ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD V UNION OF INDIA 2023 INSC 548:

DATE: 06/01/2024

BENCH: Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice C.T. Ravikuma

FACTS:

Jallikattu, a traditional bull-taming sport held during the Pongal festival in Tamil Nadu, was banned by the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), citing cruelty to animals. The Court prohibited the use of bulls for Jallikattu and similar events, including bullock cart races across the country. In 2015, the Tamil Nadu government sought a review of the decision, but the Supreme Court dismissed the plea. Despite this, on January 7, 2016, the Union government issued a notification permitting Jallikattu under certain restrictions, while directing states to comply with the A. Nagaraja judgment. Animal rights activists, including PETA, challenged this notification at the Supreme Court, arguing that the exemption violated the earlier ruling. While these petitions were pending, the Tamil Nadu government enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which legally permitted Jallikattu under a regulated framework.

Following this legislative move, various organizations, including PETA, filed writ petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act. The primary contention was that the state law circumvented the A. Nagaraja ruling and that only the Union government had the authority to regulate matters under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). The petitioners argued that Jallikattu lacked religious significance and violated Section 11 of the PCA Act, which prohibits cruelty to animals. They asserted that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act was unconstitutional and that allowing Jallikattu undermined the principles established by the Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja, which had already found the practice to be cruel. The case thus centered on whether Tamil Nadu’s amendment could override the Supreme Court’s prior decision and if the sport could be legally protected under cultural and traditional grounds.

ISSUES:

The main issues were the constitutional validity of state amendments permitting Jallikattu and similar sports and their compliance with animal welfare laws. Petitioners argued that these amendments violated the Supreme Court’s A. Nagaraja (2014) ruling, which banned the use of bulls for performances due to cruelty concerns. The Court examined whether Jallikattu was protected under cultural rights, if the state laws conflicted with the PCA Act, 1960, and whether they adequately addressed animal welfare under Articles 21 and 51A(g) of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT WTH REASONING:

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of state amendments allowing Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock cart races in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. The Court ruled that these laws did not violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as they introduced regulatory measures to minimize cruelty. It also held that Jallikattu was a cultural practice with historical significance and could be protected under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. However, the Court emphasized that animal welfare must be balanced with cultural rights and that regulatory frameworks must be strictly enforced.

The Supreme Court reasoned that Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock cart races were deeply rooted in the cultural traditions of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. It held that Tamil Nadu’s amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) was within the state’s legislative competence and did not violate the Constitution. The Court emphasized that Jallikattu had evolved with safeguards in place to minimize cruelty, and thus, it could not be outrightly equated with animal cruelty as defined in Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja (2014). The Court also observed that Article 29(1) of the Constitution protects cultural practices, and the Tamil Nadu amendment was a legislative recognition of this right, provided it adhered to regulatory measures ensuring animal welfare.

Further, the Court ruled that the state amendments did not contradict the central PCA Act, as the latter permitted exceptions for traditional practices under regulated conditions. The judgment highlighted that states have the power to make laws tailored to their socio-cultural context, and as long as they do not directly contradict central legislation, they remain valid. While acknowledging concerns raised by animal rights activists, the Court held that the lawfulness of these sports depended on strict adherence to the safeguards introduced by the amendments. It stressed that proper implementation and oversight were necessary to ensure that these events were conducted with minimal harm to the animals involved.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Animal Welfare Board v. Union of India (2023) reflects a nuanced approach to balancing cultural traditions with animal welfare. By upholding the constitutional validity of state amendments allowing Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock cart races, the Court recognized the historical and cultural significance of these practices under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. The judgment affirmed that while the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) aims to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals, it does not prohibit traditional sports outright if they are conducted under regulated conditions. This decision indicates a shift from the A. Nagaraja (2014) ruling, as the Court acknowledged the state’s legislative power to modify the law to accommodate regional practices. However, the ruling also imposed a strict requirement for regulatory oversight, reinforcing that states must ensure these events adhere to humane standards and minimize cruelty.

Additionally, the judgment underscores the importance of legislative competence and federalism, affirming that state governments have the authority to enact laws suited to their socio-cultural landscape, provided they do not directly contradict central laws. The Court’s reasoning suggests that outright bans on traditional practices may not always be the best approach, especially when regulation can address concerns about cruelty. However, the decision leaves room for future judicial review if the safeguards prove ineffective or if evidence of systemic cruelty resurfaces. By placing the responsibility of enforcement on the state governments, the Court has emphasized the need for continuous monitoring and accountability to strike a fair balance between cultural heritage and animal rights.