Jallikattu Law: Supreme Court refers challenge to Tamil Nadu Amendment Act to Constitution Bench (2 February 2018)

LEGAL ISSUE: Constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017, regarding the conduct of Jallikattu.
CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Animal Welfare
Case Name: The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment Date: 2 February 2018

Can a state law that permits a traditional sport involving animals be valid if it potentially perpetuates cruelty to animals? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this question while examining the legality of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which allows the conduct of Jallikattu. This case explores the balance between cultural preservation and animal welfare, and whether a state law can override the principles established in previous Supreme Court judgments. The case was referred to a Constitution Bench of 5 judges by a bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice R.F. Nariman.

Case Background

The Animal Welfare Board of India and other petitioners originally filed writ petitions to challenge a notification issued by the Union of India on January 7, 2016. These petitions also sought to enforce the Supreme Court’s judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547, which had previously addressed the issue of animal cruelty in sports. However, the legal landscape shifted when the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, was enacted, receiving Presidential assent on January 31, 2017. This amendment sought to legalize Jallikattu, a traditional bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the petitioners amended their petitions to challenge the validity of this Tamil Nadu Amendment Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both the petitioners and the respondents, determined that the case involved substantial questions of constitutional interpretation. The court noted that the matter required an authoritative decision by a Constitution Bench of five judges. This decision was made due to the complexity of the issues involved, particularly concerning the balance between cultural practices and animal welfare, and the interpretation of various constitutional provisions.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of several constitutional provisions and entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The key areas of legal framework include:

• Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule: This entry deals with the prevention of cruelty to animals. The court needs to determine whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act falls under this entry or if it actually perpetuates cruelty to animals.
• Article 29 of the Constitution of India: This article protects the cultural and educational rights of minorities. The court will examine whether Jallikattu can be considered part of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu and thus receive protection under this article.
• Article 48 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the organization of agriculture and animal husbandry. The court will consider if the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is aimed at ensuring the survival and well-being of native breeds of bulls, and thus falls under this article.
• Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution of India: These articles deal with the fundamental duties of citizens, including protecting and improving the natural environment and having compassion for living creatures. The court will assess whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act violates these duties.
• Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty. The court will examine if the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is unreasonable and violates these fundamental rights.

Arguments

The arguments in this case revolve around whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is a valid exercise of legislative power or if it is a colourable piece of legislation that perpetuates cruelty to animals.

• Petitioners’ Arguments:
  • The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a measure to prevent cruelty to animals but rather a measure that perpetuates it.
  • The Act is a colourable piece of legislation that does not relate to any entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List.
  • Jallikattu cannot be considered part of the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu under Article 29 of the Constitution of India.
  • The Act goes against the fundamental duties under Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution of India.
  • The Act is directly contrary to the judgment in A. Nagaraja (supra) and the review judgment dated 16th November, 2016 in the same case.
• Respondents’ Arguments:
  • The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is intended to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu.
  • The Act is aimed at ensuring the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls.
  • The Act is relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration by the Constitution Bench:

1. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, 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? Is it colourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List?
2. 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 so as to receive the protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of India?
3. 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 48 of the Constitution of India?
4. 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 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
5. Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary to the judgment in A. Nagaraja (supra), and the review judgment dated 16th November, 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in this order, did not make a final judgment on the merits of the case. Instead, it referred the matter to a Constitution Bench of five judges due to the substantial questions of constitutional interpretation involved.

The authorities were viewed by the Court as follows:

• Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547: The court considered the previous judgment and the review judgment in this case to determine whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act had overcome the defects pointed out in those judgments.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench was primarily driven by the need for a comprehensive examination of the constitutional issues involved. The Court recognized that the case raised significant questions about the balance between cultural practices, animal welfare, and the legislative competence of the state. The Court’s sentiment was that these complex issues required a deeper analysis by a larger bench to provide an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has recognized the significant constitutional questions raised by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017.
• The case highlights the ongoing tension between cultural practices and animal welfare.
• The decision to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench indicates the complexity and importance of the issues involved.
• The outcome of this case will have significant implications for animal welfare laws and cultural rights in India.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges.

Development of Law

This case does not establish a new ratio decidendi but rather refers the matter to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement. The case is significant for highlighting the complexities involved in balancing cultural practices with animal welfare and constitutional principles. The final decision by the Constitution Bench will set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the challenge to the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017, to a Constitution Bench underscores the complex constitutional questions at stake. The case involves a delicate balance between cultural heritage, animal welfare, and legislative competence. The final decision will have significant implications for similar cases involving animal sports and cultural practices in India.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law
Child Category: Article 29, Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 48, Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 51A(g), Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 51A(h), Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 14, Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 21, Constitution of India
Parent Category: Animal Welfare Law
Child Category: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
Parent Category: Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India
Child Category: Entry 17, List III, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue is the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017, which allows the conduct of Jallikattu, a traditional bull-taming sport. The court is examining whether this law is consistent with animal welfare principles and the Constitution of India.

Q: Why was the case referred to a Constitution Bench?
A: The case was referred to a Constitution Bench because it involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation, particularly concerning the balance between cultural practices and animal welfare, and the interpretation of various constitutional provisions.

Q: What are the key constitutional provisions involved?
A: The key constitutional provisions involved include Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule, Article 29, Article 48, Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Q: What is the significance of this case?
A: This case is significant because it will determine the extent to which cultural practices involving animals can be protected under the Constitution, and how such practices should align with animal welfare laws. The final decision will have implications for similar cases in the future.

Q: What is a Constitution Bench?
A: A Constitution Bench is a bench of the Supreme Court consisting of five or more judges, which is constituted to decide cases involving substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.