Author:- Raghav Agarwal, a 2nd year learner at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
ABSTRACT
The 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprises Justice KM Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice CT Ravikumar, JJ. In its path-breaking judgment pronounced on May 18, 2023, the bench headed by former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra approved the constitutional validity of the amendments brought in by the Tamil Nadu Legislature to continue the age-old bull-taming sport of Jallikattu. The view stood supported by Justice RF Nariman through a reference to the judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547. An application had been filed for compliance from a 5-judge Constitution bench due to the cruelty of bulls in Jallikattu. The bench found that “the writ petitions raise considerable questions related to the interpretation of the Indian Constitution.” Nevertheless, it sparked debates on the sensitive balance between preserving culture and protecting animal welfare. The opposition between the state’s goal of allowing an age-old tradition to continue and objections raised by animal rights groups over alleged inhumane treatment is going to influence significant assessments of cultural practices against established legal and ethical criteria.
The bench of five judges constitutionally was of the view that the 2017 Amendment Act and the related Rules relating to Jallikattu were valid under Entry 17 of the Concurrent List about the prevention of cruelty to animals and under Article 51A(g), which enjoins compassion towards living creatures. The judgment recorded that whereas Tamilians accorded Jallikattu significant cultural value, cultural ethos could not be taken as a defense for contravention of animal rights. The court noted the Amendment Act “considerably reduced the suffering and cruelty” to the animals and “held that “breach of statutory law on the plea of ‘cultural tradition.’ would be an incident calling for penal consequences.”.
This case goes back to a lengthy legal battle commencing with the state-wide ban on Jallikattu by the Madras High Court in 2006. Following this judgment, the Tamil Nadu government enacted the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, and the notification issued in 2011 by the Union Environment Ministry banning the use of bulls in performances. A landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in 2014, on a writ petition filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India against A. Nagaraja, declared Jallikattu an act of cruelty on bulls and banned all such related sports that involved the taming or racing of bulls.
The verdict, however, marked a turning point in the judiciary’s stand to recognize the legislature’s “legislative exercise” in defining Jallikattu as something culturally important and essential to regulate. In upholding the 2017 Amendment Act, the judiciary has indicated a willingness to allow restricted cultural practices if such practices pass the legal and ethical tests. It is a decision that lights the path on which development regarding cultural practices could be made in such a manner as to respect the rights of all while preserving their significance for the communities concerned.
TO THE POINT
A recent landmark case is related to Jallikattu, or bull-taming—the traditional sport of Tamil Nadu, and it brings debate to the fore, once more, on the complex interrelationship between cultural traditions and animal rights. In a seminal judgment, the Supreme Court of India validated the amendments by the Legislature of Tamil Nadu for permitting Jallikattu while holding that animal cruelty must be prevented and that the statutory rules of law should not be defeated. This article examines the legal dimensions involved in this case, the various arguments advanced, and the effects of the decision pronounced by the Court.
The Cultural Significance of Jallikattu
Jallikattu is an ancient sport and part and parcel of the culture of Tamils, celebrated as a part of the Pongal Festival. This ritual that has been in practice for more than 2,000 years, if not more, is deeply ingrained in regional history and heritage. Jallikattu also finds its references in ancient Tamil epics like Silappadikaram, which shows how relevant it has been as a sign of pride and identification to the people of Tamil Nadu. Those supporting Jallikattu say that this is part and parcel of their culture. As such, Article 29(1) of the Constitution, safeguarding the interests of minorities, also extends protection to this one. Thus, they feel that a ban infringes upon cultural rights and upsets a long-continued practice that has been passed on through generations.
This is a part of their culture, as the Tamil Nadu government presented. The Government of Tamil Nadu has raised an argument that it is a religious and cultural event that should not be banned in broad words. The practice can be regulated and transformed per the need for changing society. The government integrated the cultural importance of Jallikattu into the high school curriculum to preserve it for future generations.
The Animal Welfare Concerns
While the cultural importance associated with Jallikattu is simply unarguable, there is a serious question of cruelty associated with this practice. According to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, any unnecessary pain or suffering inflicted upon an animal is prohibited. Major animal rights activist groups like the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are two such organizations that have spoken against Jallikattu because of the evidence of injuries and death among bulls and participants. The opponents argue that every creature has a born right to liberty and that animal life has relevance to human life. It is pointed out that the conduct of Jallikattu contravenes the principles laid down under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution for showing compassion and humane concern for animals. The critics thus argue that tamers are found jumping on the bulls, inflicting ‘extreme cruelty to the animals’. Animal rights activists, early in the 2000s, demanded an across-the-state ban on it following the deaths and injuries of both humans and bulls through this sport. They draw an analogy between Jallikattu and other customs, such as sati or dowry that had hitherto been accepted as part of the culture but later discarded through law and legislation.
A Legal Framework and Judicial Precedents
The prevailing regulatory framework applicable to Jallikattu rests on several legislative enactments and constitutional provisions, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 and Entry 17 (concerning the prevention of cruelty to animals) in the Concurrent List. The Supreme Court of India has shaped the debate over Jallikattu through judicial verdicts. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘Jallikattu’ amounted to animal cruelty and had thus banned all such similar acts of bull taming and other bull racing events across the country. The Union Environment Ministry, however, in 2016 notified the annulment of its 2011 notification, which was based on the Supreme Court’s imposed ban. However, the state government of Tamil Nadu later on issued the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017, thereby opening the gates once again to the conduct of the sport.
“In a recent order, the Supreme Court has upheld the amendments brought in by the Tamil Nadu legislature. In its order, the Court has said that the 2017 Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereon Jallikattu fall within the scope of Entry 17 of Concurrent List and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. The Court now clarifies that such state legislation is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”. On the contrary, it was held that the 2017 Amendment Act and the Rules framed regarding Jallikattu “significantly reduced suffering and cruelty” inflicted on the animals used in the event. However, it clarified that violating the statute created under the guise of “cultural practice” would attract punitive consequences.
