Animal Welfare Board Of India  V. Union Of India (Jallikattu)

INTRODUCTION

In the case, Animal Welfare Board Of India  V. Union Of India (Jallikattu)

India is known for its rich culture and heritage. The traditions and practices of each state is unique in its own way. In South India, a controversy arosed on Jallikattu which  is a traditional bull-taming sport held in Tamil Nadu, India, during the Pongal festival. It involves participants attempting to grab the hump of a bull and hold on to it while the bull tries to escape. The sport has faced controversy over animal welfare concerns,  which lead to debates on its practice and regulation.

Jallikattu has ancient roots, dating back over 2,000 years. It is believed to have originated as a part of the harvest festival celebrations in Tamil Nadu. The term “Jallikattu” evolved from a simple event into a competitive sport. However, concerns about the safety of participants and the treatment of the bulls have led to debates and legal battles surrounding its practice.is derived from the Tamil words “Salli,” meaning coins, and “Kattu,” meaning a package. Historically, coins were tied to the bull’s horns, and participants would attempt to retrieve them.Jallikattu has cultural significance, symbolizing bravery and valor. 

A five-judge constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the amendments made by the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, allowing bull-taming sports like jallikattu, kambala, and bullock-cart races. The Supreme Court overruled the previous decision made by Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose. 

What is Jallikattu?

• Jallikattu, also known as eruthazhuvuthal, is a bull taming sport in which contestants attempt to tame a bull for a prize, if they fail, the bull owner wins the prize.
• The term “Jallikattu” combines the words “Calli” (coins) and “Kattu” (tie), representing the practice of attaching a bundle of coins to the bull’s horns.
• It is celebrated in the second week of January at the time of the Pongal (harvest) festival, and also represents a celebration of nature, and thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest, of which cattle-worship is a part.
• It is revered across Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Theni, Pudukkottai and Dindigul districts of Tamil Nadu, known as the Jallikattu belt.

TIMELINE OF THE CASE 

The Jallikattu case, officially known as Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., had a timeline that unfolded through various legal proceedings. Here is a brief timeline of the key events:

1. May 7, 2014: The Supreme Court of India delivers its judgment in the Jallikattu case. The court bans the use of bulls in performances, including Jallikattu, citing concerns about cruelty and the violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2. After the Judgment: The judgment led to protests and discussions, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where Jallikattu is a traditional and culturally significant sport. There were calls for a review of the decision.

3. January 2016: The central government, responding to the protests and demands from Tamil Nadu, issues a notification allowing the conduct of Jallikattu and similar events in the state with certain regulations. This notification is challenged in court.

4. January 2017: The Supreme Court, responding to petitions challenging the central government’s notification, stays the notification, effectively re-imposing the ban on Jallikattu.

5. January 2017: Protests erupt in Tamil Nadu against the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the central government’s notification. The state government and protestors seek the intervention of the central government to find a solution.

6. January 2017: The central government, in response to the protests, introduces an ordinance to allow the conduct of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu with certain safeguards. The ordinance is later replaced by a bill.

7. January 23, 2017: The President of India gives assent to the bill, amending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, to explicitly allow Jallikattu and bullock cart races in Tamil Nadu and other states with certain regulations.

8. Post-2017: The legal and social debate around Jallikattu continues, with ongoing discussions about the balance between cultural practices and animal welfare.

It’s important to note that the timeline presented here focuses on the legal aspects and major events related to the Jallikattu case. The case has been a subject of ongoing discussion and controversy, involving legal, cultural, and ethical considerations.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Jallikattu case (Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.), the primary facts of the case revolve around the traditional bull-taming sport of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, India. The Jallikattu case has been significant not only for its legal implications but also for sparking debates on the preservation of cultural traditions and the ethical treatment of animals.

Here are the key facts:

Jallikattu Tradition: Jallikattu is a traditional sport in Tamil Nadu, typically practiced during the Pongal festival. Bulls are released into a crowd, and participants attempt to grab the bull’s hump and ride it. The sport has cultural and religious significance and has been practiced for centuries.

Animal Welfare Board of India’s Petition: The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India expressing concerns about the treatment of bulls during Jallikattu events. The AWBI argued that the practice amounted to cruelty to animals and violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: The AWBI contended that the use of bulls in Jallikattu events subjected the animals to unnecessary pain and suffering, which was against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a law aimed at preventing cruelty to animals.

