Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the validity of the amended Act of Tamil Nadu allowing bull-taming sport jallikattu. The court also affirmed the validity of the laws amended by Karnataka and Maharashtra for holding kambala and bullock-cart races by taking note of the fact that the law and consequent rules framed under it by the states prohibit physical harm to the bulls.
A five-judge bench headed by Justice K M Joseph in its 56-page verdict authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose, while upholding 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, took note of the fact that the three states had taken presidential assent with regards to the law. The court also directed district magistrates/competent authorities to ensure strict compliance of the laws and rules.
“In our opinion, the expressions jallikattu, kambala and bullock-cart race as introduced by the Amendment Acts have undergone substantial change in the manner they were used to be practiced or performed and the factual conditions that prevailed at the time of A Nagaraja judgment cannot be equated with the present situation.
We cannot come to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances, absolutely no pain or suffering would be inflicted upon the bulls while holding these sports. But we are satisfied that the large part of pain inflicting practices, as they prevailed in the manner these three sports were performed in the pre-amendment period have been substantially diluted by the introduction of these statutory instruments,” the SC said.
‘Question on whether Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage is debatable’
“Onc e we read the amended statutes with the respective rules or notification, we do not find them to encroach upon the central legislation. The amendment having received presidential assent, we do not think there is any flaw in the state action. “Jallikattu” as bovine sports have to be isolated from the manner in which they were earlier practiced and organising the sports itself would be permissible, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules” the bench said.
Although the court said that The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, is not a colourable piece of legislation, it opined that the exercise as to whether jallikattu is an integral part of Tamil culture requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail which cannot be taken up by the judiciary. It also disagreed with the view taken by the SC in A Nagaraj judgment that performance of jallikattu is not a part of the cultural heritage of the people of the state of Tamil Nadu.
“Jallikattu is a type of bovine sports 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. This event essentially involves a bull which is set free in an arena and human participants are meant to grab the hump to score in the “game”. But whether this has become integral part of Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail, which in our opinion, is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by the judiciary.
The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular state is a debatable issue which has to be concluded in the House of the People. This ought not be part of judicial inquiry and particularly having regard to the activity in question and the materials in the form of texts cited before us by both the petitioners and the respondents, this question cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings. 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,” the court said.
The court was also of the view that there is no flaw in Tamil Nadu government’s action and that Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court was also of the opinion that it would not be prudent for it to venture into a judicial adventurism and bring bulls within the protected mechanism of fundamental rights to life and personal liberty. “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. We do not think Article 14 of the Constitution can also be invoked by any animal as a person,” the court said.
‘Can’t check if sport is part of Tamil culture’“The TN Amendment Act is not a colourable piece of legislation. The exercise as to whether jallikattu is an integral part of Tamil culture requires religious, cultural and social analysis in detail which cannot be taken up by the judiciary,” the bench said
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the validity of the amended Act of Tamil Nadu allowing bull-taming sport jallikattu. The court also affirmed the validity of the laws amended by Karnataka and Maharashtra for holding kambala and bullock-cart races by taking note of the fact that the law and consequent rules framed under it by the states prohibit physical harm to the bulls.
A five-judge bench headed by Justice K M Joseph in its 56-page verdict authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose, while upholding 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, took note of the fact that the three states had taken presidential assent with regards to the law. The court also directed district magistrates/competent authorities to ensure strict compliance of the laws and rules.
“In our opinion, the expressions jallikattu, kambala and bullock-cart race as introduced by the Amendment Acts have undergone substantial change in the manner they were used to be practiced or performed and the factual conditions that prevailed at the time of A Nagaraja judgment cannot be equated with the present situation.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
We cannot come to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances, absolutely no pain or suffering would be inflicted upon the bulls while holding these sports. But we are satisfied that the large part of pain inflicting practices, as they prevailed in the manner these three sports were performed in the pre-amendment period have been substantially diluted by the introduction of these statutory instruments,” the SC said.
‘Question on whether Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage is debatable’
“Onc e we read the amended statutes with the respective rules or notification, we do not find them to encroach upon the central legislation. The amendment having received presidential assent, we do not think there is any flaw in the state action. “Jallikattu” as bovine sports have to be isolated from the manner in which they were earlier practiced and organising the sports itself would be permissible, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules” the bench said.
Although the court said that The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, is not a colourable piece of legislation, it opined that the exercise as to whether jallikattu is an integral part of Tamil culture requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail which cannot be taken up by the judiciary. It also disagreed with the view taken by the SC in A Nagaraj judgment that performance of jallikattu is not a part of the cultural heritage of the people of the state of Tamil Nadu.
“Jallikattu is a type of bovine sports 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. This event essentially involves a bull which is set free in an arena and human participants are meant to grab the hump to score in the “game”. But whether this has become integral part of Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail, which in our opinion, is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by the judiciary.
The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular state is a debatable issue which has to be concluded in the House of the People. This ought not be part of judicial inquiry and particularly having regard to the activity in question and the materials in the form of texts cited before us by both the petitioners and the respondents, this question cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings. 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,” the court said.
The court was also of the view that there is no flaw in Tamil Nadu government’s action and that Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court was also of the opinion that it would not be prudent for it to venture into a judicial adventurism and bring bulls within the protected mechanism of fundamental rights to life and personal liberty. “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. We do not think Article 14 of the Constitution can also be invoked by any animal as a person,” the court said.
‘Can’t check if sport is part of Tamil culture’
“The TN Amendment Act is not a colourable piece of legislation. The exercise as to whether jallikattu is an integral part of Tamil culture requires religious, cultural and social analysis in detail which cannot be taken up by the judiciary,” the bench said
