Asghar Leghari v. the Federation of Pakistan, Writ Petition No.

25501 of 2015 (Lahore High

Court) – climate change policies, climate justice
- Pakistan / National Climate Policy & Framework of 2012
- An appellate court in Pakistan granted the claims of Ashgar Leghari, a Pakistani farmer, who
had sued the national government for failure to carry out the National Climate Change Policy
of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). On
September 4, 2015 the court, citing domestic and international legal principles, determined
that "the delay and lethargy of the State in implementing the Framework offend the
fundamental rights of the citizens." As a remedy, the court 1) directed several government
ministries to each nominate "a climate change focal person" to help ensure the implementation
of the Framework, and to present a list of action points by December 31, 2015; and 2) created
a Climate Change Commission composed of representatives of key ministries, NGOs, and
technical experts to monitor the government's progress. On September 14 the court issued a
supplemental decision naming 21 individuals to the Commission and vesting it with various
powers. On January 25, 2018, the court issued took note of the submission of a report from
the Climate Change Committee noting that during the period from September 2015 to January
2017 66% of the priority actions from the Framework for Implementation Climate Change Policy
have been implemented.
- At Issue: Farmer challenged government for failure to carry out core provisions of 2012 law
VERSION 2:
- A farmer filed a public interest litigation alleging the government of Pakistan’s inaction and
delay in implementing the National Climate Change Policy and addressing vulnerabilities
associated with climate change violates the fundamental constitutional rights to life and
dignity.
- In its first order, issued 4 September 2015, the Green Bench declared:

“Climate Change is a defining challenge of our time and has led to dramatic alterations in our
planet’s climate system. For Pakistan, these climatic variations have primarily resulted in
heavy floods and droughts, raising serious concerns regarding water and food security. On a
legal and constitutional plane this is clarion call for the protection of fundamental rights of
the citizens of Pakistan, in particular, the vulnerable and weak segments of the society who
are unable to approach this Court.”

Para. 6. The Green Bench invoked the right to life and the right to dignity protected by the
Constitution of Pakistan and international principles, including intergenerational equity and
the precautionary principle, to call for a “move to Climate Change Justice.” Para. 7.

- Finding that federal and provincial officials had done little to implement adaptation measures
to cope with changing climatic patterns, which threaten food, water, and energy security, the
Green Bench directed responsible ministries and departments to: appoint a focal person on
climate change to appear before the Green Bench, and prepare a list of adaption measures to
be completed by the end of 2015. The Green Bench also established a Climate Change
 Commission to help the Court monitor progress and achieve compliance with guidelines. See
Para. 8.

- In a second order, issued 14 September 2015, the Green Bench recognized “[f]or Pakistan,
climate change is no longer a distant threat-we are already feeling and experiencing its
impacts across the country and the region. The country experienced devastating floods during
the last three years. These changes come with far reaching consequences and real economic
costs.” Para. 3. For that reason, the Green Bench explained, it is important to implement
the recommendations in Pakistan’s National Climate Change Policy “to ensure that climate
change is mainstreamed in economically and socially vulnerable sectors of the economy and
to steer Pakistan towards climate resilient development.” Para. 9

- The Green Bench listed each official appointed as a “focal person” on climate change and the
members of the Climate Change Commission. The Green Bench retained jurisdiction
(continuing mandamus) to hear reports from representatives concerning their progress.

Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Ors, (2014) 7 SCC 547 (animals and right to
life)
- in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. In this case, the Supreme
Court banned the use of bulls and bullocks in “entertainment activities” such as Jallikattu and
bullock cart racing, among others.
- When the Supreme Court banned the practice of Jallikattu in 2014, it alluded to various
sections of the PCA Act, 1960, which addresses unnecessary suffering of animals. Alluding to
Section 3 and Section 11, the Hon’ble Court declared that all animal fights incited by humans
are illegal, even those carried out under the guise of tradition and culture. The Court also listed
various recommendations, among them an overhaul of the penalties and punishments in the
PCA Act, 1960, so as to allow it to function effectively as a deterrent in cases related to animal
cruelty.

Version 1: http://lawtimesjournal.in/animal-welfare-board-of-india-vs-a-nagaraja-ors/

In the Supreme Court of India

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Case No.

