Jallikattu legality: Supreme Court refers matter to Constitution Bench: Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Union of India (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2nd February 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI and R.F. Nariman, J.

Can a state law that allows a traditional bull-taming sport like Jallikattu override animal cruelty laws? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this complex question, ultimately referring it to a larger Constitution Bench. This case revolves around the legality of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which sought to legalize Jallikattu, a traditional bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu. The central issue is whether this state law aligns with the constitutional principles of animal welfare and whether it can be considered a measure to prevent cruelty to animals. The case was heard by a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice R.F. Nariman.

Case Background

The case originated from a batch of writ petitions challenging a notification issued by the Union of India on January 7, 2016. These petitions also sought to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors., which had outlawed Jallikattu. However, the legal landscape shifted when the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, was passed, receiving Presidential assent on January 31, 2017. This amendment aimed to legalize Jallikattu, leading the petitioners to amend their pleas to challenge the validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act. The petitioners contended that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act perpetuated cruelty to animals and was thus unconstitutional.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, decided that the matter required an authoritative decision by a Constitution Bench of five judges. This decision was made due to the substantial questions of constitutional interpretation raised by the case. The Court noted that the writ petitions involved significant questions regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of India, particularly concerning the balance between animal welfare and cultural practices.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of several constitutional provisions and entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution:

• Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule: This entry deals with the prevention of cruelty to animals. The court needs to determine if the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act falls under this entry or if it is a measure that perpetuates cruelty.
• Article 29 of the Constitution: This article protects the cultural heritage of minorities. The court needs to assess if the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, which aims to preserve the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, can be protected under this article.
• Article 48 of the Constitution: This article directs the state to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. The court needs to determine if the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is related to the preservation and well-being of native breeds of bulls, as mentioned in this article.
• Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution: These articles deal with the fundamental duties of citizens, including compassion for living creatures and developing a scientific temper. The court will examine whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act goes against these fundamental duties.
• Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: These articles guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty. The court needs to assess whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is reasonable and not violative of these fundamental rights.

Arguments

The arguments in the case center around the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act. The petitioners argue that the Act perpetuates cruelty to animals and is therefore unconstitutional, while the respondents contend that the Act is a measure to preserve cultural heritage and is thus valid.

The Supreme Court noted the following questions that need to be answered:

• Main Submission 1: Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is a valid exercise of legislative power under Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule, which deals with the prevention of cruelty to animals.
  • Sub-submission 1.1: The petitioners argue that the Act, in substance, furthers and perpetuates cruelty to animals and cannot be considered a measure for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
  • Sub-submission 1.2: The petitioners further argue that the Act is a colorable piece of legislation that does not relate to any entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List.
• Main Submission 2: Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act can be protected under Article 29 of the Constitution as part of the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu.
• Main Submission 3: Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is, in pith and substance, related to ensuring the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls and thus relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution.
• Main Submission 4: Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act goes contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution and is therefore unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
• Main Submission 5: Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is directly contrary to the judgment in A. Nagaraja and the review judgment dated November 16, 2016, and whether the defects pointed out in those judgments have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature.

Submissions of Parties

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. 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 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 considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered the judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547 and the review judgment dated 16th November, 2016 in the aforesaid case. The Court noted that the present case was a challenge to the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, which was enacted after the A. Nagaraja judgment. The Court needed to determine if the defects pointed out in the A. Nagaraja judgment had been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench indicates that the Court recognized the significant constitutional questions at stake. The Court was concerned about the balance between cultural practices and animal welfare, as well as the interpretation of fundamental rights and duties. The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need for an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, given the conflicting legal and social considerations.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has acknowledged the significant constitutional questions surrounding the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, which legalizes Jallikattu.
• The case highlights the tension between cultural practices and animal welfare laws.
• The matter has been referred to a larger Constitution Bench for a final decision, underscoring the importance of the issue.
• The decision of the Constitution Bench will have far-reaching implications for animal rights and cultural practices in India.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The case does not establish a new legal principle but rather seeks to clarify the existing legal framework concerning animal welfare and cultural practices. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the matter requires a comprehensive examination by a larger bench due to the substantial questions of constitutional interpretation involved. The case also highlights the need for a balance between cultural heritage and animal rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the Jallikattu case to a Constitution Bench underscores the complexity and importance of the issues involved. The case requires a thorough examination of constitutional provisions, animal welfare laws, and cultural practices. The final decision by the Constitution Bench will have significant implications for animal rights and cultural practices in India.