Supreme Court: The 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court comprising of KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose*, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, JJ. has upheld the Constitutional validity of the State amendments made to the by the Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to allow the conduct of animal sports like Jallikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing in these respective States.
In the petition seeking compliance of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, , in the light of the cruelty to Bulls in the Jallikattu event, the bench of former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice RF Nariman, referred the matter to a 5-judge Constitution bench as it noticed that the writ petitions involve substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the .
The petitions challenge the validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendments to the (‘PCA Act’)
The issues placed before the Constitution Bench are as follows:
• Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the , or does it further and perpetuate cruelty to animals; and can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals?
The Court said that Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colorable legislation, it relates in pith and substance to entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the . It minimizes cruelty to animals in the sports concerned and once the amendment act along with the rules and notifications are implemented, the aforesaid sports cannot come in the meaning of mischiefs to be remedied by Section 11(3) (a) PCA Act. Jallikattu is a divine sport, and it is going on in Tamil Nadu for at least last centuries. This sport is an integral part of Tamil culture requires religious, cultural, and social analysis in greater detail, which cannot be undertaken by the judiciary. The question that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of the particular State is a debatable issue, which has to be concluded in the House of People and ought not be a part of the Judicial inquiry.
• Is it colourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List? The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu to receive the protection of Article of the ?
The Court said that since, legislative exercise has already undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be an important part of cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, the Court said that it will not disrupt this view of the legislature. The Court rejected the view in A Nagraja (supra) that performance of Jallikattu is not a part of cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu. In the preamble to the Amendment Act Jallikattu has been described to be a part of culture and tradition of Tamil Nadu.
The Court said that the Amendment Act read with the Rules substantially reduces the pain and suffering of the bulls and continues with the traditional sports. The amendment has received the President’s assent and held that there is no flaw in the State action. These sports need to be isolated from the way they were practiced earlier.
• Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to ensure the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls? Is the Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article of the ?
The Court further held that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act in not in pith and substance, to ensure survival and well-being of the native needs of bulls. It is also not relatable to Article of the . Accidental impact of the said amendment may fall upon the breed of a particular type of bulls and affect agricultural activities, but the said amendment is referable in pith and substance to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the .
• Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be unreasonable and violative of Articles and of the ?
The Court opined that Tamil Nadu Amendment Act do not go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and it does not violate Articles and of the .
• Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary to the Nagaraja judgment, and the review judgment of 2016 in the aforesaid case, and whether the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be said to have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature by enacting the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?
The Court held that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act along with the Rules concerned is not directly contrary to the Nagaraja judgment, and the review judgment of 2016 dismissing the plea for review of A Nagaraja Judgment, as the defects pointed out by the aforesaid Judgments have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature by enacting the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act.
[Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) no 23/2016 decided on 18-05-2023]
Also read:
*Judgement read by: Justice Aniruddha Bose
The post appeared first on .