Cultural Significance vs. Animal Welfare: The case raised a fundamental question of balancing cultural and traditional practices with the prevention of cruelty to animals. The court had to assess whether the cultural significance of Jallikattu justified any exemptions or regulations in light of animal welfare concerns.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. The central issue revolved around concerns raised by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) regarding the treatment of bulls in Jallikattu events. The AWBI argued that the practice amounted to cruelty to animals, violating the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
2. The interpretation and application of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 were central to the case. The court had to determine whether Jallikattu met the legal standards for the treatment of animals in performances and events, as outlined in the Act.
3. The case raised the issue of balancing cultural and religious practices with the prevention of cruelty to animals. Supporters of Jallikattu argued that the sport had deep cultural and religious significance and should be exempt from animal welfare regulations.
4. The court had to consider constitutional principles, including the right to preserve and practice one’s culture and traditions (Article 29) versus the state’s obligation to prevent cruelty to animals (Article 51A(g) of the Directive Principles of State Policy).
5. The ban on Jallikattu led to widespread protests in Tamil Nadu, reflecting public sentiment and the cultural importance attached to the sport. The case highlighted the challenges of reconciling legal principles with public opinion.
6. The court had to assess the adequacy of the existing regulatory framework and whether any exemptions or regulations could be imposed to address animal welfare concerns while allowing the practice of Jallikattu.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS

In the Jallikattu case (Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.), the appellants, represented by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), put forth various contentions to support their plea for a ban on the use of bulls in performances, including Jallikattu.

The appellants in the Jallikattu case primarily focused on the prevention of cruelty to animals, contending that the traditional practices, including Jallikattu, should be regulated or banned to ensure compliance with the legal standards for animal welfare.

1.The primary contention of the appellants was that Jallikattu and similar events involving the use of bulls amounted to cruelty towards animals. They argued that the treatment of bulls during these events, including physical injuries and stress, violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2. The appellants argued that the conduct of Jallikattu was in contravention of specific provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which prohibits causing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals. They contended that the traditional practices needed to be brought in line with the legal standards for animal welfare.

3. The appellants emphasized the importance of safeguarding the welfare of animals. They asserted that cultural and traditional practices should not override the fundamental duty of society and the state to ensure the prevention of cruelty to animals.

4. The appellants sought judicial intervention to address the concerns related to animal welfare and to interpret and apply the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. They argued that the court had a crucial role in determining the legality of practices that involved the treatment of animals.

5. While acknowledging the cultural and traditional significance of Jallikattu, the appellants argued that the state had a responsibility to strike a balance between preserving cultural practices and upholding the rights and welfare of animals.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. Respondents in favor of Jallikattu argue for its cultural and historical significance, as well as its importance in preserving indigenous breeds of cattle. Jallikattu is a traditional bull-taming sport that has been practiced in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu for centuries. Jallikattu is deeply rooted in Tamil culture and tradition. Many argue that it is an integral part of the Pongal festival and serves as a way to celebrate and honor the relationship between humans and bulls.
2. Respondent  claim that Jallikattu plays a role in the conservation of native cattle breeds, particularly the Kangayam and Pulikulam breeds. By promoting these breeds through the sport, advocates argue that Jallikattu contributes to the preservation of biodiversity.
3. Respondent argue that Jallikattu has economic significance for the rural communities involved in organizing and participating in the event. It can be a source of income for bull owners and can contribute to the local economy through various related activities.
4. Respondent contend that a ban on Jallikattu negatively impacts the livelihoods of people in rural areas who are directly or indirectly associated with the event. This includes bull breeders, traders, and those involved in organizing the festivities.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

• A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on May 18, upheld the amendments made by the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka to The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, allowing bull-taming sports like jallikattu, kambala, and bullock-cart races.
• The five-judge Bench overruled the view taken by a two-judge Bench of the court in its 2014 ruling in ‘Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007) banning such sports including jallikattu.
• While the Bench led by Justice K M Joseph ruled that the amendments, made in 2017, were “valid legislations”, it said that the jallikattu issue was “debatable”, and must ultimately be decided by the House of the People (Lok Sabha). Making this decision requires social and cultural analysis in greater detail, and such an exercise “cannot be undertaken by the judiciary”, the Bench said.

CASE ANALYSIS 

Animal Welfare Board vs Union of India Jalikattu case? That’s an interesting topic! The case revolves around the traditional bull-taming sport called Jalikattu in India. The Animal Welfare Board of India had raised concerns about the welfare of the animals involved in the sport, leading to a legal battle.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of India banned Jalikattu, stating that it violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. However, in 2017, the Tamil Nadu government passed a law to allow the sport, leading to another legal battle. The Animal Welfare Board challenged the law, arguing that it was against the principles of animal welfare. 

Ultimately, in 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the ban on Jalikattu, stating that the sport caused unnecessary pain and suffering to the animals. The court emphasized the importance of animal welfare and the need to protect animals from cruelty.

It’s a complex and controversial case, with arguments on both sides from respondent and appeallants. Those who are against the practice of jallikattu argue that Jallikattu involves cruelty to animals, as bulls are subjected to physical harm and stress during the event. Animal rights activists have raised concerns about the well-being of the bulls and have called for a ban on the practice. 

Supporters of Jallikattu highlight its cultural and traditional importance in Tamil Nadu. They argue that the practice is an integral part of local festivals and serves as a means of celebrating and preserving cultural heritage.They argue that Jalikattu is an important cultural tradition, while others believe that animal welfare should take precedence.

Written by Muskan Sharma an intern under legal vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin