhattacharjee v.
the State of Tripura (2019), upheld the importance of promoting scientific temper among the
citizens while validating the ban on animal sacrifices in Hindu temples of Tripura.
t is the duty of every Indian citizen to protect animal life and environment.” Cruelty to animals is done in different ways, especially to stray dogs, draught animals,
and wild animals. Some of the crimes committed against animals are murder, kicking, poisoning, torturing, smothering, maiming, attacking with sticks, burning
them alive, stone pelting, sexual harassment or rape, and putting them in plastic bags.

Preventing Animal Cruelty using Law

Constitution of India
In Indian Constitution, animal rights are recognized under Article 48 and Article 51 (A)(g).

Article 48 of the Constitution of India states that “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.”

Article 51 (a)(g) of the Constitution of India states that “It is the duty of every Indian citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC ensure punishment for killing or maiming animals. Under Section 428 of IPC, “Whoever commits mischief by poisoning,
rendering, killing, or maiming any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees or more should be punished with imprisonment for a term extending to two years, or
with fine or with both.” On the other hand, Section 429 of IPC states that “Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering any animal or
animals of the value of fifty rupees or more should be punished with imprisonment for a term extending to five years, or with fine, or with both.”

Also Read: Supreme Court Updates

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

On December 26, 1960, the Parliament passed the Prevention of cruelty to animal Act with the motive “to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to
animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals.” The provision of this Act allows law enforcement agencies, citizens
(animal lovers), and animal welfare workers to take action against the culprit's cruelty toward animals. In addition, the Act provides guidelines for the establishment
of an Animal Welfare Board as well as regarding the experimentation on animals to test medicines or any other scientific research. All acts of cruelty are
mentioned in Section 11 of the Prevention of cruelty to animals Act, which is further divided into 16 sub-sections from Section 11(1)(a) to Section 11(1)(o) dealing
with various forms of cruelty on both domestic and wild animals.

Animal Welfare Board

In order to protect animals from unnecessary pain and suffering, Animal Welfare Board is introduced which is a statutory advisory body that promotes animal
welfare in the country. They also encourage animal shelters, rescue homes, and financial assistance for old animals.

CPCSEA (Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals). It is a statutory committee bound to undergo all the measures
required to ensure that animals are not subjected to any pain before, during, or after the experiments on them.

Authorities to reach for complaining against animal cruelty

Animal cruelty complaints can directly be reported to nearby police stations, senior Government officials at the State or District Animal Welfare Board, the Society
for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCA), and the MLA of that particular area. Moreover, the complainant can also reach NGOs such as People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which will guide them to take appropriate measures to stand against animal cruelty.

Conclusion
In a nutshell, it has been determined that there are various Acts and rules identified in the law for preventing animal cruelty but the main question arises regarding
the cruelty done on the basis of religious sacrifice. As per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market) Rules, 2017, sacrificing any
purchased animal for religious purposes is an offence and is against the law. Despite this, there are various cases related to the slaughtering of animals for
religious purposes that are unanswered. In ancient Indian scriptures, it has been mentioned that animals should be respected and treated as living beings because
they are also capable of feeling love and devotion.

“The State in India if it claims to be secular, it should have an open mind and in my opinion a right not
merely to regulate and restrict such practices but absolutely to prohibit them.”5 Here Prof. Shah had the
opinion that State should prohibit such practices which are against the society. He was of the opinion
that State should interfere in the practice of religion.
 The Supreme Court has taken the help of Adelaide Company vs. Commonwealth23 to understand the
definition of protection of religion in Indian context and said Article 25 (2)(b) of constitution of india
make competent the State to legislate for social welfare and reform even though by so doing it might
interfere with religious practices”.