ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA VS. A NAGARAJA & ORS. (2014)7 SCC 547

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case deals with two cases: one that challenges the decision of the division bench of Madras High Court which challenged the validity of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act. The appeal was made in 2006 to ban Jallikattu when a petition was filed before Madras High Court to conduct Jallikattu. Because of cruelty to animals, the Single Bench banned Jallikattu but the Division Bench overruled the decision and granted permission to conduct Jallikattu but under some conditions. But the practice of Jallikattu disregarded the conditions son the Animal Welfare Board put up a notification barring bulls as performing animals.

The other case challenged the Division Bench judgement of Bombay High Court dated 12.03.12 upholding MoEF. In the present case the petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench, to enforce the notification. On the other hand, the respondents are arguing that Jallikattu should not be banned on the grounds of culture and traditions.

ISSUES

Is the notification dated 11-07-2011 constitutionally valid?

ARGUMENTS 

In favour:

• In Tamil Nadu, Jallikattu is both a religious and cultural event celebrated by the people of the state.
• It added that any ban on such practices would be seen as against the sensitivities of the community. 
• The traditional and cultural significance of the event is taught in the school curriculum.
• The practice of Jallikattu creates revenue for the state.
• There is no cruelty done on animals during the event and police are always on duty during the event to prevent cruelty on animals.

In Opposition:

• Deaths and injuries have been caused to humans as well as bulls.
• According to AWBI, extreme cruelty was inflicted on animals and they were forced to participate.
• There was no material to justify Jallikattu was a part of culture.
• AWBI stated that after they did research, they found that animals were deprived of their basic needs like food, water and sanitation and they were beaten and tormented.
• It violates the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which safeguards the rights of human and protects life and the term life has been given an expanded definition so it does include animal life also.

JUDGEMENT

• It was held that AWBI is right that Jallikattu violates Section 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act and upheld the decision by the Central Govt. dated 11.07.2011 banning bullock cart races for Jallikattu and any other events.
• The court also held that the rights which are granted to bulls cannot be curtailed which are given in Section 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with Article 51(g) of the Indian Constitution except under Section 11(3).
•  The five freedoms which are given in Section 3 and Section 11 of PCA Act are to be safeguarded or protected by the government (states, Central govt. and UT’s).
• AWBI was directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii) are followed which means that there should be a person-in-charge to ensure well being of animals and should take care that animals shall not incite any animal to fight against a human being or another animal.
• If the directions issued by the Court are not complied with, the govt. can take disciplinary actions against the officials so that the purpose and objectives are achieved of the PCA Act. 

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

Written by Hotisha Kapoor an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin