Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:41075791

PAPER NAME AUTHOR

Cultural Preservation or Animal Protectio Baddam Parichaya

n.docx

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

2698 Words 13493 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

7 Pages 24.1KB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

Aug 19, 2023 2:03 PM GMT+5:30 Aug 19, 2023 2:04 PM GMT+5:30

33% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
31% Internet database 10% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
19% Submitted Works database

Summary
 Cultural Preservation or Animal Protection: Jallikattu's Moral Crossroads:

ABSTRACT
India is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. It is a land of myriad 10cultures, traditions,
languages, and religions. One such tradition is Jallikattu, which is practised in the south Indian
state of Tamil Nadu. The 21 term Jallikattu came into the limelight again with the Supreme Court’s
judgement in May 2023. In the year 22
2014, The supreme court of India banned Jallikattu and
other similar activities in the case of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors, The ratio decidendi of the
court was, Jallikattu is neither a cultural practice in Tamil Nadu nor an integral part of the Tamil
Culture and It is Voilating animal rights and certain sections of the Prevention ofCruelty to
Animals .According to18the court, Animal rights are protected under Artcile 21 of the Indian
Constituion. However, on January 8, 2016, the Ministry of Environment and 13 Forest granted
permission for the continuation of the traditional game under specific conditions. People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Animal Welfare Board Of India(AWBI) filed a case
in Supreme Court. Supreme Court gave a stay on this decision on January 16, 2016. Later this
year, The Apex court legalized these bovine sports and Uphled the validity of the state
2
amendments made by the state of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to the central law
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. This paper is divided into four parts. First, the author will
introduce jallikattu and the dispute surrounding it, and in the next part, the author will discuss the
timeline surrounding the dispute. The author will analyse the recent judgement given by the
Supreme Court. Later, the author would like to discuss her analysis and opinion encompassing
the whole issue of jallikattu.

20
INTRODUCTION-
Jallikattu is a popular sport among the people of Tamil Nadu. Jallikattu/Sallikattu, where salli
means coins and kattu means tie. It is also popularly called ‘Eru Tazhuvudhal‟ or ‘Manju
Virattu‟) among tamilians, and it is a sport that takes place during the time of Pongal, which is
10 10
played as a part of the Tamil harvest festival on the day of mattu pongal, in the middle of
14
January. The rules of this sport are that a bull is released into a crowd of people. When the bull
starts to escape, the participants should stop the bull by holding on to its hump using both arms.
The participants are not supposed to hold on to the bull using the bull's horns, tail, etcetera.
Whoever stops the bull by holding its hump will be declared the winner, and the coins will be
awarded to him. This sport is more about showing the bravery and masculinity of the men who
tame the bull, as women would choose the men to be their husbands who are successful at
jallikattu. It is believed that the Jallikattu’s significance dates back to the 1000’s of years; it was
also mentioned in Sangamam literature. An ancient seal excavated at Mohenjodaro depicts the
act of bull-taming and is believed to symbolise Jallikattu. In the epic Silappatikaaram, authored
by Ilango Adigal,which holds a significant place among the five distinguished epics of Tamil
literature, there are allusions to individuals engaging in this sport. It was also mentioned that
individuals found their curiosity in both observing and taking part in the Jallikattu event. This is
an epic work among the five esteemed classics of Tamil literature. Likewise, historical literary
compositions such as Kalithogai and Malaipadukadaam also contain comparable mentions.
Irrespective of cultural background, gender, belief, caste, or community, individuals from all
walks of life joined together in the protest to safeguard the Tamil culture and its unique identity.
Preserving Jallikattu had transformed into a matter of "safeguarding Tamil culture against
external forces" like PETA and multinational companies that have been established in India for a
significant period. The first legal battle against Jallikattu was started in 2006.Animal Rights
5
Groups filed a bunch of petitions in the supreme court to ban Jallikattu from taking place.The
12
apex court has banned the Jallikattu in the year 2014 the case of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors, on
the grounds of animal cruelty. Tamilians felt that as a blow towards their culture and identity
12
Later in the year 2017, The ban on Jallikattu ignited protests in Tamil Nadu. There was a mass
12
Rallying at the Marina Beach is in Chennai. It has brought a scores of people together to protest
against the ban to preserve their native culture.

