Bombay High Court
Shri. Ajay Marathe vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 August, 2017
1/5 (902)PIL-ST-23132-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ST. NO.23132 of 2017
Ajay Marathe .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents
...
Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Kalyani Tulankar for the
petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Vagyani, G.P with Mr.P.G. Sawant, AGP with Mr.Rohan
Sawant, AAGP and Geetanjali Golatkar AAGP for the State.
Mr.Parag Vyas for Union of India.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. &
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 16th AUGUST, 2017
P.C.:-
1 The present PIL is filed challenging the
amendment brought to Section 3 of the Act which is known
as Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra
Amendment) Act XL of 2017 (for short "the Act").
2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Anturkar brought to
our notice several observations of the Apex Court when
subject matter of Jallikattu (bullock race) came up for
consideration before the Apex Court. As a matter of fact,
even bullock cart racing in the State of Maharashtra was also
one of the subject matter before the Apex Court. He brought
Tilak
2/5 (902)PIL-ST-23132-17
to our notice the judgment of the Apex Court reported in
Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja and
Others, several paragraphs indicating that the very
conducting of bullock-cart race would amount to inflicting
pain to the bullocks or bulls used for such race. Therefore,
the present amendment brought can never be practically
implemented.
3 Mr.Vagyani, Government Advocate brings to our
notice sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, indicating that
Collector has to give prior permission if anyone intends to
conduct bullock cart racing subject to the condition that no
pain or suffering is envisaged by or under the Act, is caused to
the animals, and further submits that a procedure is
contemplated to punish the persons who contravenes sub-
section (2) of Section 3, and further, the State is in the
process of making rules as envisaged under sub-section (3) of
Section 3 of the Act. He further submits that the State would
undertake not to give permission unless the Rules are brought
into force.
4 Be that as it may, sub-section (3) of Section 3 of
the Act says that if anyone contravenes conditions of sub-
section (2) or Rules, they would be punished with fine which
may extend upto Rupees Five lakhs or Imprisonment which
may extend upto three years. As on today, they are not in a
1 (2014) 7 SCC 547
Tilak
3/5 (902)PIL-ST-23132-17
position to place on record what procedure would be adopted
to overcome the pain or suffering which is likely to be caused
to the animals participating in a race. It is pertinent to
mention the observations of the Act at paragraph nos.43 and
44 of the judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A.
Nagaraja and Others (supra) and so also paragraph no.90
thereof.
"43 All animals are not anatomically designed
to be performing animals. Bulls are basically
draught and pack animals. They are livestock
used for farming and agriculture purposes, like
ploughing, transportation etc. Bulls, it may be
noted, have been recognised as draught and
pack animals in the Prevention of Cruelty to
Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965.
Draught animal means an animal used for
pulling heavy loads. The Rules define large
bullock to mean a bullock the weight of which
exceeds 350 kg. Bullocks have a large abdomen
and thorax and the entire body has a
resemblance to a barrel shape, which limits the
ability to run. Bulls have also limitations on
flexing joints and the rigid heavily built body
and limited flexion of joints do not favour
running faster. Due to that body constitution,
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport
of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001, especially Rule
11 says that no person shall use a whip or a
stick in order to force the animal to walk or to
hasten the pace of their walk. Bulls, it may be
noted, are cloven footed (two digits) animals and
two digits in each leg can comfortably bear
weight only when they are walking, not running.
Horse, on the other hand, is a solid hoofed plant-
eating quadruped with a flowing mane and tail,
Tilak
4/5 (902)PIL-ST-23132-17
domesticated for riding and as a draught
animal. Horsepower, we call it as an imperial
unit of power, equals to 550 foot-pounds per
second. Horse's anatomy enables it to make use
of speed and can be usefully used for horse
racing, etc. unlike bulls.
44. Bulls, therefore in our view, cannot be
performing animals, anatomically not designed
for that, but are forced to perform, inflicting
pain and suffering, in total violation of Section 3
and Section 11(1) of the PCA Act. Chapter V of
the PCA Act deals with the performing animals.
Section 22 of the PCA Act places restriction on
exhibition and training of performing animals,
which reads as under :
"22 Restriction on exhibition and training of
performing animals -
(i) any performing animals unless he is
registered in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.
(ii) as a performing animal, any animal
which the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify
as an animal which shall not be exhibited or
trained as a performing animal."
90 We, therefore, hold that AWBI is right in its
stand that Jallikattu, bullock cart race and such events
per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of
the PCA Act and hence we uphold the Notification
dated 11-7-2011 issued by the Central Government.
Consequently, bulls cannot be used as performing
animals, either for the Jallikattu events or bullock cart
races in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or
elsewhere in the country.
Tilak
5/5 (902)PIL-ST-23132-17
5 By reading the above paragraphs, it is clear that
Their Lordships opined that the bulls cannot be viewed as
performing animals since they are not anatomically designed
for that purpose. Therefore, the very conducting race would
mean inflicting pain to the animal i.e. forcing them to
enhance their walking space since they are not designed to
run like horses. In view of that observation, it is obligatory on
the part of the respondent State to place the mechanism or
the procedure under which such races could be conducted
which does not cause pain or suffering to the animal, as
observed by the Apex Court. The State shall place on record
detailed affidavit explaining their stand since State is
undertaking not to give permission till Rules are brought into
force.
6 We make it clear that they abide by such
undertaking. We further direct them to place the material
before this Court how they are applying their mind for
granting permission to conduct such races so that we can give
further directions in the matter. Till placing such material
before the Court, they shall not grant any such permission in
any part of State of Maharashtra.
7 Stand over to 7th September 2017.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Tilak
