SC upholds validity of Jallikattu

SC upholds validity of Jallikattu

Subject : Polity

Section: Constitution

Concept :

• A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the amendments made by the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka to The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.
• The amendments allowed bull-taming sports like jallikattu, kambala, and bullock-cart races

Jallikattu

• Jallikattu, also known as eruthazhuvuthal, is a bull-taming sport traditionally played in Tamil Nadu as part of the Pongal harvest festival.
• The festival is a celebration of nature, and thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest, of which cattle-worship is part.
• It is popular in Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Theni, Pudukkottai and Dindigul districts — known as the Jallikattu belt.
• The practice of jallikattu has long been contested, with animal rights groups and the courts expressing concern over:
• cruelty to animals and
• the bloody and dangerous nature of the sport that sometimes causes death and injuries to both the bulls and human participants.

Background of the case:

• 2014 judgement of Supreme Court :
• In 2014, a two-judge Bench of apex court had essentially outlawed two common sports practised in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
• These were referred to as Jallikattu and Bullock Cart Race
• The ruling also held that bovine sports were contrary to the provisions of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
• These sections relate to the duties of persons having charge of animals and define animal cruelty
• Jallikattu protests in Tamil Nadu :
• In 2015, the apex court also dismissed the Tamil Nadu government’s plea calling for a recall of its verdict.
• Dismissing the government’s plea, SC brushed aside the state government’s argument that the 3,500-year-old tradition was rooted in religion.
• In January 2017, massive protests erupted across Tamil Nadu against the ban, with Chennai city witnessing a 15-day-long Jallikattu uprising.
• 2016 notification by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) allowing Jallikattu :
• In January 2016, a notification was issued by the MoEF&CC prohibiting the exhibition or training of bulls as performing animals.
• However, an exception was carved in the notification.
• The exception specified that bulls might still be trained as performing animals at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, according to the customs and culture of different communities.
• A batch of petitions were filed challenging the exemption notification, relying on the 2014 ruling.
• Tamil Nadu Assembly passes bill in 2017 :
• The Tamil Nadu Assembly, in 2017, passed a bill replacing an ordinance for conducting the bull-taming sport.
• The “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2017” was passed in this regard.
• The act said the “Government of Tamil Nadu has decided to exempt Jallikattu from the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act”.
• Petitions challenging the bill :
• The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and the Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA) filed some petitions.
• These petitions challenged the amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
• SC refused to stay the new Jallikattu law passed by the Assembly but slammed the state government for not following the law and order.
• Matter transferred to larger bench :
• In 2018, a two-judge bench referred the petitions challenging the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 to a larger bench.
• The bench framed five questions to be adjudicated upon by the larger bench.
• While delivering its verdict for a batch of pleas challenging Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra laws allowing the traditional bull-taming sport Jallikattu, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the laws.

SC verdict on Jallikattu

Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation

• The top court held that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation.
• Doctrine of Colourable Legislation means that if a legislature lacks the jurisdiction to enact laws on a specific subject directly, it cannot make laws on it indirectly. In simple words, the doctrine checks if a law has been enacted on a subject indirectly when it is barred to legislate on that topic directly.
• It relates to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which relates to the prevention of cruelty to animals.

Observations regarding 2017 amendment

• The 2017 amendment “minimises cruelty to animals in the concerned sports”.
• Once it is implemented and read with the rules, the sports will not come under the definition of cruelty defined in the 1960 Act.
• The amendment has received Presidential assent; hence, there is no flaw in the state action.

Jallikattu has historical context

• As per the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Jallikattu has been going on in Tamil Nadu for the last few centuries and forms a part of its cultural heritage.
• In this context, the court clarified that it did not want to disrupt the legislature’s view.

2017 amendment does not violate Fundamental duties and Fundamental Rights

• The court also said that the 2017 amendment does not violate Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A (h).
• 51-A (g) impose duties on Indian citizens to protect the environment.
• 51-A (h) deals with developing a scientific temper, humanism, spirit of inquiry, and reform.
• It also held that the amendment didn’t violate Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.