9
TIMELINE OF THE EVENTS-
11
Animal Welfare Board of India Submitted a report stating that Jallikattu is contradictory to the
provisions contained in the Prevention of cruelty to animals Act, 1960 and it Accounts to animal
6
cruelty. A suit was filed in the madras High court in the year 2006, for the first time jallikattu has
11
been banned on the ground that is against the provisions of Prevention of cruelty to animals Act,
16
1960. In the year 2009, the state government of Tamil Nadu passed the Tamil Nadu Regulation of
Jallikattu Act allowing the continuation of jallikattu with certain conditions. In the year 2011, the
Ministry of environment stopped to include these bovine species aunder the category of
8
performing animals and prohibited it’s training and exhibition. However, it was continued under
Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act of 2009.In the year 2014, the Supreme Court banned
6
Jallikattu and other similar activities in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja
8
And Ors stating that It is in the violation of animal rights and certain sections of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals act.Later in 2016 The Ministry of Environment and Forest allowed the
8 9
performing of Jallikattu, AWBI and PETA india filed a petition in the Supreme Court, The
Supreme court upheld the ban. Aggrieved by the decision of the Apex court The mass protests
broke out in 2017 in the Tamil nadu by the World Youth organization (WYO) and others to uplift
14
the ban which was perceived as an threat to tamilians identity and culture.due to the protests the
governor of tamilnadu issued the ordinance allowing the performing of Jallikattu while in the
19
same year the legislation was passed by the tamilnadu legislature to exclude Jallikattu from the
Prevention of Cruelty to animals act, 1960 and also it was included in the preamble as an integral
23
part of tamil nadu. AWBI and PETA challenged the validity of (Tamil Nadu Amendment)
25
Act,2017 which was referred by the division bench of the supreme court to the constitutional
2
bench in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India.
Facts of the Case
6
On May 7th, 2014, a Division bench of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Animal
Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others, banned two traditional sports, namely
1
'Jallikattu' and 'Bullock Cart Race,' which were practiced in the states of Tamil Nadu and
Maharashtra, respectively. According to the court’s interpretation, , these bovine sports
1
are contradictory to the provisions outlined in Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 ("1960 Act"). The court based its
1
interpretation on the Article 51-A (g) and (h), as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the
1
Constitution of India. At the time, Jallikattu was regulated by a specific State law in
Tamil Nadu called the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009. However, the court
believed this state law to be inconsistent with the provisions of the 1960 Act and
17
therefore declared it invalid.[In January,2016 the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (“MoEF&CC”) issued a notification. The ministry laid down an
3
exception in the notification and it was specified that bulls could still be trained and used
1
in events like Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and Bullock Cart Races in Maharashtra, Kerala,
Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat. This can be followed in a manner that is
3
pertinent to the respective states culture, customs and traditions.Howver, this exception
was subjected to certain conditions to minimize the pain and wailing of the bulls that are
used in these bovine sports.][ The three amendement acts which were enacted in the year
1
2017, with regards to the Prevention of cruelty to animals i.e, (Tamil Nadu Amendment)
1
Act, 2017, (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2017, (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017
were ratified by the state legislatures of the respective states and also they had received
the assent of the president .The changes in these amendements were proposed to legalise
15
these bovine sports of Jallikattu in tamilnadu, Kambala in Karnataka and Bullock Cart
5
Race in Maharashtra][A bunch of Writ Petitons were filed before the two judge bench of
2
the apex court questioning the legality of the notifications that was issued by the Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.The Animal welfare board and one Anjali
Sharma filed the writ petitions, but during the hearing the Animal welfare board has
supported the state saying that the amendments which are brought in the year 2017 by the
state acts were not vile and the amendment acts also issued guidelines that preclude the
suffering caused to these bovine species during the holding of jallikattu,kambala and bull-
5
carting race.] in 2017, One Mr. Ajay Marathe has filed the PIL before the Bombay High
Court in the case of Ajay Marathe vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, He
challenged the guidelines the guidelines provided in the maharstra amendment act,2017
and which permitted bullock-cart races, An agriculturalist names Vikramsinh Nivrutti
Bhosale intiated the SPL and said that the bullock-cart racing should be permitted as it is
1
related to entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India][The
15
apex court decided to hear the matter of jallikattu in Tamil nadu, kambala in Karnataka
 and bullock-car racing in maharastra. The division bench framed 5 questions in 2018,
which were refered to the constitutional bench to answer]

Issues Raised
1
By the order passed on 2018, the Division bench formulated the following 5 questions to
be answered by the apex court.
1
1. [Whether the Tamil Nadu amendment acts in its true nature relatable to the Entry 17,
List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or is it a colourable
1
legislation which will immortalize the cruelty to animals and is not relatable to entry
17 of concurrent list?]

5
2. [Whether the Tamil Nadu amendment act was protected under article 29 of the
7
constitution of India? Does it form a to be part of the cultural heritage of the people of
the State of Tamil Nadu]

3. [Whether the impugned Tamil Nadu amendment act in its complete essence protect
1
the bulls of the state and is it protected under article 48 of the consituion of India]

4. [Whether the impugned Tamil nadu amendment act contradict Articles 51A (g) and
1
51A(h) of the dpsp and articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?]

5. [Whether the Tamil Nadu amendment act went against the judgment given in
A.Nagaraja and the review judgment given in the year 2016 or the amendment acts
overcame the defects given in the A. Nagaraja case by enacting the Tamil Nadu
amendment act?

Arguments by Petitioners
 According to the petitioner’s the Respondent’s haven’t disclosed the full details before
obtaining the assent of the president and hence the assent is questionable.