Civil appeal no. 5387 of 2014

Appellants

Animal Welfare Board Of India

Respondent

A. Nagaraja & Ors

Bench

K.S. Radhakrishnan, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Background

Jallikattu comes from the words, ‘calli’ and ‘kattu’ which means ‘coins’ and ‘package’
respectively; is a traditional, cultural and ritualistic sport involving the daring stance of men
trying to establish claim over a bundle of coin tied to the horn of a raging bull. That act is
synonymous to valor and pride (and occasionally the hope of getting a bride), because, what
brings more masculinity and pride, than being able to pull a stunt before a raging bull,
jeopardizing one’s own as well as the cattle’s life, that too all in the name of culture!

The Indian legislature, with the intent to prevent such sufferings and unnecessary infliction of
pain on animal promulgated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Further the Tamil
Nadu government has passed the Tamil Nadu Registration of Jallikattu Act, 2009(hereafter
referred to as TNRJ Act) on the grounds that Tamil Nadu had communicated its hesitance to
the thought of banning the diversion expressing that slants of local sentiments will be harmed.
The Supreme Court had previously banned the practice in January 2008, but reversed its order
four days later, saying the sport could be allowed if certain guidelines were followed.

Facts

1. This particular case had two sets of cases. One challenging the Division Bench Judgment of
the Madras High Court, which challenged the validity of the Tamil Nadu Registration of
Jallikattu Act and few writ petitions that challenged the validity of Ministry of Environment and
Forests(hereafter referred to as MoEF) Notification dated 11.07.2011 and another case
challenging the Division Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the MoEF
Notification.
2. Maintaining animal rights and bringing up the “untold cold-bloodedness” the bovines are
subjected to; the Supreme Court on banned hundreds of year’s old Jallikattu- bullfights and
bullock-cart racing composed amid celebrations in Tamil Nadu and neighboring states.

3. This ban upon ‘sports involving bulls’ was initiated back in 2006 when a petition was filed
before the Madras High Court, seeking permission to conduct Jallikattu. Though the single
bench banned Jallikattu, owing to the cruelty associated with it, the Division Bench, in an
appeal, overturned the banning order and granted permission to conduct Jallikattu under
certain conditions attached to the order.

4. Yet, Jallikattu continued with no regard to the conditions. So, the Animal Welfare Board of
India (AWBI) put up a notification barring bulls from being exhibited or trained as performing
animals. In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. the
petitioners approached the SC with an appeal against order of the Division Bench, aiming to
enforce its notification, the respondents on the other hand claimed that Jallikattu being a
traditional sport of Tamil Nadu ought not to be banned.

5. The SC decisively passed an interim order recognizing the validity of this AWBI notification
and the rights guaranteed to bulls under the Prevention of Cruelty of Animal(PCA)

6. On January 12, 2016 a writ was filed before the SC for the quashing of this notification and
for compliance with the above mentioned SC order. In this case, Compassion Unlimited Plus
Action & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., the SC stayed this notification on the grounds of cruelty
towards the bull and welfare of the animal being of paramount importance in comparison to
the claimed ‘culture and tradition’.

7. But again, an unconcerted effort was made to evade the judicial order; the Tamil Nadu state
government, exercising its power under the Constitution, came up with an ordinance
circumventing the ban and legalizing Jallikattu by changing the name and nature of Jallikattu
from a ‘sport’ to a ‘fair’.

Issues Raised
Whether the events that are being conducted in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are
in violation of Sections 3, 11(1)(a)& (m), 21 and 22 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) and
(h) of the Constitution and the notification dated 11.7.2011

Arguments Advanced

The” Two” Arguments

Those who support Jallikattu usually rest their arguments on two grounds i.e.-

 Jallikattu is their cultural or traditional right or it’s their custom and;

 Jallikattu is their custom which does not harm anyone. But in realty the situation is
not as same as they claim.

