Animal Welfare Board Of India vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 543

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
The Animal Welfare Board Of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6 OF 2018, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.10 OF 2018, CIVIL APPEAL NO….. OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3528 OF 2018), WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1193 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1152 OF 2018, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 24 OF 2016, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 25 OF 2016, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 26 OF 2016, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 27 OF 2016, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 88 OF 2016, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1011 OF 2017, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1059 OF 2017, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1188 OF 2017, TRANSFERRED CASE 60 OF 2021
Decided on : 18-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AOR Mr. Sumit Attri, Adv. Ms. Gauri Mauleki, Adv. Ms. Ritu Anand Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Varalika Dev, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR Ms. Vasudha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mansvini Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhyudaya Shishodia, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. Ria Singh Sawhney, Adv. Ms. Arunima Kedia, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Satyam Thareja, AOR Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Amit, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Mr. Anil V Anturkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikram Chandravanshi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kesar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Gunjan Mangla, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Mangla, Adv. Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Shreya Saxena, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv. Mr. Y. Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. M. P. Parthiban, Adv. Mrs. Priyaranjini Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. M. Y. Deshmukh, AOR Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Adv. Mr. Nandkumar N. Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. N. R. Elango, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AOR Ms. Shakun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Agilesh Kumar S, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv. Mr. V. K. Khanna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S. K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR Mr. Mayilsamy K, Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Adv. Dr. Gayathiri A. S, Adv. Mr. K. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Adv. Mr. K. Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Kabilan Manoharan, Adv. Mr. S. J. Amit, Adv. Mr. K. Vijay Anand, Adv. Mr. V. Pavel, Adv. Mr. Naijal Kumar, Adv. Mr. A. Santhakumaran, Adv. Mr. A. S Vairavan, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv. Ms. Shalini, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. P. Sivanandham, Adv. Mr. T. Nehru, Adv. Mr. Tamilselvan, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Maheswari, Adv. Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Reegan S. Bel, Adv. Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, AOR Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, AOR Ms. Jubli Momalia, Adv. Mrs. K.priya, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Applicant-in-person Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Ms. Indra Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG. Ms. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Mr. Nithin Chowdary, Adv. Ms. B.L.N. Shivani, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Ms. Shreya Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mrs. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Adithya Roy, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V T, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Ms. Snehal Uday Kanzarkar, Adv. Mr. Shailja Nanda Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Singh Rawat, Adv. Ms. Aastha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Gunjan Mangla, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Mangla, Adv. Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Shreya Saxena, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, AOR Mr. Ranjith Marar, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv. Ms. Priya R, Adv. Mr. S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Karuppiah Meyyappan, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalairasan, Adv. Ms. Pariksha, Adv. Mr. Mahendhran T, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Kalairasan, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Ram Shankar, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, AOR Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj Senior, Adv. Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, Adv. Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv. Ms. Priya R, Adv. Mr. Sabari Bala Pandiyan S, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Ms. Nandini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mr. T. S. Nanda Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar V., Adv. Mr. G. Jai Singh, Adv. Mr. RV Shaaramathi, Adv. Mr. Yusuf, Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tomy Chacko, Adv. Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Ms. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv. Mr. S. Narender Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Headnote:
The Court held that the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka Amendment Acts, which sought to legalize certain bovine sports, including Jallikattu, Bullock Cart Race, and Kambala, were valid and did not violate the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). The Court found that the Amendment Acts, read with the Rules and Notifications issued thereunder, substantially minimized the pain and suffering inflicted on the animals during these sports and brought them within the ambit of the PCA Act. The Court also held that the Amendment Acts did not violate the cultural heritage of the respective States or the rights of the animals under Articles 14, 21, 48, 51-A(g), and 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka Amendment Acts, which sought to legalize certain bovine sports, including Jallikattu, Bullock Cart Race, and Kambala. The petitioners argued that these sports were cruel and violated the provisions of the PCA Act and the fundamental rights of the animals. The respondents, including the Union of India and the respective State Governments, contended that the Amendment Acts were valid and that the sports were part of the cultural heritage of the States.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Amendment Acts were valid and did not violate the provisions of the PCA Act or the fundamental rights of the animals. The Court found that the Amendment Acts, read with the Rules and Notifications issued thereunder, substantially minimized the pain and suffering inflicted on the animals during these sports and brought them within the ambit of the PCA Act. The Court also held that the Amendment Acts did not violate the cultural heritage of the respective States or the rights of the animals under Articles 14, 21, 48, 51-A(g), and 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka Amendment Acts were valid and did not violate the provisions of the PCA Act? 2. Whether the Amendment Acts violated the cultural heritage of the respective States or the rights of the animals under Articles 14, 21, 48, 51-A(g), and 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Amendment Acts were valid and did not violate the provisions of the PCA Act because: a) The Amendment Acts, read with the Rules and Notifications issued thereunder, substantially minimized the pain and suffering inflicted on the animals during these sports and brought them within the ambit of the PCA Act. b) The Amendment Acts did not violate the cultural heritage of the respective States or the rights of the animals under Articles 14, 21, 48, 51-A(g), and 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India. 2. The Court held that the Amendment Acts did not violate the cultural heritage of the respective States or the rights of the animals under Articles 14, 21, 48, 51-A(g), and 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India because: a) The Amendment Acts did not violate the cultural heritage of the respective States because the sports were part of the cultural heritage of the States and the Amendment Acts sought to preserve and protect this heritage. b) The Amendment Acts did not violate the rights of the animals under Articles 14, 21, 48, 51-A(g), and 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India because the Amendment Acts, read with the Rules and Notifications issued thereunder, substantially minimized the pain and suffering inflicted on the animals during these sports.
Final Decision: The Court held that the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka Amendment Acts were valid and did not violate the provisions of the PCA Act or the fundamental rights of the animals. The Court also held that the Amendment Acts did not violate the cultural heritage of the respective States or the rights of the animals under Articles 14, 21, 48, 51-A(g), and 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions and the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No.3528 of 2018.

