CASENOTE:

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. NAGARAJA & ORS.

COURT- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

JURISDICTION- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CASE NO.- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5387 OF 2014 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(CIVIL) NO.11686 OF 2007)

BENCH- JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA

GHOSE

APPELLANT- ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA

RESPONDENTS- A. NAGARAJA & ORS.

DECIDED ON- 7TH MAY, 2014

SHRI RAJ PANJWANI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR AWBI

SHRI RAKESH DWIVEDI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR

STATE OF TAMIL NADU

SHRI BALI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ORGANIZERS

INTRODUCTION:

The Mother Earth is considered as a common heritage of both man and animals. Thus humans
have no right to eradicate the animals form this earth. India is one of few the countries where
the welfare of animals is guaranteed and protected under its Constitution. Moreover, the
Government has enacted various legislations to protect animals such as Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Unfortunately, in
spite of all these provisions, cruelty towards animals is being continued and is often justified
on various grounds of culture and traditions. The conduct of Jallikattu and Bullockcart Race
are questioned before the Supreme Court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A.
Nagaraja & Ors., on the ground that it involves cruelty to Bulls and thus violates the PCA Act.
The Supreme Court while declaring both these practices are violative of the provisions of PCA
Act, given a wide interpretation to right to life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution so as to
include ‘Life of Animals’ also. This paper briefly discusses the case, Animal Welfare Board of
India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. It also analyses the question whether the right to life under article
21 can be conferred to Animals or not.

BACKGROUND

The term Jallikattu was coined in this era. ‘Jalli’ referred to the silver or gold coins tied to the
bulls’ horns. Wounds and even killings happen in Jallikattu. In 2004, no less than 5 individuals
were accounted for dead and a few hundred harmed in different towns. Two hundred have
passed on in the course of the last two decades. Unlike in Spanish bullfighting, the bull is not
executed. There are infrequently any losses endured by the bulls. A few animal activists item
to this perilous diversion each year, however so far these protests have been futile.

In India, there is the Central enactment “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960(hereafter

referred to as PCA Act)” which manages how tormenting against animals must be precluded
and 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.

MoEF as ahead of schedule as on 2.3.1991, issued a notice under Section 22 of PCA Act
banning preparing and show of bears, monkeys, tigers, and dogs, which was challenged by the
Indian Circus Organization in the witness of the Delhi High Court yet, later, a corrigendum
was issued, whereby dogs were excluded from the notification. On the heading issued by the
Delhi High Court, a Committee was constituted and, taking into account its report, a warning
dated 14.10.1998 was issued barring dogs from its domain, the lawfulness of the notice was
challenged in N. R. Nair Others vs. Union of India and Others, which upheld the notification.
Later, MoEF issued a new notice dated 11.7.2011, particularly including bulls additionally, so
as to ban their exhibition or training as performing animals.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Jallikattu refers to different traditional events and practices which all aim at the taming of bulls,
usually taking place in an arena. AWBI investigators reported several violations of the PCA
Act at each stage of the event, prior to the release of the bulls, during the event, and after the
event.
Investigators observed that abuses were rampant in the waiting area and included mutilation of
the ears, dislocation and amputation of tails caused by deliberate pulling and twisting, forcing
the bulls to stand in accumulated waste for hours with no proper feeding and drinking, and no
protection from the blistering sun and the harassing crowds. Prior to their release, animals are
poked, beaten and deliberately agitated, irritant solutions rubbed into their eyes and nose ropes
frequently pulled, yanked or tightened.

During the event, some animals were forced to drink alcoholic fluids. “Parallel Jalikattu”
events, often considered to be the “real Jalikkattu” also happened at each venue, as the
aggressive crowds agitated the bulls exiting the arena. These “parallel Jalikkattu” happened
mainly where the events did not use collection area. As a result, spectators were enabled access
to the injured and exhausted bulls to further torment them once the animals exited the arena.
Investigators reported cases where some animals ran off in the streets, and one eventually died
after a collision with a bus. Where a collection area exists, the handlers would use painful and
cruel restraining techniques to control the animals, resorting to violent looping techniques, and
nose roping, causing important nose injuries.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS

Shri Raj Panjwani, learned senior counsel appearing for AWBI as well as for the Petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011, submitted that the event Jallikattu, even if conducted following
the TNJR Act, would still violate the provisions of PCA Act, especially Section 11(1)(a).
Learned senior counsel submitted that Jallikattu, as an event, involves causing the Bull pain
and suffering and cannot be free from cruelty and hence falls within the meaning of Section
11(1)(a). Further, it was pointed out that, during Jallikattu, the Bulls, it is observed, carry out a
flight response, indicating both fear and pain and suffering. Shri Panjwani made considerable
stress on the words “or otherwise” in Section 11(1)(a) and submitted that any act which inflicts
unnecessary pain or suffering on an animal is prohibited unless it is specifically permitted under
any of the provisions of PCA Act or the rules made thereunder. Shri Panjwani also submitted
that since the event Jallikattu, as such, is an offence under Section 11(1)(a), through a State
Act, it can neither be permitted nor regulated and hence the State Act is void under Article
245(1) of the Constitution, in the absence of any Presidential Assent.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE STATE (RESPONDENTS)

Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for State of Tamil Nadu, referring
to Section 11(3) of PCA Act, submitted that the Act does not prohibit the infliction of all forms
of pain or suffering on animals and hence Section 11(1)(a) has to be read and understood in
that context. Referring to Sections 11(1)(a), (g), (h), (j), (m) and (n), learned senior counsel
submitted that the expression “unnecessary pain or suffering” is not used in those clauses and
hence the events like Jallikattu, which do not cause that much of pain or suffering on the animal,
cannot be completely prohibited, but could only be regulated.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ORGANIZERS (RESPONDENTS)

Shri Bali, learned senior counsel appearing for the organizers, highlighted the historical and
cultural importance of Jallikattu event and submitted that, taking into consideration the nature
of the event, the same would not cause any unnecessary pain or suffering to the Bulls which
participate in that event, so as to violate Section 3 or Section 11(1)(a) of PCA Act. Learned
senior counsel submitted that such events could be regulated under the regulations framed
under TNRJ Act as well as the additional safeguards taken by the State Government and the
proposed guidelines framed by MoEF. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the mere fact
that there has been some violation of the regulations would not mean that the entire event is
banned in the State of Tamil Nadu which, according to the learned senior counsel, will not be
in public interest. Learned senior counsel also referred to the manner in which such events are
being conducted world-over, after taking proper precaution for the safety of the animals used
in those events.

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?

QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

From the arguments of both the sides the following important questions came up for the
consideration of Supreme Court:

a) Whether the practice of Jallikattu is illegal?

b) Whether the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 is repugnant to Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?
 c) Whether the the MoEF Notification dated 11.07.2011 and the corrigendum issued by
the Government of Maharashtra dated 24.08.2011 prohibiting all Bullock-cart races,
games, training, exhibition etc. is valid?
d) What are the rights of Animals under Indian Constitution, laws, culture, tradition,
religion and ethology?

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT IN BRIEF:

The Court declares 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. 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.

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. 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.
2. AWBI and Governments are 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.
3. 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.
4. AWBI and the Governments would also 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.
5. 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.
 6. Parliament is 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.
7. Parliament, it is 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.
8. 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.
9. TNRJ Act is 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.
10. AWBI is 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.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDEMENT

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.

In spite of the fact that the bulls are not slaughtered they experience the trauma of being pursued
and hopped upon by hordes of men who attempt to cut them down. Also if this isn’t sufficient
the bulls are unsettled by putting lemon juice and bean stew powder at them, being starved
furthermore given liquor. Numerous a period their tails are cut too which irritates them much
more. The bulls are raised exclusively for this occasion.

A 2011 PETA examination uncovered ill-use of animals at Jallikattu occasions in

Alanganatham, Avaniapuram and Palamedu in Madurai. Examiners recorded bulls being tied
so firmly that they encountered extreme uneasiness and agony, being hit with clench hands,
having their tails bent and pulled and in addition being bounced on and wrestled to the ground.
Bulls were unnerved, confused and fomented by the shouting swarms, amplifiers and
forcefulness of the men gathering them, hopping on them and pulling them. Bulls endeavoring
to escape the invasion ran carelessly into wall. Even Former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh
has stated that the Jallikattu ban by the Supreme Court stating that it will put an end to a barbaric
practice.

But the flip side to the issue would also need to be considered. What the judgment reflects is a
distinction in the middle of country and urban India. The Indian Government and its
establishments have a pioneer cause, and even laws ordered after 1947 are focused around
frontier points of view and elitism. The PCA Act is one such. The Supreme Court judgment on
Jallikattu, in light of this PCA Act, has an overwhelming pilgrim inclination as it expect that
rustic individuals are certainly primitive and need to be controlled by urban illuminated India.
The legal assessment of the PCA Act is an address on how the Court has an ethical obligation
to forestall savagery; it presumes that Jallikattu coordinators are denying the privileges of
animals and blames the coordinators as savage people.

Unexpectedly, the judgment maintains the executing of animals for sustenance by the principle
of need and slaughtering for religion as need. It contrasts bulls and performing animals like
those in a carnival and presumes that bulls are performing animals. The coordinators
challenged that no tickets were sold and thus Jallikattu and the bulls utilized within these
celebrations couldn’t be termed performing animals, however the Court fails to take this aspect
into consideration. The Supreme Court, instead of banning the sport, could have imposed
stringent conditions for its safe conduct.

CONCLUSION

The court in the same case considered the rights of animals as a “Constitutional Rights”. The
Court also brought into the aspect of Article 51-A (g)&(h) ,which are Fundamental Duties on
the part of the citizens. The impact was the case would be tremendous on the States, especially
those of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. The States revenue has decreased since large number
of spectators does come to attend the Jallikattu every year. The step was memorable and
demonstrates the political will of the parliamentarians of Catalonia. The message is loud and
clear, individuals can’t dispense agony and enduring on a panicked and befuddledanimal all
for the sake of safeguarding social legacy. It is indeed a ‘dangerous sport’, both for the bulls
and the people watching it. The question whether the law or a custom which has been prevailing
for hundreds of years must prevail or not is the issue in this case. Definitely the law must
prevail. Considering the fact that thousands of people are injured and that lives are lost and
moreover the fact that brutal cruelty and harassment are shown to these voiceless creatures of
the earth, the decision of the court can be justified to ban the much renounced “Jallikattu and
Bullock Cart racing”.