Author: Dakshata Siva Ananth, REVA University
Headline of the Article
“Jallikattu Ban: Balancing Cultural Identity and Animal Welfare under Indian Jurisprudence”
To the Point
The Jallikattu case represents a crucial intersection of constitutional rights, animal welfare laws, and cultural heritage. The Madras High Court’s 2014 ban on the traditional Tamil bull-taming sport arose from concerns of cruelty to animals and violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. However, the sport is deeply ingrained in Tamil culture and regarded as an essential part of the Pongal festival.
The legal battle centers on two major constitutional provisions:
Article 29 (Cultural and Educational Rights): Protects citizens’ rights to conserve their cultural heritage. Tamil Nadu argued that Jallikattu is integral to Tamil identity.
Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty): Mandates every citizen to protect the environment, including compassion toward living creatures.
The AWBI v. Nagaraja (2014) case, cited in the judgment, established that bulls cannot be treated as performing animals and upheld their right to live with dignity under Article 21. The ruling found that Jallikattu inflicted pain, fear, and distress on the bulls, breaching Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
While Tamil Nadu passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 to reinstate Jallikattu, the case remains pending in the Supreme Court to determine whether state-specific cultural exemptions can override national laws and constitutional duties.
This legal tug-of-war highlights the delicate balance between respecting cultural practices and ensuring ethical treatment of animals, testing the judiciary’s role in interpreting constitutional values in a diverse society.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Jallikattu ban case employs significant legal terminology to address the conflict between cultural rights and animal welfare laws. Below are the key legal concepts and jargon used in the case:
1. Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi (the principle or reasoning behind a judicial decision) in the case rested on the Supreme Court’s observation in AWBI v. Nagaraja (2014) that the conduct of Jallikattu violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and fundamental duties under Article 51A(g). The judgment established that animal welfare is a constitutional value that cannot be subordinated to cultural practices.
2. Doctrine of Proportionality
This doctrine, often applied in constitutional law, was invoked to evaluate the conflict between:
Cultural rights under Article 29 (right to conserve distinct cultural practices).
Animal rights and welfare under Article 51A(g) and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The courts used proportionality to determine whether the cultural significance of Jallikattu justified the harm and cruelty inflicted on the bulls.
3. Non-Derogability of Fundamental Duties
The judgment highlighted that fundamental duties under Article 51A, particularly compassion for living creatures (Article 51A(g)), are non-derogable and form an essential part of the constitutional ethos. This duty must guide the interpretation of laws related to animal welfare.
4. Ultra Vires
The Tamil Nadu government’s 2017 amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, allowing Jallikattu, was challenged as being ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Constitution. The argument is that state laws cannot override national animal welfare laws or constitutional duties.
5. Lex Specialis Derogat Legi Generali
This principle, meaning “specific law overrides general law,” was debated in the context of whether Tamil Nadu’s state-specific amendment could supersede the general provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
6. Locus Standi
The case saw active involvement from animal welfare organizations like PETA and AWBI. These entities established their locus standi (legal standing) to file petitions by demonstrating that they were advocating for the public interest and the welfare of animals.
7. Article 21 – Expanded Interpretation
The judgment extended Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to live with dignity for animals, as outlined in the AWBI v. Nagaraja (2014) case. It emphasized that animals are sentient beings entitled to protection from unnecessary pain and suffering.
8. Legislative Competence
The Supreme Court examined whether the Tamil Nadu legislature had the legislative competence to pass the 2017 ordinance permitting Jallikattu, in light of central laws like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
9. Public Policy Exception
The concept of public policy was invoked to argue that cultural practices inconsistent with constitutional morality, such as animal cruelty, cannot be protected under the guise of preserving tradition.
10. Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto
This Latin maxim, meaning “the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law,” was used to argue that laws protecting public safety (Jallikattu-related injuries and deaths) and animal welfare take precedence over individual or cultural interests.
By employing these legal concepts, the courts balanced constitutional mandates, cultural preservation, and ethical obligations to protect animals. This case exemplifies the use of sophisticated legal reasoning in resolving complex socio-cultural disputes.
The Proof
The legal and factual basis for banning Jallikattu revolves around documentary evidence, expert testimony, and judicial observations that establish cruelty to animals and risks to human safety during the sport. Below is a detailed account of the proof cited in the case:
1. Reports by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI)
The AWBI, a statutory body under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, documented the following during Jallikattu events:
Physical Harm to Bulls:
Bulls were subjected to tail pulling, twisting, and biting.
Use of sharp objects, sticks, and whips to provoke aggression.
Intoxication of bulls using alcohol, chili powder, and other irritants.
Mental Stress and Fear:
Bulls were forced into narrow enclosures with loud noises and aggressive human interactions, leading to extreme distress.
Breaches of Rules:
Violations of guidelines meant to protect the animals, such as mandatory veterinary checks, were observed.
These reports highlighted breaches of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which prohibits inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.
2. Video Evidence
Videos presented by organizations like PETA and AWBI showed graphic instances of cruelty during Jallikattu events. These included:
Participants pulling bulls’ tails and beating them with sticks.
Bulls collapsing from exhaustion and injuries.
Fatal accidents involving participants and spectators due to the uncontrolled behavior of the bulls.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have acknowledged the credibility of these videos as direct evidence of cruelty.
3. Judicial Precedent: AWBI v. Nagaraja (2014)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court:
Referred to evidence of physical and psychological harm to bulls during Jallikattu.
Stated that bulls are not anatomically suited for such activities and are forced into performance under duress.
Affirmed that such practices violate the animals’ right to live with dignity under Article 21.
This precedent was a cornerstone in the Madras High Court’s 2014 decision.