3
 The petitioner’s contended that the state amendments went against the provisions of
Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act. The inadequacies in the A.Nagaraja
judgment are not being cured. According to them, the Term “persons” also include the
 sentient animals, legalizing the bovine sports is unreasonable and arbitrary, and the
7
freedom of these beings is curtailed which is against the Article 14 of the constitution of
India. Petitioner’s contended that Articles 14, 21 of the Fundamental rights and Articles
48, 51-A (h) and (g) of DPSP setup rights to animals where human beings are responsible
to treat them with compassion and not inflict pain upon these species.

 According to the Petitioner’s, The Protection of cruelty to animals is a welfare legislation

and the interests to protect them should be above the culture and tradition hence, these
sports do not form a cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu.
1
 These amendments are colorable legislations as they are not considered to be in exercise
of legitimate legislative power. It would be arbitrary if these bovine species are carved
out of PCA ACT, 1960

1
 According to them the utmost attention should be given to Article 48 of the Constitution
1
of India read with Fundamental Duties enshrined in Article 51-A (g) and (h) as Art-21 of
1
the constitution of India also includes sentient beings and they have natural rights to live
a life with dignity

 Earlier, Evil practices like Satiprabha and dowry formed a part of the culture but they
were abolished later, Hench Jallikattu which formed a part of the culture should be
abolished now as it is a evil practice.

 They argued that Tamers treat these animals with extreme cruelty hurting themselves and
the bulls in various districts.
 Arguments by Respondents

The respondents argued that the amendments made by the states of Tamilnadu, Karnataka
and Maharastra has taken strict measure and excluded the rules that caused the pain to the
animals. Some of these rules specify setting up of separate halls, galleries and collection
area to prevent spectators coming directly into contact with these animals.
1
It is not acceptable to say that just because bulls lack the natural ability to run like horses,
the seasonally conducted sports to be held contrary to the provisions of PCA ACT,
3
1960.These bulls are specially raised and have the ability to run

The rights of sentient animals should be recognized by law but not by judicial
interpretation.

Jallikattu is being practiced by the people of tamil nadu from 1000’s of years, hench it
forms a part of cultural event and communal heritage and it shouldn’t be banned .
24
It is indigenous to the people of tamil nadu and the same has been taught in schools so
that the future generations learn about the same, however it can be developed according
to the needs of the society.
5
Jallikattu is safeguared under Article-29(1) of the Constitution of India

Government conteneded that Jallikattu is a way of preserving this rare and precious breed
of livestock, so it is nowhere inhuman.

Judgement
According to the court, The amendment acts does not form a part of the colourable legislation
2
and in it’s true nature relates to Entry 17 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, The
rules which are brought in the Amendment acts will reduce the cruelty towards animals and it
1
doesn’t go against the Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.

The court is satisfied that Jallikattu is going on tamilnadu for some centuries and hence it forms
7
an integral part of the tamil culture and cultural heritage and flawed the decision given by the
A.nagaraja which said Jallikattu doesn’t form a part of tamil culture. Jallikattu was described as a
7 1
part of tamil culture in the preamble to the amended act. In A.Nagaraja judgment, Sections 3 and
11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act were restricted because of the way they were held but in the
amendment act measures were taken by the states to ensure that the pain and the suffering of
these species were minimized. The state has done no wrong by taking the president’s assent.
These sports have changed the way they were held before by bringing the amendment acts.
 1
iii) The Tamil Nadu Amendment in pith and substance relatable to Entry 17 of List III of the
4
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of
the Constitution of India.
(iv)the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h)
and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

1
(v) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act pointed out the defects in the A.nagaraja Judement and the
1
review petition filed in 2016, and two judgments have been overcome by the State Amendment
Act read with the Rules made in that behalf.
 Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:41075791

33% Overall Similarity

Top sources found in the following databases:
31% Internet database 10% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
19% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

latestlaws.com
1 13%
Internet

indianexpress.com
2 2%
Internet

thewire.in
3 2%
Internet

dailypioneer.com
4 2%
Internet

supremelaw.in
5 2%
Internet

National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2020-08-20

6 2%
Submitted works

scconline.com
7 2%
Internet

O. P. Jindal Global University on 2017-04-18

8 1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:41075791

drishtiias.com
9 <1%
Internet

academicjournals.org
10 <1%
Internet

O. P. Jindal Global University on 2015-05-01

11 <1%
Submitted works

B Jayashree, Aram Arul, Ibrahim Yasmin. "The voices of culture, conser...

12 <1%
Crossref

economictimes.indiatimes.com
13 <1%
Internet

Azim Premji University on 2017-05-13

14 <1%
Submitted works

timesofindia.indiatimes.com
15 <1%
Internet

hvk.org
16 <1%
Internet

mercomindia.com
17 <1%
Internet

thefederal.com
18 <1%
Internet

O. P. Jindal Global University on 2020-11-17

19 <1%
Submitted works

NALSAR University of Law Hyderabad on 2017-01-23

20 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:41075791

Tata Institute of Social Sciences on 2018-08-03

21 <1%
Submitted works

blog.ipleaders.in
22 <1%
Internet

en.wikipedia.org
23 <1%
Internet

National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2021-01-06

24 <1%
Submitted works

Symbiosis International University on 2018-10-13

25 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview