The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act was declared unconstitutional as it conflicted with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which prioritizes animal welfare and prohibits cruelty.

1. 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 S.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 v. A. Nagaraja and others , 2014 (7) SCC 547 : 2014 AIR SCW 3327. It is apt to mention here that a Writ Petition under Art.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 S.3 and S.11 of PCA Act read with Art.51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or curtailed, except under S.11(3) and S.28 of PCA Act.
2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into S.3 and S.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