Supreme Court Upholds State Laws on Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races: Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Union of India (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 548

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Ajay Rastogi, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J. (authored by Aniruddha Bose, J.)

Can cultural traditions involving animals be legally protected, even if they may cause some degree of pain or suffering? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question in a batch of petitions challenging state laws that permit traditional sports like Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races. These sports, deeply rooted in the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, respectively, had previously been outlawed due to concerns about animal cruelty. The core issue was whether these state laws, enacted to preserve cultural heritage and ensure the survival of native breeds of bulls, could override the central Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Justice Aniruddha Bose, delivered the judgment. The bench unanimously upheld the validity of the state amendments, finding that they sufficiently mitigated animal cruelty concerns when read in conjunction with the rules and notifications issued by the respective state governments.

Case Background

The case originated from a 2014 Supreme Court judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others, which banned Jallikattu and Bullock Cart Races, deeming them cruel and in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The court held that these sports caused unnecessary pain and suffering to the animals.

Following this ban, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) issued a notification in 2016, attempting to allow these sports under certain conditions. This notification was challenged, leading to a series of writ petitions.

Subsequently, the state legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka passed amendment acts in 2017 to legalize these sports, citing cultural heritage and the need to preserve native breeds of bulls. These amendments were challenged in the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment. The Animal Welfare Board of India initially challenged the notification but later supported the state amendments, while one of its members continued to challenge the same. A farmer from Maharashtra also intervened, arguing that the ban on bullock cart races would affect the livelihoods of farmers.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial writ petitions were filed challenging the 2016 notification by the MoEF&CC and seeking compliance with the 2014 Supreme Court judgment in A. Nagaraja. The Animal Welfare Board of India initially challenged the notification but later changed its stance to support the state amendments.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay restrained the conducting of Bullock Cart Races, which was challenged by a farmer from Maharashtra. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court then referred the matter to a Constitution Bench to answer five key questions related to the validity of the state amendments.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court also took cognizance of the Karnataka and Maharashtra Amendment Acts and directed that these writ petitions be heard along with the writ petitions pertaining to the State of Tamil Nadu.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework involves the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, a central legislation enacted under Entry 17 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, which deals with the “prevention of cruelty to animals.”

The Act aims to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. Key provisions include:

• Section 3: Imposes a duty on persons in charge of animals to ensure their well-being and prevent unnecessary pain or suffering.
• Section 11(1): Lists various acts of cruelty, including beating, torturing, or overloading animals, and using them when unfit.
• Section 11(1)(m): Prohibits confining animals to make them prey for other animals and inciting animals to fight.
• Section 22: Restricts the exhibition and training of performing animals.

The state amendment acts of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka introduced changes to the 1960 Act within their respective states. These amendments primarily aimed to:

• Define Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races as traditional sports.
• Permit these sports, subject to rules and regulations framed by the state governments.
• Exempt these sports from certain restrictions under the 1960 Act.

The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act added a definition of “Jallikattu” as an event involving bulls conducted with a view to follow tradition and culture from January to May. The Karnataka Amendment Act defined “Kambala” as a traditional sports event involving buffaloes (male) race and “Bulls race or Bullock cart race” as any form of bulls race including race of Bullock cart as a traditional sports. The Maharashtra Amendment Act defined “bullock cart race” as an event involving bulls or bullocks to conduct a race with a view to follow tradition and culture.

The amendments also added clauses to Section 3, allowing the conduct of these sports subject to rules and regulations. Furthermore, amendments to Section 11(3) and Section 27 and insertion of Section 28A exempted these sports from the restrictions of the Act. The Maharashtra Amendment Act also introduced Section 38B, giving the State Government power to make rules for the conduct of bullock cart races.

Arguments

The petitioners, primarily animal welfare organizations and advocates, argued that the state amendments perpetuate cruelty to animals and are in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. They contended that the amendments were merely a cosmetic attempt to bypass the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in A. Nagaraja, without addressing the core issues of animal cruelty.

• Main Submission: The state amendments do not cure the defects pointed out in the A. Nagaraja judgment and are therefore invalid.

  • Sub-submission: The amendments merely reintroduce the banned sports without addressing the cruelty involved.

  • Sub-submission: The manner in which these sports are conducted is still in violation of Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

• Main Submission: Animals have rights, including the right to live with dignity and without unnecessary suffering.

  • Sub-submission: The expression “person” as used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes sentient animals.

  • Sub-submission: The Fundamental Duty of Indian citizens to have compassion for living creatures results in corresponding rights for sentient animals.

• Main Submission: The state amendments are not genuinely for cultural preservation but are a means to bypass the 2014 judgment.

  • Sub-submission: The sports are not an integral part of the cultural heritage of the respective states.

  • Sub-submission: The amendments seek to invalidate a conclusive judicial opinion without curing the defects specified in that decision.