2. In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India -vs- A. Nagaraja and Others [(2014) 7 SCC 547], a Division Bench of this Court had essentially outlawed two common sports practised in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra popularly referred to as ‘Jallikattu’ and ‘Bullock Cart Race’ respectively. These bovine sports were held to be contrary to the provisions of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (“1960 Act”) which is a Statute enacted by the Parliament. The two Judge Bench had construed the said provisions in the Constitutional backdrop of Article 51-A (g) and (h) as also Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This judgment was delivered on 7th May 2014. At that point of time, Jallikattu was regulated by a State Act in Tamil Nadu, being Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009. The Bench held that this State Act was repugnant to the provisions of the 1960 Act and was held to be void, having regard to the provisions of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India. On 7th January 2016, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEF&CC”) [bearing number GSR 13 (E)]. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the 1960 Act and prohibited exhibition or training of bulls as performing animals. However, an exception was carved and it was specified in this notification that bulls might be continued to be trained as performing animals at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and Bullock Cart Races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat in the manner by the customs of common community or practice traditionally under the customs or as part of culture in any part of the country. In the State of Karnataka, the race involved male buffaloes, known in that State as “Kambala”. This exception, however, was made subject to certain conditions seeking to reduce the pain and suffering of bulls while being used in such sports. A batch of writ petitions i.e. W.P. (C) Nos. 23 of 2016, 24 of 2016, 25 of 2016, 26 of 2016, 27 of 2016, 88 of 2016, 1059 of 2017, 1011 of 2017, 1188 of 2017, 1193 of 2017, SLP(C) No.3528 of 2018 and SLP(C) Nos. 3526-3527 of 2018 were instituted before a Division Bench of this Court questioning legality of the said notification. The petitioners in those proceedings also sought compliance with the directions of this Court contained in the case of A. Nagaraja (supra).

3. The first of these writ petitions have been brought by Animal Welfare Board of India and others including one Anjali Sharma, but in course of hearing, the Animal Welfare Board changed its stance and sought to support the stand of the State and Union of India mainly on the ground that the 1960 Act and certain State Amendments which were enacted in the year 2017 were not repugnant and the Board had framed guidelines to prevent suffering of the bovine species during holding of the aforesaid events. We shall refer to the three State Amendment Acts later in this judgment. However, the second writ petitioner- Anjali Sharma, a practicing advocate of this Court and also a member of the Board prosecuted the aforesaid writ petition as a single writ petitioner.

4. In connection with W.P.(C) No.1188 of 2017, an Interlocutory Application (170346 of 2022) has been filed by one Vikramsinh Nivrutti Bhosale on the strength of his being an agriculturalist in Maharashtra. He has argued that the challenge to the Maharashtra Amendment Act, if sustained, could hamper lives of farmers still associated with Bullock Cart Race. It is also his argument that the Amendment Act of Maharashtra is also relatable to entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India which stipulates:-

“Preservation, protection and impr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 543

Related Judgments

Animal Welfare Board Of India VS Union Of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 543

State of Tamil Nadu vs Animal Welfare Board - 2016 Supreme(Online)(SC) 647

Akhila Karnataka Raitara Janapada Kreede Horihabba Horata Samiti, Represented By Its President Basavaraj, S/o. Dyamanna Bandivaddar vs State Of Karnataka The Department Of Animal, Represented By Its Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 2160

E. Seshan VS Secretary, The Department of Law Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3318

People For The Ehical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) India, Represented By One Of Its Director, Khushboo Gupta, Wife Of Shubham Sachdeva VS State Of Assam, Represented By Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Assam - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1500

Ramratan Jhawar v. Govt. of A.P. and Another - 2003 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5

E. Seshan VS Union of India Rep. by its Secretary Government of India Department of Environment & Forests Paryvaran Buildings, New Delhi - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 2193

S.Venkatesh vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24936

Hifzur Rahman Choudhury VS Union Of India - 2022 Supreme(Gau) 1419

Kappa Pedda Venkanna VS State of Andhra Pradesh