The Balancing Act of the Supreme Court
The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the Jallikattu case underscores the necessity of finding a compromise between cultural heritage and the well-being of animals. In recognizing the cultural importance of Jallikattu, the Court stressed that such traditions must not violate the rights of animals. This ruling reaffirmed the Court’s dedication to earlier judgments prioritizing animal rights more than traditional customs encompassing acts of cruelty. Jallikattu has been carried on in Tamil Nadu for the last few centuries and forms a part of its cultural heritage, as brought out by the “legislative exercise” conducted by the legislature; the Court just clarified that it did not want to disrupt the view of the legislature. The court order now acknowledges the cultural significance of Jallikattu but also emphasizes animal care and obedience to the law. A balance between the continuance of the cultural event and the welfare of the animals is an apt approach in this matter, as indeed pointed out by the Supreme Court.
Implications and the Way Forward
The Supreme Court judgment holds excellent implications for Jallikattu and similar bull-taming events. It sets precedence where cultural practices are to be gauged through the prism of legal and ethical standards and under what parameters such a cultural heritage must evolve to align with the rights of all sensible creatures. The judgment highlights the importance of animal welfare laws in India and may lead to stricter enforcement of existing laws on the prevention of cruelty to animals. It has also sparked a renewed debate among the citizenry and activists, with some supporting the judgment in favor of animals others viewing it as a violation of Tamil cultural rights and; thus, protests and calls for legal reforms to protect Jallikattu have ensued. Stakeholders will, by this, be able to discuss and have legislative programs for Jallikattu as it progresses in ensuring that the welfare of animals is catered to. Amendments can oversee the sport in a manner that ensures it is not harmful to animals, with stringent regulations to try and prevent cruelty to animals. Cultural importance can be retained by making it part of the high school educational curriculum, as had been proposed by the government of Tamil Nadu.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Supreme Court in the Jallikattu case is about treading a razor’s edge: the balancing act that courts must undertake while adjudicating between issues connected with deep-rooted cultural tradition and the rights of animals. It signals that such decisions, similar to this, reflect multi-layered complexity and guarantee commitment to cultural heritage together with a guarantee of animal welfare. It was also an attempt by the court to balance the cultural concern for Jallikattu against the need for animal welfare while bearing in mind that all life forms are interdependent. This judgment has thus provided a benchmark for evaluating cultural traditions within legally and ethically pre-defined parameters, underlining the need for traditions to evolve with changes in societal values. Future practices, such as Jallikattu, may turn on how well various parties, through this process, ensure that cultural expressions are allied with ethical values in a rapidly changing world. In other words, it means coming together—between lawmakers, animal welfare organizations, and cultural heritage advocates—in mutual engagement, partnership, and understanding to work toward a shared future where age-old traditions are protected in a manner acceptable to modern compassion and the ethical treatment of animals.
While cultural heritage may be significant in defining identity, the Supreme Court judgment in the Jallikattu case underlined that it should not be continued at the cost of causing cruelty and suffering. Ethics in human society evolve and change, and so does the understanding and practice of moving laws on the protection of culture and rights of all that inhabit it. That delicate balance, if garnered, would help preserve the rich and treasured cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu without proceeding according to the principles of justness and mercy upon all.
FAQ
- What is Jallikattu?
Jallikattu is an ancient bull-taming sport used during the Pongal festival season in Tamil Nadu State, India. In Jallikattu, contestants try to subdue a bull for a prize.
- What is the cultural significance of Jallikattu?
In vogue for over 2,000 years in Tamil Nadu, Jallikattu draws its genesis from history and heritage etched deep into the region. It is all about pride and identification with the Tamils. The sport of Jallikattu finds references in ancient Tamil epics like Silappadikaram.
- What are the animal welfare concerns over Jallikattu?
Jallikattu, according to animal rights activists, is a cruel sport played with bulls and shows evidence for injury and death of both the animals and participants involved. They further contend that it violates the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the constitutional principle of compassion to living creatures under Article 51A(g).
- What is the legal history surrounding Jallikattu?
- In 2006, the Madras High Court outlawed Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu. The state government legislated the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, allowing the sport.
- In 2011, the Union Environment Ministry prohibited performing with bulls. So, it banned Jallikattu.
- The Supreme Court of India, in 2014, ruled that Jallikattu is an act of cruelty to bulls and hence banned all events of its kind in the country.
- In 2016, the Union Environment Ministry withdrew its 2011 notification, upon which the Supreme Court had based its order for the ban.
- The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Tamil Nadu Amendment Act and Rules were passed in 2017 to ensure that Jallikattu could be revived.
- The Supreme Court, in 2023, maintained the 2017 amendments that allowed the conduct of Jallikattu while emphasizing that cruelty to animals must be avoided.
- What has the recent Supreme Court judgment been on Jallikattu?
A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in its order dated May 2023, accepted the amendments effected by the Tamil Nadu legislature permitting Jallikattu. It said the 2017 Amendment Act and Rules substantially reduced the suffering and cruelty to animals and recognized the cultural significance of the sport of Jallikattu. It clarified that, however, breaching the law in the name of “cultural tradition” will invite penal consequences. What would be the impact of the Supreme Court’s judgment? “The judgment has also set a precedent for evaluating cultural tradition in the light of law and ethics. It indicates that, while societal changes want to transition and evolution in tradition, tradition can but respect animal rights. The movement has reopened debates among the general public and activists, with some welcoming it as in the interest of animal welfare and others seeing it as an attack on Tamil cultural rights.”
