Supreme Court Upholds Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races: A Review of Animal Welfare Laws (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 478

Judges: K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.

Can traditional cultural practices involving animals be reconciled with animal welfare laws? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question in a significant judgment concerning the legality of Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races. The core issue revolved around whether state amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which permitted these sports, were constitutionally valid. The five-judge bench, with Justice Aniruddha Bose writing the majority opinion, considered the balance between cultural heritage and animal rights.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to the legality of Jallikattu (Tamil Nadu), Kambala (Karnataka), and Bullock Cart Races (Maharashtra). These traditional sports, involving bulls and bullocks, were previously outlawed by the Supreme Court in 2014 in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others [(2014) 7 SCC 547]. The Court had then found these sports to be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act). Subsequently, the states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka enacted amendments to the 1960 Act to legalize these sports, asserting them as part of their cultural heritage. These amendments were challenged, leading to the present case before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Animal Welfare Board of India and others filed writ petitions challenging the 2016 notification by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) that permitted the training of bulls for Jallikattu and Bullock Cart Races. However, during the proceedings, the Animal Welfare Board changed its stance, supporting the state and union governments. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay had also restrained conducting of Bullock Cart Races within the State of Maharashtra, which was then challenged by a farmer from Maharashtra. The Supreme Court, recognizing the constitutional importance of the matter, referred the case to a Constitution Bench to address five key questions.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework includes:

• The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: This central legislation aims to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. Key sections include:
  • Section 3: “It shall be the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.”
  • Section 11(1)(a): Prohibits beating, kicking, torturing, or otherwise treating any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering.
  • Section 11(1)(m): Prohibits confining any animal solely for entertainment purposes so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal or inciting any animal to fight or bait any other animal.
  • Section 22: Restricts the exhibition and training of performing animals.
• State Amendment Acts: The states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka introduced amendments to the 1960 Act to permit Jallikattu, Bullock Cart Races, and Kambala, respectively. These amendments included:
  • Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017: Defined “Jallikattu” and added exceptions to Sections 3, 11, 22, and 27 of the 1960 Act to allow the sport.
  • Maharashtra Amendment Act, 2017: Defined “bullock cart race” and added exceptions to Sections 3, 11, 22, and 27 of the 1960 Act to allow the sport.
  • Karnataka Amendment Act, 2017: Defined “Kambala” and “Bulls race or Bullock cart race” and added exceptions to Sections 3, 11, 22, and 27 of the 1960 Act to allow the sport.
• Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India: This provision allows state laws to prevail over central laws in certain cases, provided they receive Presidential assent.
• Article 48 of the Constitution of India: Directs the state to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds.
• Article 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution of India: Enshrines the fundamental duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures and to develop humanism.

Arguments

The petitioners, primarily animal welfare organizations and activists, argued that:

• The state amendments did not address the core issues of cruelty and suffering highlighted in the A. Nagaraja judgment.
• The sports, even with regulations, inherently involve pain and stress for the animals, violating Sections 3, 11(1)(a), and 11(1)(m) of the 1960 Act.
• The amendments were a colorable exercise of legislative power to override a judicial verdict.
• The term “person” under Article 21 of the Constitution should include sentient animals, and their rights are being curtailed by these sports.
• These sports cannot be considered part of the cultural heritage of the states, and even if they were, cultural practices cannot override welfare legislation.
• The amendments were arbitrary and lacked an intelligible differentia, as they singled out bulls for exceptions from the protective measures of the 1960 Act.

The respondents, including the Union of India and the respective state governments, contended that:

• The state amendments were valid exercises of legislative power under Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with the prevention of cruelty to animals.
• The amendments, along with the rules and regulations framed by the states, have substantially mitigated the cruelty associated with these sports.
• The sports are integral parts of the cultural heritage of the respective states and are protected under Article 29 of the Constitution.
• The amendments aim to preserve native breeds of bulls and are thus related to Article 48 of the Constitution.
• The Presidential assent to the amendments validated them under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
• The rights of sentient animals are subject to legislative provisions and the legislature is the appropriate body to determine the contours of such rights.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

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 Court considered the following authorities:

Ratio Decidendi

The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Aniruddha Bose, held that:

• The state amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, are valid exercises of legislative power under Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
• The amendments, along with the rules and regulations framed by the states, substantially mitigate the cruelty associated with these sports.
• The Court accepted the legislative view that Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races are integral parts of the cultural heritage of the respective states and are protected under Article 29 of the Constitution.
• The amendments do not violate Articles 14, 21, 51A(g), and 51A(h) of the Constitution.
• The defects pointed out in the A. Nagaraja judgment have been overcome by the state amendments and their rules.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made the following observations:

• The Court recognized the importance of animal welfare and noted that the state governments have taken steps to ensure that cruelty is minimized.
• The Court emphasized that cultural practices should not be used as a pretext to inflict unnecessary cruelty on animals.
• The Court acknowledged the need to balance cultural heritage with animal rights and found that the state amendments had achieved this balance.
• The Court did not delve into the question of whether animals can be considered “persons” under Article 21 of the Constitution, leaving it open for future consideration.

Dissenting Opinion

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. All five judges concurred with the majority opinion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, upheld the validity of state amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, that legalized Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races. The Court recognized these sports as part of the cultural heritage of the respective states and found that the amendments, along with the rules and regulations, adequately address the concerns of animal welfare. This judgment has significant implications for the balance between cultural practices and animal rights in India.

Flowchart of the Decision

Ratio of Petitions

The following table shows the ratio of petitions filed in the case: