VOL.

2 ISSUE 4 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

CASE COMMENT: ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ANR. V. UNION

Alsafa Ummer*

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23 OF 2016, 18TH MAY 2023

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BENCH: K.M. JOSEPH; J., AJAY RASTOGI; J. ANIRUDDHA BOSE; J., HRISHIKESH
ROY; J., C.T. RAVIKUMAR; J.,

INTRODUCTION

Jallikattu is considered one of the oldest sports still practised in the modern era and is held
during the Tamil harvest festival of Pongal. Over the years, scores of people have been gored
or trampled to death in the contests1. The practice was first banned by a single bench of the
Madras High Court in 2006 after a young spectator was killed by a bull. There was widespread
protest against the ban and there were popular sentiments of public opinion in favour of
restoration and revival of Jallikattu. The protest was mainly because of its cultural significance
in the minds of people. The legislature had to strike a balance between cultural practices,
people's spirit, and animal welfare and thus they legislated in favour of this practice. The
Supreme Court of India provided a judgment that not only protects Jallikattu which is
conducted in Tamil Nadu but also the State of Karnataka and Maharashtra.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On the 7th of May, 2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India outlawed two common sports
practices in the states of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra popularly referred to as ‘Jallikattu’ and
‘Bullock Cart Race’, respectively. Subsequently, on 7th of January, 2016, a notification was
issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) which
prohibited the exhibition or training of bulls as performing animals. However, an exception
was carved and it was specified in this notification that bulls might continue to be trained as
performing animals at events such as Jallikattu, etc. A batch of writ petitions were instituted

*
LLM, SECOND YEAR, SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, CUSAT.
1
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42714543.amp

www.jlrjs.com 1221
VOL. 2 ISSUE 4 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

before the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India questioning the legality of the said
notification. However, while the petitions were pending, the Tamil Nadu Government passed
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act) in January 2017, which
permitted the Jallikattu and issued certain rules to govern the practice. Many organizations filed
writ petitions seeking directions from the Supreme Court to quash the said Amendment Act.
On February 2nd, 2018, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court referred this batch of writ
petitions to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

ISSUES

1. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017 contrary to the legislative intention behind the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?

2. Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act conflicts with Entry 17 of the Concurrent List of
the Constitution of India, by perpetuating cruelty to animals.

3. Whether the sport of Jallikattu is entitled to be protected under Article 29 of the Constitution
of India.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The Prevention of Cruelty Act has been enacted to prevent the inflection of unnecessary pain
or suffering on animals. The Amendment Act cannot be said to conflict with the Central Act
as it is possible to have a state law suitable to local circumstances against a contrary central
law on a matter if it is involved in a concurrent list and the state obtains the president’s assent
under Article 254(2). Then the state law would continue to operate in that particular state, and
overrule the application of the central act in that particular state only. It happened with this
Amendment Act. The State Government amended the law to cater to the needs of the state and
it got the assent of the president. Thus it is not contrary to the legislative intention behind the
1960 Act.

In reality, there is not any legislation that fully protects or confers rights to animals including
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, of 1960. Prevention of Cruelty Act can be said to
be vague in many aspects. There is no definition mentioned in it for ‘‘cruelty” and “unnecessary
pain and suffering”. So, we determine it according to the needs of humans as the Act itself
contains various provisions in support of killing and treating animals cruelly. They are not

www.jlrjs.com 1222
VOL. 2 ISSUE 4 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

conferred with fundamental rights or statutory rights under the Constitution. If they are
conferred with such rights, we have to provide remedy and that would cause serious problems.
If so, we may no longer be able to keep them as pet animals because they have their natural
ecosystem. So conferring them with rights is not practical. It was not even given by the
constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraja 2.

Any law will have the support of people and be followed by people only if it is related to the
morality of people. We have seen that from the 2014 ban on jallikattu, the Tamil Nadu
legislative assembly, with consensus, unanimously passed a resolution against the ban and
requested the Centre to help overcome the 2014 decision on the ban. The decision of the
Supreme Court to ban jallikattu in Nagaraja cities various cruelties inflicted on bulls, which
caused them to decide that Jallikattu Regulation Act,2009 is void and contrary to the 1960 Act.
How jallikattu was conducted was the problem noted by the court in Nagaraja and not the
practice of jallikattu. But if it is done as per the Amendment Act and rules of 2017, by avoiding
such cruelties, it cannot be held contrary to the parent Act and there is no conflict.

Rules on Jallikattu are in line with entry 17 of the concurrent list. Bulls are trained for this
tradition. They are very strong and well-maintained. Nobody is using any kind of weapon,
unlike in Spanish bullfighting, where bulls are killed. Entry 17 provides for the prevention of
cruelty to animals. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules, 2017
contains various procedures for the conduct of Jallikattu, which ensure that no unnecessary
pain or suffering is done to animals. The act itself recognized ownership of animals by
individuals and his or her rights to employ animals for sports under Chapter 5 Sections 21 to
27.

Section 11 uses the word unnecessary pain or suffering, which should be interpreted to mean
not any kind of cruelty but extreme cruelty. After all, some cruelty is always done to animals.
Jallikattu is done not just for entertainment. It fosters the spirit of sports, competition, and
following tradition. At no point in time bulls are seen apart from cultural significance. If they
are banned, then this specific breed of bull itself will become extinct in the future. If not allowed
to participate in jallikattu, people would be reluctant to look after bulls. The bulls that could be
tamed are considered weaker and are used for domestic purposes by the farmers and the
untameable ones, considered the strongest and virile, are used for breeding cows. That is

2
(2014) 7 SCC 547]

www.jlrjs.com 1223
VOL. 2 ISSUE 4 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

another reason why we still see bulls.