4. Testimony from Veterinarians and Experts
Veterinary experts confirmed that Jallikattu causes significant harm to bulls, including:
Injuries: Fractures, internal bleeding, and torn ligaments due to violent handling.
Stress-Induced Behavior: Evidence of elevated cortisol levels in bulls, indicating extreme fear and anxiety.
Reduced Lifespan: Continuous use in Jallikattu events leads to long-term physical deterioration and early death.
5. Human Casualties and Public Safety Concerns
Data from Tamil Nadu Police and media reports showed:
Over 200 deaths and countless injuries of participants and spectators in Jallikattu events over the years.
Fatalities caused by bulls trampling participants, charging into spectators, and uncontrolled stampedes.
These incidents raised questions about the safety of the sport for human participants and the public.
6. Constitutional and Legislative Proofs
Violation of Article 51A(g): The fundamental duty to show compassion to animals was breached.
Section 3 of PCA Act: Obligates individuals to ensure the welfare of animals. Jallikattu practices contradicted this obligation.
7. Cultural Defense Debunked
While Tamil Nadu argued that Jallikattu is part of Tamil heritage, evidence demonstrated:
The traditional form of Jallikattu was significantly altered, with commercialization leading to increased animal abuse.
Practices like intoxication and the use of irritants are modern additions and not part of the original tradition.
8. Observations from Court Inspections
Courts often relied on on-ground inspections by designated committees, which corroborated the AWBI reports, further validating the claims of cruelty and risk.
Abstract
The article examines the legal controversy surrounding Jallikattu, a Tamil Nadu tradition of bull-taming, banned by the Madras High Court in 2014. The analysis delves into the interplay between Articles 21, 29, and 51A of the Indian Constitution, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and subsequent state amendments that sought to reinstate the practice. It highlights the broader debate on cultural rights versus the constitutional mandate of animal welfare.
Case Laws
AWBI v. Nagaraja (2014):
Held that Jallikattu violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and fundamental duties under Article 51A(g).
State of Tamil Nadu v. AWBI (2017):
Tamil Nadu challenged the ban and enacted an ordinance reinstating Jallikattu, later upheld by the state legislature.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
Established the precedence of constitutional mandates over cultural practices.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
Highlighted the balance between socio-cultural rights and public welfare.
Conclusion
The Jallikattu ban case encapsulates the ongoing conflict between preserving cultural traditions and upholding constitutional principles of animal welfare and public safety. The courts faced the arduous task of reconciling these competing interests within the framework of Indian jurisprudence.
1. Animal Welfare as a Constitutional Mandate
The judiciary, through its rulings, emphasized the following:
Animal Rights as Inviolable: The Supreme Court in AWBI v. Nagaraja (2014) extended the right to life and dignity under Article 21 to animals, asserting that they cannot be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering.
Non-Derogable Fundamental Duty: Article 51A(g) establishes a citizen’s duty to show compassion for living creatures. The courts upheld that this constitutional value takes precedence over practices that inflict cruelty on animals.
Statutory Violations: Jallikattu practices contravened provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits causing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals.
2. The Cultural Defense and Judicial Balance
While Tamil Nadu defended Jallikattu as an intrinsic part of its cultural heritage protected under Article 29, the courts ruled that cultural practices are not absolute and must comply with the public policy of constitutional morality.
Tradition versus Modernity: Evidence presented showed that many abusive practices during Jallikattu—such as tail pulling, intoxication, and the use of irritants—are not part of the sport’s original form but modern distortions.
Evolving Societal Standards: The courts underscored the need for cultural practices to evolve in accordance with humane and ethical standards.
3. Legislative and Political Interventions
Tamil Nadu’s Ordinance (2017): The Tamil Nadu government enacted a law reinstating Jallikattu, asserting that the sport aligns with local traditions and promotes the preservation of native cattle breeds.
Supreme Court’s Role: The judiciary remains the final arbiter in determining whether the state’s legislation withstands constitutional scrutiny. The pending Supreme Court decision on the validity of Tamil Nadu’s law will set a significant precedent for balancing state autonomy with constitutional mandates.
4. Broader Implications
The Jallikattu case has far-reaching implications for Indian law and society:
Animal Welfare Jurisprudence: The case reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to expanding animal welfare as a constitutional value.
Balancing Rights and Duties: It highlights the delicate interplay between individual rights (Article 29) and societal obligations (Article 51A).
Cultural Preservation in a Diverse Nation: The case demonstrates that while India values its diverse traditions, these must coexist harmoniously with ethical and legal standards.
5. The Way Forward
The courts and legislatures must work collaboratively to:
Establish clear and enforceable guidelines to ensure humane treatment of animals during cultural practices.
Educate the public on ethical standards while fostering respect for traditions.
Promote alternative forms of celebration that preserve cultural identity without compromising animal welfare.
Final Thought
The Jallikattu case is not merely about a sport or tradition; it is a profound legal discourse on the values that define a modern, compassionate society. The judiciary’s ultimate goal is to ensure that the law evolves in a manner that respects cultural diversity while safeguarding ethical treatment of all living beings, upholding the principles of justice enshrined in the Constitution.
FAQS
What is Jallikattu?
Jallikattu is a traditional Tamil bull-taming sport held during the Pongal festival, symbolizing Tamil pride and rural heritage.
Is Jallikattu legal now?
Tamil Nadu passed an ordinance in 2017 to exempt Jallikattu from the ban, but its legality is under review by the Supreme Court.
What are the legal principles involved?
The case hinges on constitutional rights (Articles 21, 29, and 51A) and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, balancing cultural traditions and animal welfare.
What is the Supreme Court’s role in this case?
The Supreme Court will determine whether Tamil Nadu’s 2017 amendment reinstating Jallikattu is constitutionally valid.
