The court affirmed that traditional festivals involving animals must comply with strict welfare conditions to minimize cruelty, informed by recent judicial interpretations.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction, by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to permit the conduct of a rally involving bulls and bullock carts.

2. Heard Sri Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for Sri M. S. Hallikeri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Gangadhar J. M., learned Additional Advocate General, along with Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA, for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is Akhila Karnataka Raitara Janapada Kreede Horihabba Horata Samithi (hereinafter referred to as "the Samithi" for short). The Samithi seeks permission to conduct the ‘Hori Habba’ in Haveri District.

4. When they sought permission to conduct the festival, the authorities are said to have relied on a notification dated 08.12.2022 to contend that permission would be granted only in terms of the said notification and upon fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said notification had remained in cold storage till now and is only now being sought to be implemented.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General refutes the submission, contending that the notification is still in force, and that it becomes operative whenever such requests are made.

7. The representation pertains to the ‘Hori Habba’, as is evident from the materials placed before the authorities. The State seeks to rely on the notification, which concerns bull races, bullock cart races, or any festival involving the use of animals or centered around animals. The notification indicates that non- fulfillment of any of the 18 stipulated conditions would invite action under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) and other applicable laws.

8. The issue of whether permission should be granted for such festivals need not detain this Court for long, nor does it require a detailed examination.

9. The Apex Court, while considering the issue of Jallikattu and similar festivals, has dealt with the matter in detail. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India , (2023) 9 SCC 322 , has permitted such festivals subject to certain conditions. The relevant conditions are stipulated in the following paragraphs of the said judgment, which read as follows:

“34. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act contains stipulation to the effect that conduct of Jallikattu subject to such Rules and Regulations as may be framed by the State Government shall be permitted. Section 38-B of the Maharashtra Act provides Rule-making power of the State consistent with the Rules made by the Central Government. Both these statutes have become part of the 1960 Act in their respective States and specifically confer Rule-making power to the States and Rules have been framed. In such circumstances, as held by this Court in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. [Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343] , our opinion is that these Rules have to be read along with the Amendment Acts for their proper interpretation. So far as the Karnataka Amendment Act is concerned, two fresh restrictions have been imposed in conducting Kambala by virtue of introduction of Section 3(2) in the main Act after amendment. These conditions ban unnecessary pain or suffering that would be caused to the animals by the person in charge of the animals conducting Kambala and make such practice subject to the conditions as may be specified by the State Government by notification. Following the same analogy which we have expres