The Supreme Court examined the implications of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 and concluded that it did not contradict Articles 51-A, 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court thoroughly evaluated the provisions of the Act and analyzed its compatibility with the constitutional framework.
Brief Facts of the Case:
A set of Civil Writ Petitions were filed against the notification by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. However, a notification issued on January 7, 2016, allowed for the continuation of these sports under certain conditions. The Division Bench had banned the sports of 'Jallikattu' and 'Bullock Cart Race' in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, respectively. These sports were deemed to violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “1960 Act”).
Brief Background of the Case:
The first writ petition was brought by the Animal Welfare Board of India and others, but during the hearing, the Board changed its stance and supported the State and Union of India. Another writ petitioner pursued the case independently. An Interlocutory Application was filed by Vikramsinh Nivrutti Bhosale, an agriculturalist from Maharashtra, arguing that the challenge to the Maharashtra Amendment Act could negatively impact farmers associated with the Bullock Cart Race.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Tamil Nadu Amendment Act”), The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Maharashtra Amendment Act”) and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Karnataka Amendment Act”) passed by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka aimed to legalize various bovine sports, including Jallikattu, Bullock Cart Race, and Kambala. These Acts received Presidential assent. A Public Interest Litigation in the High Court of Bombay challenged the proposed rules for the Bullock Cart Race in Maharashtra.
The High Court restrained the conducting of Bullock Cart Races in Maharashtra. Another person filed a Special Leave Petition to challenge the High Court's order. The Division Bench of the Court formulated five questions to be answered by a Constitution Bench. The petitioners questioned the President's assent, arguing that complete details were not disclosed. However, the Court held that the Amendment Statutes were related to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The petitioners argued that despite the State Amendments, the newly legalized activities still violate sections of the 1960 Act and fail to address previous shortcomings. They claimed that sentient animals should be considered "persons" under Article 21 of the Constitution, and legalizing these sports restricts their liberty unreasonably, violating Article 14. The petitioners connected various articles to establish rights for animals based on citizens' duty to show compassion. They also argued that the cultural heritage claims in the Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra Amendment Acts overlook deficiencies in previous judgments. Overall, the legislative approach imposes restrictions on the human treatment of animals based on social and cultural policies outlined in Article 48. The petitioners proposed interpreting the Amendment Acts in light of constitutional provisions to protect animals from prohibited acts and clarified that organisers are still accountable under the 1960 Act.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents argued that these bovine sports were part of the culture and tradition of the respective States. The relevant provisions of the Amendment Acts express this notion. However, the continuance of these sports was found to violate a Central Statute by a Division Bench of the Court, and the Amendment Acts seek to revive the previous position. They argued that it was not this Court's jurisdiction to determine if an event or activity forms part of the culture or tradition of a community or region, but the Court must enforce the law if long-standing tradition conflicts with it. However, the position of law has changed with the introduction of the Amendment Acts, which legitimize these sports without specifying the procedures for conducting them. The respondents argued that many offending elements have been eliminated through Rules under the Amendment Acts, providing regulatory measures for conducting the sports. The Statutes and Rules should be read together to interpret the Amendment Acts properly. The Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra Amendment Acts conferred rule-making power to the respective States, and Rules have been framed accordingly. The Karnataka Amendment Act imposed additional restrictions on conducting Kambala. These Rules and conditions should be considered alongside the Amendment Acts for their proper interpretation.
Observations of the Court:
The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act was determined not to be aimed at ensuring the survival and well-being of native breeds of bulls. It was also found not related to Article 48 of the Constitution of India. Although the Act may have had an incidental impact on a particular breed of bulls and agricultural activities, its essence was related to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
In regard to whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act Contradicted Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A (h) and violated the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the answer was determined to be negative. The Act, along with its accompanying rules, was not directly contrary to the previous judgments in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja and Others [(2014) 7 SCC 547], and the subsequent plea for review.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition as well as the corresponding appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, Maharashtra Amendment Act and Karnataka Amendment Acts.
Case Title: The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v Union of India & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition Civil No. 23 of 2016
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 508 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. T. Ravikumar
Advocates for Petitioner: M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AOR, Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR, Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR, Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR, Mr. Satyam Thareja, AOR, Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR, Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR, Mr. Anil V Anturkar, Sr. Adv., Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR and Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G, Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. M. Y. Deshmukh, AOR, Mr. N. R. Elango, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AOR, Mr. Agilesh Kumar S, Adv., Mr. V. K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR, Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR, Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, AOR, Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, AOR, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR, Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR, Mr. Nikhil Goel, A.A.G, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. and Mr. D.kumanan, AOR, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv., M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR, Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, AOR and Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj Senior, Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
