Karnataka High Court Upholds Statewide Kambala Events, Rejects PETA's Geographical Limits Plea

Bengaluru, Karnataka – In a significant ruling on the intersection of cultural heritage, animal welfare, and statutory interpretation, the Karnataka High Court has permitted the state government to organize the traditional buffalo race, Kambala, throughout Karnataka, dismissing a plea from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to confine the event to its traditional coastal districts.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C M Poonacha, declined to impose a geographical restriction on the sport, asserting that a tradition of one part of the state represents the culture of the entire state. While the court greenlit the event's expansion, it concurrently imposed a temporary stay on holding Kambala near the Pilikula Biological Park, highlighting judicial scrutiny over the use of ecologically sensitive areas for such festivals. The order closes the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for most purposes but carves out a specific, limited hearing on the Pilikula Park issue.

The Core of the Dispute: Tradition vs. Geography

The PIL, filed by PETA India, sought to restrain the state from sanctioning Kambala events outside the rural confines of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts. PETA argued that Kambala is intrinsically linked to the agrarian traditions of these coastal regions. The organization contended that expanding the event to urban centers like Bengaluru was not a genuine extension of culture but was driven by "purely for commercial purposes," thereby deviating from the spirit of the legal exception granted to the sport.

Representing PETA, Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa articulated that the "only limited issue on the subject was where this event can be held." He emphasized that Bengaluru has no historical tradition of Kambala, and allowing it there would contravene the cultural basis upon which the sport was granted legal protection under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (second Karnataka amendment) Act, 2017. The petitioner’s plea also sought stringent enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) and the Supreme Court’s observations in the landmark Animal Welfare Board of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2023) case, which upheld the validity of state amendments permitting such traditional sports.

The Court's Rationale: Legislative Deference and State Culture

The High Court bench was unpersuaded by the argument for geographical containment. The court's line of questioning centered on whether any statutory provision explicitly prohibited conducting Kambala in other regions of Karnataka. "Does the Act prohibit or prevent in this region, then show us?" the court asked, signaling a deference to legislative intent.

The bench reasoned that courts should not venture into delineating the boundaries of such events unless explicitly mandated by law. "This principle that courts will not examine and leave it to the legislature will hold good even for sport events," the court noted.

This judicial stance underscores a broader principle of separation of powers, where the legislature, having carved out an exception for a cultural practice, is presumed to have considered its scope. The court found PETA's argument for regional limitation to be divisive and counterintuitive to the notion of a unified state culture. The bench remarked, "...to say that having excepted to carve an exception for tradition and culture and now limit it to particular region...we are not persuaded to accept it."

State's Defense: Promoting Culture with Safeguards

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the state, defended the government's decision as a move to promote state culture. He argued that the suitability of a location, not just its historical connection, should be the guiding factor for holding cultural festivals. Drawing an analogy, Shetty stated, "Horses are also taken from one place to another," to illustrate that the transportation of animals for events is a common and manageable practice.

Shetty assured the court that comprehensive regulations were in place for events held in Bengaluru, covering everything from the humane transport of buffaloes from Mangaluru to the conduct of the race itself. He stated, "We are not violating rules at all. Any conditions if lordships feels over and above these regulations we will comply with. This is the culture of the State." This commitment to adhere to and even enhance animal welfare standards was a key component of the state's defense.

A Caveat on Ecological Sensitivity: The Pilikula Park Issue

Despite its broad approval for statewide Kambala events, the court expressed sharp reservations about the choice of certain venues. Specifically, the proposed location near the Pilikula Biological Park drew judicial ire. The bench admonished the state's counsel, highlighting the sanctity of protected areas.

"This cannot be permitted. Biological Park cannot be made into a festival ground...If you (State) demarcate a biological park then respect it," the Chief Justice remarked. The court has directed the state to provide a clear justification for the venue's use, demanding to know what activities are permissible within the park's master plan.

In its interim order, the court directed that "till the next date of hearings, there will be no event in the zoo." It clarified that the PIL was being closed for all other purposes, but the next hearing would be for the "limited consideration of whether Kambala can be held near the Pilikula Park." This focused judicial intervention signals that while cultural promotion is permissible, it cannot come at the expense of environmental regulations and the integrity of protected zones.

Legal and Cultural Implications

This High Court decision is a significant victory for proponents of Kambala and the state government, reinforcing their right to promote the traditional sport across Karnataka. It sets a precedent that cultural practices recognized by state law may not be easily confined to their geographical origins by judicial order, absent a specific statutory bar.

For animal welfare advocates, the ruling is a mixed outcome. While their primary plea for a geographical ban was rejected, the court's stringent stance on the Pilikula Park venue and its emphasis on adherence to all animal welfare regulations provide an avenue for future scrutiny. The case continues the legal debate that has surrounded traditional animal sports since the Supreme Court's Jallikattu judgments, focusing the conflict on the specifics of regulation, implementation, and venue selection rather than on an outright ban.

The ruling affirms that the cultural heritage of a region can be claimed and celebrated by the entire state, but this cultural expression must operate strictly within the bounds of animal welfare laws and environmental protection mandates.

Case Title: PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA), INDIA v. State of Karnataka & Others Case No: WP 18406/2024