Author: Aswathy. T
INTRODUCTION
Animals have been integral to Indian culture, revered as deities and crucial to livelihoods. Cows, for instance, freely roam the streets without concern, reflecting their deep integration into daily life. This long standing relationship between humans and animals has forged a bond where they are considered part of our community. However, alongside these cultural practices, there are also sports like ‘Jallikattu’, ‘Bullock Cart Races’, and ‘Kambala’, involving the training and racing of bulls.
Jallikattu is a traditional bull-taming sport practised in Tamil Nadu, deeply rooted in cultural and religious traditions. In 2014, the Supreme Court of India, responding to concerns raised by animal welfare organisations, banned Jallikattu and other similar sports under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The court cited provisions of the Act that prohibit the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.
This led to widespread protests in Tamil Nadu, with proponents arguing that Jallikattu is a crucial part of their cultural identity and livelihoods. The state government and various organisations sought legal avenues to overturn the ban, emphasising that the sport is conducted with traditional safeguards and is essential for preserving indigenous cattle breeds.
In 2017, the Tamil Nadu government enacted amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, specifically exempting Jallikattu from the purview of the ban. These amendments included regulations aimed at ensuring the humane treatment of animals during the sport. The amendments received Presidential assent, thereby legalising Jallikattu once again in Tamil Nadu under regulated conditions.
FACTS
he sequence of events leading to the current case began with the judgment in the matter of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., which prompted amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. These amendments aimed to tightly regulate traditional bovine sports known as ‘Jallikattu’, ‘Bullock Cart Race’, and ‘Kambala’ in their respective states. Which prior to the amendment were held to be contrary to the provisions of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (“1960 Act”) which is a Statute enacted by the Parliament.
TThe present case has been brought forward by the petitioners on the grounds that despite the state amendments, the sanctioned activities still remain harmful and are inconsistent with the provisions outlined in Sections 3, 11(1)(a), and 11(1)(m) of the 1960 Act.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE
PETITIONER
- Animals, as sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering, deserve the protection of fundamental rights akin to those afforded to persons under Article 21. By permitting activities that have been deemed detrimental to animal welfare under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, these Amendment Acts allegedly perpetuate harm and violate the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14. Therefore, the petitioners maintain that the state amendments, instead of safeguarding animal rights, undermine constitutional principles and should be reassessed in light of their impact on animal welfare and constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness.
- It is contended that the Fundamental Duties of citizens translate into rights for sentient animals, necessitating their protection from activities that cause them distress and pain merely for human entertainment, thereby urging a reconsideration of the legislative amendments in light of these principles.
- The amendments made merely tries to justify the Acts which were criticised by the cour which utimately invalidates the conclusive judicial opinion without curing the defects specified in that decision in the conduct of Jallikattu.
- The petitioners argue that the Amendment Acts aim to overturn a court ruling without addressing why the Supreme Court found Jallikattu and Bullock Cart Races in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
RESPONDENT
- Arguments have been advanced that prohibition on the practice of particularly Bullock Cart Race could result in ultimate collapse of a particular genre of cattle which are useful for agricultural purpose and hence fulfils under Entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
- Rights of animals are not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution, the legislature retains authority to impose restrictions on such rights as deemed necessary.
JUDGEMENT
- The court’s judgement addresses the legal implications of amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, concerning traditional bovine sports like Jallikattu, Bullock Cart Races, and Kambala. It clarifies that while there’s advocacy for elevating animal rights to fundamental status under Articles 21 and 19, this remains advisory rather than legally binding. Animals cannot directly invoke Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
- Regarding the amendments’ impact, the court recognizes that while these sports may still cause some animal suffering, the changes have notably reduced previous harmful practices. It acknowledges the legislature’s historical balancing act between animal welfare and cultural traditions associated with these sports.
- Addressing concerns about the reasonableness of legislative classifications, the court concludes that the amendments don’t create irrational distinctions under Article 14. It dismisses claims that the amendments are cosmetic changes aimed at circumventing previous judicial rulings, affirming that they genuinely modify how these sports are conducted.
- Additionally, the court examines the implementation of accompanying rules, noting they significantly alter the conduct of these sports to mitigate previous legal concerns. Thus, the court rejects arguments that the amendments are void for overriding past judicial decisions, stating they effectively address earlier grounds of illegality by altering the nature and practice of these sports.
- In essence, the judgement upholds the amendments by recognizing their intent to reduce animal suffering while preserving cultural practices.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The judgement appears to have approached the issue primarily through a legal lens rather than a moral or ethical one, focusing on constitutional interpretations and legislative intent. It navigates through the amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, particularly regarding traditional bovine sports such as ‘Jallikattu’, ‘Bullock Cart Races’, and ‘Kambala’. While acknowledging the deep cultural roots and historical significance of these practices, the judgement assesses their legality based on constitutional principles like equality before the law (Article 14) and the protection of life and personal liberty (Articles 21 and 19).
From a moral standpoint, however, the judgement may be seen as somewhat detached. It discusses animal welfare concerns in the context of legal compliance rather than exploring broader ethical considerations of how these practices impact the well-being and rights of animals. While recognizing the legislature’s authority to regulate these sports and balance cultural traditions with contemporary ethical standards, the judgement does not delve deeply into whether these amendments adequately address the moral imperative to minimise animal suffering.
Furthermore, the analysis suggests that while legal arguments are paramount in determining the validity of legislative actions, ethical dimensions such as compassion towards animals and their rights as sentient beings may not have been given equal weight. The judgement’s emphasis on legislative authority and constitutional validity may reflect a cautious approach to avoid judicial overreach into legislative matters, yet it may also overlook opportunities to advocate for stronger ethical safeguards in animal welfare laws.
In conclusion, while the judgement rigorously examines legal frameworks and legislative intent, it may be perceived as less robust in addressing the moral dimensions of animal welfare and the ethical implications of cultural practices involving animals. This perspective underscores the ongoing debate over how legal systems should balance tradition, legislative authority, and evolving ethical standards in the treatment of animals within societal frameworks.
FAQ
What were the concerns raised by animal welfare activists?
Animal welfare activists raised concerns that Jallikattu subjected bulls to unnecessary stress, injury, and even cruelty during the event. They argued that such practices violate modern standards of animal welfare and should be banned to protect the well-being of animals.
What is the current status of Jallikattu?
As of now, Jallikattu is legally permitted in Tamil Nadu under the regulations set forth by the amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The sport continues to be a contentious issue, with ongoing discussions about its impact on animal welfare and cultural significance.