• Main Submission: The state amendments are arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

  • Sub-submission: Making an exception for bulls to carve them out of the protective mechanism of the 1960 Act was not based on any intelligible criteria but on an arbitrary selection.

  • Sub-submission: The classification of bulls as performing animals is irrational.

• Main Submission: The state legislatures lacked the legislative competence to enact the amendment acts.

  • Sub-submission: The subject of Jallikattu does not come within the ambit of Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

The respondents, including the Union of India, the state governments, and the Animal Welfare Board (in its changed stance), argued that the state amendments were valid and necessary to preserve cultural heritage and ensure the survival of native breeds of bulls. They contended that the amendments, along with the rules and notifications, sufficiently regulated the sports to minimize animal cruelty.

• Main Submission: The state amendments are within the legislative competence of the state legislatures.

  • Sub-submission: The subject matter of the amendments falls under Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

• Main Submission: The amendments seek to preserve the cultural heritage of the respective states.

  • Sub-submission: Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races are traditional sports that have been practiced for centuries.

• Main Submission: The state amendments, along with the rules and notifications, sufficiently regulate the sports to minimize animal cruelty.

  • Sub-submission: The rules specify isolated arenas, bull collection areas, and spectator galleries to minimize direct contact between bulls and humans.

  • Sub-submission: The rules prohibit causing physical disturbance to the bulls like beating and poking them with sharp objects, sticks, pouring chilli powder in their eyes, twisting their tails, etc.

• Main Submission: The amendments are necessary to ensure the survival of native breeds of bulls.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioners innovatively argued for the recognition of animal rights as fundamental rights, linking them to the constitutional duties of citizens. The respondents, on the other hand, focused on the legislative competence of the state governments and the cultural significance of the sports, arguing that the new rules and regulations sufficiently addressed animal cruelty concerns.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following five issues for consideration:

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 various legal authorities, including cases and legal provisions, to arrive at its decision. The authorities are categorized by the legal points they address.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court’s ratio decidendi, or the reasoning behind its decision, can be summarized as follows:

1. Legislative Competence: The state amendments are within the legislative competence of the state legislatures under Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The subject matter of the amendments is the prevention of cruelty to animals, which is a concurrent subject.

2. Cultural Heritage: The Court acknowledged that Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races are traditional sports with cultural significance. While the court did not make a definitive finding on whether they are integral to the cultural heritage, it deferred to the state legislatures’ view that they are part of cultural heritage.

3. Minimizing Cruelty: The state amendments, along with the rules and notifications issued by the respective state governments, sufficiently mitigate animal cruelty concerns. The rules specify the manner in which these sports are to be conducted, including the use of isolated arenas, bull collection areas, and spectator galleries. They also prohibit causing physical disturbance to the bulls.

4. No Violation of Fundamental Rights: The state amendments do not violate Articles 14, 21, 51A(g), and 51A(h) of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the classification of bulls as a separate category for these sports is not arbitrary and that the rules sufficiently protect the animals from unnecessary suffering.

5. Overcoming Defects of A. Nagaraja: The Court held that the state amendments and the rules have overcome the defects pointed out in the 2014 judgment in A. Nagaraja. The amendments and rules ensure that the sports are conducted in a manner that minimizes cruelty to animals.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court also made several observations that, while not essential to its decision, provide valuable insights. These obiter dicta include:

• Animal Rights and Sentience: The Court acknowledged the growing recognition of animal rights and their sentience. However, it clarified that the rights of animals are subject to legislative provisions and that the legislature is the best judge of the nature and extent of those rights.

• Dynamic Nature of Law: The Court emphasized that law is not static and must evolve with societal changes. The Court observed that the concept of animal rights and animal welfare has evolved over time and that the law must reflect this evolution.

• Role of Legislature: The Court emphasized the role of the legislature in determining the balance between cultural traditions and animal welfare. The Court stated that it should not interfere with the legislature’s decision unless the law is manifestly unconstitutional.

Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the state amendment acts of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. The Court held that the amendments, along with the rules and notifications issued by the respective state governments, sufficiently mitigate animal cruelty concerns. The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the state amendments.

The Court stated that the state amendments are not colourable legislation and that they are within the legislative competence of the state legislatures.

Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process

Ratio of the Decision

The ratio of the decision can be summarized as follows:

Sentiment Analysis of the Judgment

The judgment has been received with mixed sentiments. A sentiment analysis of the decision can be summarized as follows:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Union of India (2023) is a landmark judgment that attempts to balance the protection of cultural heritage with the prevention of animal cruelty. The Court upheld the validity of state laws that permit traditional sports like Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races, provided that these sports are conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the state governments.

The judgment highlights the dynamic nature of law and the need for it to evolve with societal changes. It also underscores the importance of legislative competence and the role of the legislature in balancing competing interests. While the judgment has been met with mixed reactions, it is a significant step in the ongoing debate over animal rights and cultural preservation.