The Prevention of Cruelty Act has been enacted to prevent the inflection of unnecessary pain
or suffering on animals. The Amendment Act cannot be said to conflict with the Central Act
as it is possible to have a state law suitable to local circumstances against a contrary central
law on a matter if it is involved in a concurrent list and the state obtains the president’s assent
under Article 254(2). Then the state law would continue to operate in that particular state, and
overrule the application of the central act in that particular state only. It happened with this
Amendment Act. The State Government amended the law to cater to the needs of the state and
it got the assent of the president. Thus it is not contrary to the legislative intention behind the
1960 Act.

Section 11(3) of the 1960 Act 3 under exceptions legalize killing animals for food. There are so
many alternatives for meat but we still kill animals for food. Everything is for the convenience
of people. The government determines what is cruelty and what constitutes cruelty. For
example: under The Performing Animals (Registration Rules) 2001, Horse racing is allowed,
even though some amount of pain and suffering is caused to horses, like using a whip consented
for a certain number of lashes. Governments through laws determine the standard for this and
this setting of standard changes with society. Animals are not human beings, what may be
cruelty to a human cannot always be regarded as cruelty to animals. The new Regime seeks to
prevent cruelty and not perpetuate cruelty. Entry 17 provides prevention of cruelty to animals
and the same entry 17 allows exceptions to treating them cruelly.1960 Act was enacted under
entry 17 and it is valid. Thus the State Amendment Act is also entitled to enact exemptions and
is not in conflict with entry 17.

Art 29(1) provides that anyone with a distinct language, script, and culture to his own has the
right to preserve it. India is a very diverse country that should give rise to the use of Article 29
of the constitution. The Preamble of the Amendment Act provides that the amendment is to
preserve the cultural heritage of the state of Tamilnadu and to ensure the survival and well-
being of native breeds of Bulls.

Jallikattu is an ancient bull-taming sport that dates back to more than 400 years. It has long
been a symbol of pride and heritage for the people of Tamil Nadu. It is a bull-taming sport
which has got many significances. Bulls help in ploughing, insemination, and making new

3
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

www.jlrjs.com 1224
VOL. 2 ISSUE 4 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

breeds. Some districts of Tamil Nadu like Madurai, Theni, Puducherry, and Dindigul are
famously called Jallikattu belt. The Tamil Nadu government always holds the opinion that
jallikattu is a religious and cultural festival that bears religious significance. We have a federal
constitution, which means catering to regional aspirations and respecting the culture of
different people in India. The customs and usage of a particular community can be made as
enacted by the appropriate legislature. Jallikattu as a custom is recognized by its people and
state legislature, thus it is protected under Article 29. If it is a cultural practice, it is deemed to
be protected. In the case of TMA V State of Karnataka 4 The court held that there is a need
for provisions that help minority groups preserve the uniqueness of their distinct culture and
script to preserve what distinguishes them from other groups.

In this case, jallikattu is a cultural practice and it is protected under 29. Whether it is custom or
not requires going through the culture, practice, and spirit of people. The court should
emphasize the importance of preventing cruelty to animals and have to strike a balance between
cultural practice and animal welfare legislation.

CONCLUSION

Madras High Court through many cases has ruled in favour of jallikattu. In the case of
E.Sheshan V The secretary (2021)5 The Madras High Court held that only native breeds of
bulls can participate in jallikattu as the preservation of the breed is the objective of the
Amendment Act. Animals are always used for the pleasure and convenience of human beings.
If we take environmental law, it is not entirely for protecting the environment but to legalize
the destruction of the environment by human beings. To protect our Right to Live in a pollution-
free Environment. It is the same with the Prevention of Cruelty Act. It is incorporated for
human beings to conveniently do cruelty towards animals. If Jallikattu is a part of Tamil
culture, it has to be conducted by protecting both animals and human beings. It should be
properly regulated by Amendment Act and Rules. Age-old traditions and cultures need to be
protected and so do the Animals.

4
Writ Petition 317 of 1993
5
W.P.No.2999 of 2020

www.jlrjs.com 1225
VOL. 2 ISSUE 4 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

REFERENCES

The Constitution of India, 1950.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, (“Tamil Nadu
Amendment Act”).

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8 th, Wadhwa Nagpur 2005)

https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/Concurrent%20Power%20of%20Legislation%20
under%20List%20III%20of%20the%20Indian%20Constitution.pdf

(May,2023) . https://www.drishtiias.com/current-affairs-news-analysis-editorials/news-
editorials/2023-05-22.

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-964-the-doctrine-of-repugnancy-in-the-
indian-constitution.html.

https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/supreme-court-reserves-verdict-on-pleas-challenging-
laws-permitting-jallikattu-2307039-2022-12-09.

-https://www.deccanherald.com/national/south/supreme-court-questions-tn-on-necessity-of -
jallikattu-to-preserve-native-bull-breed-1167493.html.

-https://thewire.in/law/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-the-governments-permission-for-
jallikattu#:~:text=notification%20of%202011%20under%20section,permitted%2C%20but%
20 with%20some%20 conditions.

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42714543.amp

www.jlrjs.com 1226