The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the validity of legal guidelines handed by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka to permit the bull-taming sport Jallikattu, bullock-cart races and buffalo racing sport Kambala of their respective areas, saying they’re “valid legislations”.

In a unanimous verdict, a five-judge structure bench headed by Justice KM Joseph famous that The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017 have been enacted by the respective state legislatures and had obtained presidential assent.

The high court docket in 2014 had banned these sports activities holding them to be violative of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, (PCA), 1960.

While the 2014 judgment was by a two-judge bench, the current resolution by five-judge bench unanimously held that the three legal guidelines weren’t “colourable legislations” however legitimate piece of legal guidelines as extra safeguards launched by these amendments minimised cruelty triggered to animals.

Jallikattu, additionally recognized eruthazhuvuthal, is a sport performed in Tamil Nadu as a part of the Pongal harvest pageant. The Kambala race, held in Karnataka between November and March, includes a pair of buffaloes tied to a plough and anchored by one particular person.

The bench mentioned Jallikattu is a sort of bovine sport and “we are satisfied on the basis of materials disclosed before us, that it is going on in the state of Tamil Nadu for at least last few centuries”.

The legal guidelines have been declared to be constitutional and never violative of Article 21 (proper to life and liberty), Article 14 (proper to equality) and basic duties below Article 51A that seeks to encourage compassion for animals.

A bench of justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Anirudhha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, in its unanimous verdict mentioned: “The argument that the Amendment Acts are void because they seek to override the judgment of A. Nagaraja v Animal Welfare Board (2014) cannot be sustained as the basis of that judgment having regard to the nature and manner in which the offending activities were carried on has been altered.”

Accepting that Jallikattu has been performed in Tamil Nadu for hundreds of years, the court docket didn’t undertake the duty of discovering whether or not the game is a part of the cultural heritage of the state and its folks.

Since the 2014 judgment held a view that it doesn’t, the bench overruled this a part of its earlier order and mentioned: “We do not accept the view reflected in the case of A Nagaraja that performance of Jallikattu is not a part of the cultural heritage of the people of the state of Tamil Nadu. We do not think there was sufficient material before the Court for coming to this conclusion.”

Such an train, the bench held, ought not be part of judicial inquiry and can’t be conclusively decided in a writ continuing. Instead, the judges held: “The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular State is a debateable issue which has to be concluded in the House of the People.”

Since the 2017 modification launched by Tamil Nadu described Jallikattu as a part of the state’s cultural heritage, the bench mentioned, “Since legislative exercise has already been undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be part of cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, we would not disrupt this view of the legislature.”

At the identical time, the bench warned that if such “cultural event or tradition offends the law, the penal consequence would follow”. “Such activities cannot be justified on the ground of being part of cultural tradition of a state,” it added.

Another side on which the five-judge bench differed from the 2014 judgment was on the discovering that bulls being draught animals can’t be made to run like horses.

The three legal guidelines have been challenged by varied organisations and people on the bottom that it violated the 2014 judgment and couldn’t benefit from the defence of being a part of state’s tradition and heritage when the way through which it’s carried out continued to trigger ache and struggling to the bulls, bullocks, buffaloes.

The bench mentioned: “The defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments have been overcome by the State Amendment Act read with the Rules made in that behalf.”

To guarantee guidelines below the amended legal guidelines are complied with, the bench directed the district magistrates or different competent authorities to be held answerable for making certain strict compliance of the legislation.

The Court held that the states have been empowered to enact the legal guidelines as prevention of cruelty to animals was a topic relatable to Entry 17 of Concurrent List (List 3) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, the argument by TN that the legislation seeks to make sure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls was rejected by the Court.

In February 2018, a two-judge bench formulated 5 inquiries to be answered by a Constitution Bench and in December 2021, the matter got here earlier than a five-judge bench. In December final yr, judgment was reserved on this case.