_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors
Case Citation - Civil appeal no. 5387 of 2014
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Parties Involved -
Petitioner - Animal Welfare Board Of India
Respondent - A. Nagaraja & Ors
Bench -
K.S. Radhakrishnan
Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Facts of the Case
This case had two sets of different cases. One case that challenged the Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court, which challenged the validity of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Jallikattu Act and a few writ petitions that challenged the validity of the Department of Environment and Forestry (hereinafter referred to as the MoEF) of the notice dated 11.07.2011 and second case that challenged the Division Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the MoEF Notice.
Protecting animal rights and promoting “innumerable discrimination” cattle are considered; Supreme Court ban for centuries Jallikattu- bullfighting and bullfighting were held between festivals in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring districts.
The ban on 'bulls being used for sports' games was started back in 2006 when a petition was filed in the Madras High Court, seeking permission to organize a Jallikattu event. Although one bench banned Jallikattu, due to the brutality associated with it, the Division Bench, in its application, changed the ban order and granted permission to organize Jallikattu events under certain conditions subject to the order.
However, Jallikattu continued without regard to the conditions placed by the court. Therefore, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) filed a notice prohibiting bulls from being shown or trained as performing animals. In the case of the Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. petitioners approached SC with an appeal challenging the order of the Division Bench, with the intention of enforcing its conditions, on the other hand, respondents said Jallikattu is a traditional Tamil Nadu game that should not be banned.
SC took its decision on the implementation of this AWBI notice and the guaranteed rights of bulls under the Prevention of Cruelty of Animal (PCA)
On January 12, 2016, a writ was filed before SC for the termination of this notice and compliance with the above-mentioned SC order. In this case, Compassion Unlimited Plus Action & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., SC retained this notice on the grounds of cruelty to the bull and the welfare of the animal which is very important compared to the so-called 'culture and tradition'.
However, another effort was made to escape the judgment; the Tamil Nadu state government, exercising its powers under the Constitution, came up with an ordinance and legalizing Jallikattu by changing the name and nature of Jallikattu from ‘sports’ to ‘fair’.
Issues of the Case
Those events held in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra violate sections 3, 11 (1) (a) & (m), 21 and 22 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A (g) and (h) of the Constitution and notice dated 11.7.2011
Arguments of the Petitioner
Proponents of Jallikattu often argue for two reasons:
Jallikattu is their cultural or traditional right or their custom too
Jallikattu is a culture that does not harm anyone. But the reality is not the same as they say it to be.
Custom
The situation of many Tamilians who make up the majority of the protesters is to point out that Jallikattu has become a very important factor in the cultural recognition of Tamil. However, over time we came to the realization that in the name of culture, there is a lot of social evil prevalent in our culture. Dowry, child marriage, poaching and many other evils. Also, these evils are deeply rooted in tradition. But just because it has a 'culture' or 'custom' attached to it, it doesn't give the right to continue practicing it without and legal consequences. The high point is that the perceived culture does not live together, but is in a constant state of flux. The practice of the so-called "culture" should not be harmed in the community. This Court while examining the scope of Articles 25(1), 2(a), 26(b), 17, 14 and 21, quoted that -
“Any custom or usage irrespective of even any proof of their existence in pre-constitutional days cannot be countenanced as a source of law to claim any rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social equality and the specific mandate of the Constitution and law made by Parliament. No usage which is found to be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of the law of the land or opposed to public policy or social decency can be accepted or upheld by courts in the country”.
Jallikattu is said to be harmless but according to data released by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), approximately 43 people lost their lives in the game between 2008 and 2014. To make the bulls run, a burning sensation is often used in their private parts. They are chained, beaten, and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. According to studies, bulls start behaving aggressively when they try fighting the bullying; this clearly describes the performance of bulls during the Jallikattu period when they flee from people from the fear and pain they have experienced before. The Bulls are beaten, beaten, driven, tortured and skipped by many people. Their tails are itchy and twisted and their eyes and nose are full of irritating chemicals.
India is known for its culture, its respect, its treatment of others. Also, according to Art 51 A (g) of the Constitution of India, every citizen of India should have compassion for all living beings.
Not only is it dangerous to animals but, it is often seen that when a large number of people come to the event they have high hopes of being part of the action and to do so they often endanger themselves and continue to mistreat bulls, continue to risk their lives and endanger others. The government has also imposed certain rules on the game and it is always clear that no one is following those rules. Recently, the Supreme Court also issued certain guidelines for stadium restrictions that should not be less than 8 meters high, but these guidelines were also ignored and the central barrier was 5-1 / 1 meter’s low.
