When a division bench of the Supreme Court outlawed Jallikattu and bullock cart races in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra respectively in 2014, and later stayed a Union authorities order in 2016 to allow them, it led to an enormous uproar in Tamil Nadu, resulting in street protests.

On Thursday, May 18, the court docket turned a full circle with a five-judge structure bench approving the amendments launched in 2017 by the states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka within the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which successfully overturned the 2014 judgment.

In 2014, the Supreme Court’s division bench within the case of Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja and others held Jallikattu and bullock cart races to be opposite to Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act, enacted by Parliament. The bench had construed the provisions of the Act within the backdrop of Article 51-A (g) and (h) as additionally Articles 14 and 21 of the structure.

In 2014, Jallikattu was regulated by the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009.  The bench held this Act to be repugnant to the provisions of the 1960 Act and to be void, having regard to Article 254(1) of the structure.

On January 7, 2016, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) which prohibited the exhibition or coaching of bulls as performing animals.  However, an exception was carved and it was specified that bulls is perhaps continued to be educated as performing animals at occasions comparable to Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and for bullock cart races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat in accordance with customs or tradition in any a part of the nation.

In Karnataka, the race concerned male buffaloes, generally known as “Kambala”. This exception was made topic to sure situations in search of to cut back the ache and struggling of bulls whereas being utilized in such sports activities.

Meanwhile, in 2017, the three state modification Acts acquired Presidential assent. These amendments sought to legitimise varied kinds of bovine sports activities together with Jallikattu, bullock cart race and Kambala.

Regulation of sports activities

Due to contemporary challenges to the constitutionality of those Acts, the Supreme Court’s division bench, in 2018, referred 5 inquiries to be answered by a structure bench.

After the modification Acts acquired presidential assent, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka formulated the required guidelines to implement the Acts.  The Supreme Court discovered that these Rules rigidly regulate the conduct of bovine sports activities. They stipulate the style through which such races may very well be carried out with specs for the size of the monitor, relaxation interval and isolation of the monitor from most people.

The Tamil Nadu Rules particularly present for the examination of bulls, with specs for the sector, bull assortment yard and organising of spectators’ gallery. These devices in substance prohibit inflicting any bodily disturbance to the bulls like beating and poking them with sharp objects or sticks, pouring chilli powder of their eyes and twisting their tails amongst different such pain-inflicting acts.

The petitioners argued that even after the state amendments, the actions sought to be legitimised nonetheless stay harmful and opposite to the provisions of Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.

The three state modification acts enacted in 2017 search to legitimise varied kinds of bovine sports activities together with Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, bullock cart races in Maharashtra and Kambala in Karnataka. The presidential assent was sought by the three states when it comes to Article 254(2) of the structure. 

Amendment statutes are relatable to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, which offers with prevention of cruelty to animals. 

Pain-inflicting practices diluted

The bench expressed its satisfaction that the massive a part of pain-inflicting practices, as they prevailed within the method these three sports activities had been carried out within the pre-amendment interval, have been considerably diluted by the introduction of those statutory devices. 

“We cannot proceed in the exercise of our judicial power on the assumption that a law ought to be struck down on apprehension of its abuse or disobedience,” the bench reasoned.

“All three bovine sports, after amendment, assume a different character in their performance and practice and for these reasons, we do not accept the petitioners’ argument that the Amendment Acts were merely a piece of colourable legislation with cosmetic change to override judicial pronouncement,” the bench added. 

“We decline to hold that just because bulls lack the natural ability to run like a horse, the subject-sports which are seasonally held shall be held to be contrary to the provisions of the 1960 Act,” the bench held.  

The respondents argued that the bulls used are specifically bred and have the pure potential to run. 

No basic rights for animals

The petitioners submitted that the expression “person” as utilized in Article 21 of the structure consists of sentient animals and their liberty is sought to be curtailed by legitimising the aforesaid bovine sports activities.  They alleged that the instrument of such legitimisation, the three modification Acts, is unreasonable and arbitrary, thereby not assembly the usual of Article 14 of the structure.  

The petitioners argued that the Fundamental Duty of Indian residents to have compassion for residing creatures and to develop humanism resulted in corresponding rights for sentient animals to be protected against misery and ache inflicting actions solely having leisure worth for human beings. 

The structure doesn’t recognise any Fundamental Rights for animals, the bench dominated. Agreeing with the respondents, the bench held that the rights of sentient animals could be recognised by regulation, however such rights can be in a nature as decided by the suitable law-making physique and never by judicial interpretation. 

“We have our doubt as to whether detaining a stray bull from the street against its wish could give rise to the constitutional writ of habeas corpus or not,” the bench noticed. 

The bench agreed with the petitioners that in 2014, the style through which Jallikattu was carried out did breach the provisions of the 1960 Act, and therefore conducting such sports activities was discovered impermissible. But that place of regulation has modified now, and the modification Acts have launched a brand new regime for conducting these occasions, the bench held. 

Therefore, the bench disagreed with the petitioners that the Acts had been merely a chunk of colourable laws with beauty modifications to override judicial pronouncement. 

In pith and substance, the Amendment Acts search to handle the query of prevention of cruelty to animals, underneath Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, the bench held. Therefore, the bench rejected the rivalry that the state legislatures inherently lacked jurisdiction to deliver these amendments, which subsequently acquired presidential assent. The bench held that the modification Act isn’t relatable to Article 48 of the structure, coping with the organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry on fashionable and scientific traces.

The bench clarified that its jurisdiction doesn’t lengthen to offering absolute safety to the animals from any method of infliction of ache and struggling. What the broad theme of the 1960 Act is that animals have to be protected against pointless ache and struggling, it identified. 

The court docket additionally held that whether or not Jallikattu is an integral a part of Tamil tradition or not can’t be answered by the judiciary. It conceded that it’s a debatable challenge whether or not the Tamil Nadu Act is to protect the cultural heritage of the state, because it claims. This debate must be concluded within the legislature, it stated and added that it can’t be conclusively decided within the writ proceedings.  

But the bench clearly expressed its disagreement with the judgment in A. Nagaraja that Jallikattu isn’t part of the cultural heritage of the state. The bench, nonetheless, agreed that if a cultural custom offends the regulation, the penal consequence would comply with. 

The bench directed that the regulation contained within the Act/Rules/Notification shall be strictly enforced by the authorities.