Custom

Stance of the majority Tamilians who form a large portion of protesters is that they project
Jallikattu to be the most important aspect of Tamil cultural identity. However, with time we
came to an opinion that in the name of culture, there are many social evils which have prevailed
in our culture. Dowry, child marriage, sati, poaching and many other such evils. And, these
evils are deep-rooted culturally. But just because it has a ‘culture’ or ‘tradition’ attached to
it, doesn’t provide it a defence to be practised. It’s high time that it is realised culture is not
static, but in a constant state of flux. It should be realized which practise in the name of
“culture” is not detrimental to the society.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”.
It does cause harm to the bull & the people involved

It is argued that Jallikattu does not harm anyone but as per the data released by Animal
Welfare Board of India (AWBI), around 43 people lost their lives to this sport between 2008 to
2014. To incite bulls for running, some powder which have a burning sensation is often applied
on their private parts. They are also chained, beaten and are subjected to other inhuman
practice causing them extreme trauma. According to the studies, bulls adopt fighting behaviour
when they feel threatened or frightened; this clearly explains the behaviour of bulls during
Jallikattu when they run away from people due to fear and pain. Bulls are beaten, poked,
prodded, harassed and jumped on by numerous people. They have their tails bitten and twisted
and their eyes and noses filled with irritating chemicals.

India is known for its culture, the way they respect, treat others. Also, as per Art 51 A (g) of
the Indian Constitution, every citizen of India should have compassion for all living creature.

Not only it is dangerous to animals but, it is often seen that when a large section of people
come to the event they have a high expectation to become a part of the action and in order to
do that they often make themselves vulnerable and continue to handle bulls in crude fashion,
continue to risk their own lives and create hazard for others as well. The government has also
made some rules to regulate this sport and it is often seen that no one really follow those rules.
Recently, Supreme Court also issues some guidelines for arena barricades that it should be no
less than 8 feet high, but these guidelines were also ignored and the barricade in the main are
was a low as 5-1/1 feet.

Constitutional point of view

When in mid-January, Tamil Nadu was witness to a popular youth protest against the Supreme
Court’s ban on holding Jallikattu—an annual rural sport in which men are pitted against a bull.
The peaceful protest, however, ended on a violent note after police intervened to disperse the
protesters following an ordinance by the State government to conduct the annual event, which
left the student protesters unconvinced.
Tamil Nadu strives to conserve Jallikattu as their cultural right and demand their protection
under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution. Where this article is commonly used to protect the
interests of minorities, the Article mandates that “any section of the citizens residing in the
territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own
shall have the right to conserve the same”. In the case of Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College
Society case in which it was pointed out that the scope of Article 29 (1) does not necessarily
confine to the cultural rights of minorities but may well include the majority. As per the 2014
ban, Tamil Nadu’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017 opened the gates for the
conduct of the bull-taming sport despite a 2014 ban by the Supreme Court. That year, in the A.
Nagaraja judgment, the Supreme Court held Jallikattu cruelty to bulls.

It was further indicated that the Constitution Bench would also look into whether the 2017
Jallikattu and bullock cart races laws of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra actually sub serve the
objective of “prevention” of cruelty to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
of 1960.And the PETA petitions contend that the 2017 Jallikattu Act and Rules violate the five
internationally recognized freedoms — the freedom from hunger, malnutrition and thirst;
freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from
pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

However it is true to an extent that- incidents of cruelty towards animals have drastically come
down after the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act (TNRJ) of 2009, such practices do
continue to exist even to this day. And such practices are not the exception but the norm. Even
after 2009, the enforcement of rules continues to be shaky given the blow of the cattle owners
and organisers and the scant respect for the rule of law and the inability of the State to enforce
it in its letter and spirit in an event of such nature and magnitude.

In the case of A. Nagaraja, just because the bull taming sport of Jallikattu was a centuries old
tradition, it cannot be justified as Jallikattu sport itself is cruelty on animals and there is
prohibition of cruelty. We have to how compassion to the animals. It is our constitutional
obligation.
The courts on multiple occasions have held that animals have a fundamental right against
infliction of pain. It was held in the landmark judgement of Animal Welfare Board of India v.
A. Nagaraja & Ors.–Bulls must not be used in any type of performance which includes races,
bullfights. It also added that Governments and Animal Welfare Board must protect the ‘five
freedoms’ of animals which includes- freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from
discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; freedom from fear and distress and
freedom to express normal behaviour.

