IMPORTANT POINTS
Judgment in (2014) 7 SCC 547 is not factually incorrect.
The Court while dealing with law and legal principles can refer to the cultural ethos and the ancient texts of this country as far as they do not run counter to constitutional and statutory thought and principle. Similarly reference to international concepts relating to compassion to animals and the steps taken would be permissible. Such references present a holistic analysis that is in consonance with our constitutional value
The concept of taming a bull for the purpose of an event, ticketed or not, runs counter to the basic foundation of the PCA Act i.e. welfare of the animal.
When a subject under List III is fully covered by a Central Act, State legislature cannot enact a law on the same subject.
Jallikattu has no connection or association with the right of freedom of religion.

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Section 11(1)(a), 11(2)(m), 11(3) and 22; and section 3, Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 – Jallikattu is named as an event and it includes taming of bulls – Judgment under review establishes that bulls are subjected to cruelty and Court is not factually incorrect – Contention of petitioner to the contrary rejected – court rightly held Act, 2009 to be contrary to Act, 1960. (Para 17)
       (b) Interpretation of statute – External aids – Domestic Scriptures and International concepts – The Court in the judgment under review referring to Isha-Upanishad to stress as regards rights of the animals – Allusion to Isha-Upanishad not alien to the concept of animal welfare – The Court while dealing with law and legal principles can refer to the cultural ethos and the ancient texts of this country as far as they do not run counter to constitutional and statutory thought and principle – Similarly reference to international concepts relating to compassion to animals and the steps taken would be permissible – Such references present a holistic analysis that is in consonance with our constitutional value – Criticism of the approach is unfair. (Para 21)
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 254(2) – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 – The concept of taming a bull for the purpose of an event, ticketed or not, runs counter to the basic foundation of the PCA Act i.e. welfare of the animal – Both Acts falling in Entry 17, List III, Seventh Schedule – Entire field covered by PCA Act – Act 2009, repugnant to PCA Act could not have been enacted – Act 2009 rightly held ultra vires in the judgment under review. (Para 24, 31)
       (2014) 7 SCC 547; AIR 1959 SC 648; (1979) 3 SCC 431; (1955) 1 SCR 799; (1964) 4 SCR 461; (1996) 3 SCC 709; (2002) 9 SCC 232 – Relied upon
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 25 – Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion – Held, Jallikattu has no connection or association with the right of freedom of religion – Just because Jallikattu is held after harvest it cannot be held as having religious flavour – Jallikattu not saved under Article 25. (Para 36)
       AIR 1954 SC 388; IR 1954 SC 282; IR 1962 SC 853 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       On 11th July, 2011, the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a Notification.
       The said Notification was challenged in the High Court of Bombay which upheld the validity of the Notification. In the meantime, it is necessary to note that the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (for brevity, 'the 2009 Act') was called in question before the High Court of Madras, which upheld the same. The judgments from the High Courts of Bombay and Madras were assailed before this Court by various parties and this Court dwelled upon the controversy in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others, (2014) 7 SCC 547. It is apt to mention here that a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India had also been filed by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). All these matters were dealt with by a common judgment.
       State of Tamil Nadu seeking review of the said judgment contends that the Court has fallen into error by treating the 2009 Act to be repugnant to the provisions of the PCA Act and declaring the State Act as unconstitutional.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no error in the judgment under review.
       Result: Review petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3769 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5387 OF 2014

Ordinarily, the review petitions are circulated and upon appreciation of the grounds raised therein, they are either dismissed or listed for hearing in the open Court. The present review petition, regard being had to the grounds expounded and the lis in question, has been listed for hearing in open Court to test the defensibility of the arguments propounded on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu. Be it noted, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, at the commencement of hearing, submitted that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the Animal Welfare Board and oppose the prayers sought in the application for review singularly on the ground that this Court while dealing with an application for review does not exercise appellate jurisdiction. Structuring the said edifice he would submit that each of the grounds that finds place in the application for review may be a justifiable ground to be raised in appeal, but is absolutely unwarranted to be entertained for the purpose of exercising review jurisdiction.

2. For adjudication of the review petition, certain facts need to be stated. On 11th July, 2011, the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a Notification in exercise of powers conferred by Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for brevity, 'the PCA Act') in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment No.G.S.R.619(E) dated 14-10-1998. The relevant part of the Notification is extracted hereunder:-

“except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, hereby specifies that the following animals shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals, with effect from the date of publication of this notification, namely:-

1. Bears

2. Monkeys

3. Tigers

4. Panthers

5. Lions

6. Bulls”

3. The said Notification could not have been allowed to be suffered in silence. The said Notification was challenged in the High Court of Bombay which upheld the validity of the Notification. In the meantime, it is necessary to note that the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (for brevity, 'the 2009 Act') was called in question before the High Court of Madras, which upheld the same. The judgments from the High Courts of Bombay and Madras were assailed before this Court by various parties and this Court dwelled upon the controversy in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others, (2014) 7 SCC 547. It is apt to mention here that a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India had also been filed by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). All these matters were dealt with by a common judgment wherein this Court after adverting to many aspects recorded its conclusion and issued certain directions which are reproduced below:-

“1) We declare that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or curtailed, except under Sections 11(3) and 28 of PCA Act.

2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act, be protected and safeguarded by the States, Central Government, Union Territories (in short “Governments”), MoEF and AWBI.

3) AWBI and Governments are directed to take appropriate steps to see that the persons-in-charge or care of animals, take reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of animals.

4) AWBI and Governments are directed to take steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals, since their rights have been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act.

5) AWBI is also directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii) scrupulously followed, meaning thereby, that the person-in-charge or care of the animal shall not incite any animal to fight against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 941

Cases Referred (8)