IMPORTANT POINT
Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 is repugnant to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and hence unconstitutional and void.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of statute – Welfare legislation – Provisions of welfare legislation should be liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm – Court also should be vigilant to see that benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle devices – Court has also a duty under the doctrine of parents patriae to take care of the rights of animals, since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings. (Para 25, 26)
       (b) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Section 3 – Primary duty on the persons-in-charge or care of the animal – To take care of well being of animals – Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races etc. – Manner of conduct of – Is sadism and perversity – Organizers inflicting pain and suffering on the bulls – Violative of section 3. (Para 27, 28)
       (2001) 6 SCC 84 – Referred
       (c) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Section 11 – For welfare and protection of animals and Penal in nature – Cruelty to animals – Unnecessary pain or suffering – Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races and the events like that fall in the expression “or otherwise” and punishable under Section 11(1)(a) – Section 11(3) carves out exception to section 11(1) – However, entertainment, exhibition or amusement using animals not covered by doctrine of necessity and hence not exempted. (Para 29, 30)
       1957 SCR 721 – Relied upon
       (d) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Section 3 and 11 – Bulls not performing animals – Anatomically not so designed – Forcing them to perform – Violation of section 3 and 11. (Para 34)
       (e) Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 – Rule 8 – Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race not consistent with Bull’s instinct – Their ‘flight response’ being exploited – Violative of rule 8. (Para 38)
       (f) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Section 3 and 11 – The Act overrides any custom or tradition – Moreover, Jallikattu or the bullock cart race, as practised now, has never been the tradition or culture. (Para 43)
       (2002) 8 SCC 106; (2012) 3 SCC 277; (2012) 4 SCC 362; (2013) 8 SCC 234 – Relied upon
       (g) Constitution of India – Article 51A(g), 48 and 48-A – Animals regarded as property worldwide – Right to this property is subject to section 3 and 11 of the PCA Act – Article 51A(g), 48 and 48-A enjoin having compassion for living creatures as fundamental duty of the citizens – Articles 51A(g) and (h) have to be read into Section 3 and Section 11 of PCA Act, and be applied and enforced. (Para 57, 62, 63, 64)
       (2005) 8 SCC 534 – Relied upon
       (h) Constitution of India – Article 254 – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 – Both enactments derive authority from Entry 17 List III – PCA Act is an eco-centric legislation, enacted to ensure well-being and welfare of the animals and to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering to them – TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentric legislation and basically safeguards the interest of the organizers and spectators while conducting the event of Jallikattu – In case of penalty there is inconsistency between Section 7 of the TNRJ Act and Section 11 of the PCA Act – ‘Taming of bulls’ in Section 2(c) of TNRJ Act is inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of PCA Act – Similarly, Section 5 of TNRJ Act is inconsistent with Section 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act – PCA Act conferring corresponding rights on animals, taken away by the TNRJ Act by conferring rights on the organizers and Bull tamers, to conduct Jallikattu – State Act held repugnant to Central Act – Hence unconstitutional and void. (Para 69, 73, 74, 75, 76)
       (1990) 2 SCC 562; (2000) 5 SCC 231 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       These cases concern the Rights of Animals under our Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion and ethology, which we have to examine, in connection with the conduct of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races etc. in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with particular reference to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act.
       Finding of the Court:
       Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act. Notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government upheld.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in these cases, concerned with an issue of seminal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under our Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion and ethology, which we have to examine, in connection with the conduct of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races etc. in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with particular reference to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short ‘the PCA Act’), the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (for short “TNRJ Act”) and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act.

3. We have two sets of cases here, one set challenges the Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court at Madurai dated 09.03.2007, filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India (for short “AWBI”), Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011 filed by an organisation called PETA, challenging the validity of TNRJ Act and few other writ petitions transferred from the Madras High Court at Madurai challenging/enforcing the validity of the MoEF Notification dated 11.07.2011 and another set of cases, like SLP No. 13199 of 2012, challenging the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12.03.2012 upholding the MoEF Notification dated 11.07.2011 and the corrigendum issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 24.08.2011 prohibiting all Bullock-cart races, games, training, exhibition etc. Review Petition No. 57 of 2012 was filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court on 26.11.2012, against which SLP No. 4598 of 2013 has been filed.

4. ABWI, a statutory Board, established under Section 4 of the PCA Act for the promotion of animal welfare and for the purpose of protecting the animals from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering has taken up a specific stand that Jallikattu, Bull/Bullock-cart races etc., as such, conducted in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra respectively, inherently violate the provisions of the PCA Act, particularly, Section 3, Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) and Section 22 of the PCA Act. ABWI, through its reports, affidavits and photographs, high-lighted the manner in which Jallikattu is being conducted, especially in the Southern Part of the State of Tamil Nadu, and how the bulls involved are physically and mentally tortured for human pleasure and enjoyment. Details have also been furnished by the 2nd respondent, in SLP No. 13199 of 2012, along with photographs explaining how the Bullock-cart race is being conducted in various parts of the State of Maharashtra and the torture and cruelty meted out to the bullocks. ABWI has taken up the stand that, by no stretch of imagination, it can be gainsaid that Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race conducted, as such, has any historical, cultural or religious significance, either in the State of Tamil Nadu or in the State of Maharashtra and, even assuming so, the welfare legislation like PCA Act would supersede the same, being a Parliamentary legislation. ABWI has also taken up the specific stand that the bulls involved in Jallikattu, Bullock-cart race etc. are not “performing animals” within the meaning of Sections 21 and 22 of the PCA Act and that the MoEF, in any view, was justified in issuing the notification dated 11.7.2011 banning the exhibition of Bulls or training them as performing animals on accepting the stand taken by it before this Court. Further, it has also taken up the stand that the TNRJ Act is repugnant to the provisions of the PCA Act and the rules made thereunder and State cannot give effect to it in the absence of the assent of the President under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Further, ABWI also submits that the Bulls which are forced to participate in the race are subjected to considerable pain and suffering, which clearly violates Section 3 and Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) of the PCA Act read with Article 51A(g) and Article 21 of the Constit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 405

IMPORTANT POINTTamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 is repugnant to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and hence unconstitutional and void.

Cases Referred (20)

IMPORTANT POINT
Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 is repugnant to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and hence unconstitutional and void.