Held

Thus AWBI is right in its stand that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events per se
violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act and hence we uphold the notification
dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government, consequently, Bulls cannot be used as
performing animals, either for the Jallikattu events or Bullock- cart Races in the State of Tamil
Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country. Thus the following declarations and directions:

1) The court declared that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA
Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or curtailed, except under Sections
11(3) and 28 of PCA Act.

2) The five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into Sections 3 and 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 were 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 were directed to take steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary
pain or suffering on the animals since their rights have been statutorily protected
under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act.
5) AWBI is also directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii)scrupulously
followed, meaning thereby, that the person-in-charge or care of the animal shall not incite any
animal to fight against a human being or another animal.

6) AWBI and the Governments were also to see that even in cases where Section 11(3) is
involved, the animals were not put to unnecessary pain and suffering and adequate and
scientific methods be adopted to achieve the same.

7) AWBI and the Governments should take steps to impart education in relation to the human
treatment of animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating the spirit of Articles 51A(g) &
(h) of the Constitution.

8) Parliament was expected to make proper amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective
deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the Act and for violation of Section 11, adequate
penalties and punishments should be imposed.

9) Parliament, it was expected, would elevate rights of animals to that of constitutional rights,
as done by many of the countries around the world, so as to protect their dignity and honor.

10) The Governments would see that if the provisions of the PCA Act and the declarations and
the directions issued by this Court are not properly and effectively complied with, disciplinary
action is taken against the erring officials so that the purpose and object of PCA Act could be
achieved.

11) TNRJ Act was found repugnant to PCA Act, which is a welfare legislation, hence held
constitutionally void, being violative of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.

12) AWBI was directed to take effective and speedy steps to implement the provisions of PCA
Act in consultation with SPCA and make periodical reports to the Governments and if any
violation is noticed, the Governments should take steps to remedy the same, including
appropriate follow-up action.
Thus, the judgment of the Madras High Court was set aside. The judgment of Bombay High
Court and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government were upheld.

Significance and Analysis of the Verdict

The judgment starts with a summary of the case; the arguments from both sides; the behaviour
of the bulls and a description of Jallikattu. It quotes the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI)
investigation on January 2013 Jallikattu, but this report is not an investigative report but an
inquisitive report. The Supreme Case for this situation banned the exercises, for example,
Jallikattu and Bullock-cart racing, which physically and mentally tormented animals, expressing
that animals excessively would feel agony and that they would respond in a flight reaction
manner to keep away from fear. They further held that onlookers excessively would be harmed,
since the Supreme Courts prior judgment expressing to utilize at least 8 feet high blockades
were not emulated.

Further, the court held that Section 3 of the PCA Act would be abused since the exercises were
dispensing pain on the animals. The court likewise considered whether exercises, for example,
Jallikattu was a necessity under Section 11(3) of the same Act and in this matter as was
previously held in the case of Bhuri Nath and Others vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir &
Others. Here, the court held that excitement, presentation or entertainment don’t fall under
the exempted classifications under Section 11(3) and was not a need. The court additionally
considered the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the TNRJ Act and held that the Act tried
to safeguard aged society and custom and not religious noteworthiness. Bull as an animal was
likewise the vehicle utilized by Lord Shiva, consequently the court brought out the
misinterpretations brought out by the individuals regarding the role of the animal. The Court
has further held that AWBI was right in its stand that Jallikattu and the Bullock-cart race did
infact violate Sec 3, Sec 11(1)(a) and Sec 11(1)(m)(ii) of the PCA Act.

The main question to be answered is whether the judgment is a good one or not? The court’s
decision was in fact appropriate. There have been so many instances of death and damage to
property that the move of the Supreme Court has certain aspects good in the eyes of law.
Jallikattu in simple words is a celebration of cruelty. Jallikattu is cruel to animals and also
poses a significant threat to public safety. In one four-day period in January 2011, 215 people,
including 154 spectators, sustained injuries during Jallikattu events. Two people have even
died. Supporters of the Act assert that regulations lessen mercilessness to animals, yet the
regulations being referred to arrangement basically with the booking of an occasion, setting up
blockades and constraining the quantity of members. Regulations can’t refute the key cold-
bloodedness of Jallikattu, and the Animal Welfare Board of India brings up that even these
fundamental regulations go unenforced and do little to address the misery of bulls.
Furthermore, the Act goes against the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which
prohibits the misuse of animals.