Constitutional Perspective
During mid-January, Tamil Nadu was a witness to a popular youth protest against the ban by the Supreme Court on Jallikattu - an annual rural game in which men fight bulls. The peaceful protest, however, ended with a violent text after police intervened to disperse the protesters following the State government's law to hold an annual event, which left student protesters in disbelief.
Tamil Nadu seeks to preserve Jallikattu as their cultural right and demands their protection under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution. Where this article is widely used to protect the interests of minorities, the Article stipulates that "any part of the population living in the Indian subcontinent or any part of it with a different language, script or culture, shall have the right to save the same". In the case of Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society where it was pointed out that the scope of Article 29 (1) is not limited to the cultural rights of minorities but may include the majority. As of the 2014 ban, the Tamil Nadu's Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017 opened the doors for the practice of bullfighting despite the 2014 Supreme Court ban. That year, in the judgment of A. Nagaraja, the Supreme Court held Jallikattu's cruelty to cattle.
It was also revealed that the Constitutional Bench will also consider whether Jallikattu and bullock cart racing laws of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra actually serve the purpose of "preventing" cruelty to animals under the Animal Violence Prevention Act of 1960. And PETA's petitions argue that the Jallikattu Act of 2017 violates five internationally recognized rights - freedom from hunger, malnutrition and thirst; freedom from fear and stress; relief from allergies and heat; relief from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express common sense.
However, it is true to the extent that- the incidence of animal abuse has dropped dramatically since the 2009 Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act (TNRJ), and such practices continue to this day. And such practices are not unique but common. Even after 2009, law enforcement continued to falter in view of the beating of cattle owners and planners and the low respect for law and the failure of the State to enforce it in its letter and spirit in such a state and size.
In the case of A. Nagaraja, simply because the Jallikattu bullfighting was an ancient tradition, cannot be excused as the Jallikattu game itself is cruel to animals and there is a cruel prohibition. How kind we should be to animals. It is our constitutional obligation.
The courts have repeatedly held that animals have a basic right to fight pain. It was held at the landmark trial of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. - Bulls should not be used in any form of operation involving races, bullfights. It also added that the Government and Animal Welfare Board must protect the ‘five freedoms’ of animals including- freedom from hunger and drought; freedom from poverty; relief from pain, injury, and disease; freedom from fear and suffering and freedom from expression.
Judgment of the Case
AWBI is therefore in a position to state that Jallikattu, a chariot race and similar events violate sections 3, 11 (1) (a) and 11 (1) (m) (ii) of the PCA Act and therefore support the banning of such events as per notice dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government, as a result, bulls will not be used as working animals, either at Jallikattu events or at Bullock-cart races in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country. Therefore, the following announcements and guidelines.
The court has declared that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A (g) & (h) may not be revoked or diminished, except in sections 11 (3) and 28 of the PCA Act.
The five freedoms, mentioned earlier read in sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act, must be protected and protected by the States, the Central Government, the Union Territories (abbreviated "Government"), the MoEF and the AWBI.
The AWBI and the Government have been instructed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the people in charge or care of the animals, take appropriate steps to ensure the welfare of the animals.
The AWBI and the Government were instructed to take steps to prevent unnecessary abuse or suffering from animals because their rights were legally protected under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act.
The AWBI is also directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11 (1) (m) (ii) are strictly adhered to, that is, that a person in charge or care of an animal will not incite any animal to fight a person or another animal.
The AWBI and the Government would also see that even in cases where Section 11 (3) is affected, animals were not subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering and adequate and scientific methods were adopted to achieve the same.
The AWBI and the Government must take steps to spread knowledge on animal management in accordance with Section 9 (k) to instill the spirit of Article 51A (g) & (h) of the Constitution.
Parliament was expected to make appropriate amendments to the PCA Act to provide for the effective deterrent to the purposes and purposes of this Act and in contravention of Section 11, appropriate fines and penalties must be imposed.
Parliament, it was expected, would promote animal rights to constitutional rights, as practiced by many countries around the world, in order to protect their dignity and dignity.
Governments will see to it that if the provisions of the PCA Act and the proclamations and guidelines issued by this Court are not properly and properly followed, disciplinary action will be taken against those who make a mistake in order to achieve the PCA Act.
The TNRJ Act was found to be in violation of the PCA Act, which is a social law, which is why it has been unconstitutional, in violation of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India.
The AWBI was directed to take effective and expeditious enforcement measures provided by the PCA Act in consultation with the SPCA and to make periodic reports to the Government and in the event of any alleged violations, Governments should take appropriate remedial action, including appropriate compliance.
Therefore, the decision of the Madras Supreme Court was set aside. The decision of the Bombay High Court and the notice dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government was upheld.
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Is Animal Brutality Allowed In The Name Of Customs?" by clicking the button below.
Comments