Bovine Sports Stage Comeback

 

 

 

 

THROUGH the decision of the case – The Animal Welfare Board of India & Others v. Union of India & Another and more than a dozen other writ petitions, delivered on May 18, 2023, a 5-judge Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices K M Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C T Ravikumar, has given a finding, which is wholesome nod to performance of quite popular animal sports ‘Jallikattu’ in Tamil Nadu and ‘Bullock Cart Race’ in Maharashtra, by declaring that all three Amendment Acts of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka are valid legislations and are not contrary to the Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and do not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case-Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Others-(2014) 7 SCC 547, a division Bench of the Supreme Court had essentially outlawed these two sports, holding these contrary to the provisions of sections 3, 11(1)(a)and (m) of the Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which is a statute enacted by the Parliament. This judgement was delivered on May 7, 2014. At that point of time, Jallikattu was regulated by a State Act in Tamil Nadu, being Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009. The said bench held that this State Act was repugnant to the provisions of the 1960 Act and was held to be void, having regard to the provisions of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. On January 7, 2016, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). This notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 22 of the 1960 Act and prohibited exhibitions or training of bulls as performing animals.

 

However, an exception was carved and it was specified in this notification that bulls might be continued to be trained as performing animals at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and Bullock Cart Races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat in the manner by the customs of common community or practice traditionally under the customs or as part of culture in any part of the country. In the State of Karnataka, race involved male buffaloes, known in that State as “Kambala”. This exception, however, was made subject to certain conditions seeking to reduce the pain and suffering of bulls while being used in such sports. An interlocutory application has been filed in one of the petitions by one Vikramsinh Nivrutti Bhosale on the strength of being an agriculturist in Maharashtra. He has argued that the challenge to the Maharashtra Amendment Act, if sustained could hamper lives of farmers still associated with bullock cart race. In this judgement, the SC has dealt with the question as to whether provisions of the 1960 Act are being violated or not, as was held in the case of A. Nagraja decided prior to the three Amendment Statutes. The effect of the said prohibition upon livelihood of the people of that State is said to be espoused in I.A. No. 170346 of 2022.

 

If the Court holds that these bovine sports offended the provisions of the 1960 Act, the deprivation apprehended would have come within the reasonable restriction clause enshrined in Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, a law made in that regard would also be protected in relation to the challenge on the basis Article 21 of the Constitution of India being procedure established by law. In the judgement of A. Nagraja case, the division bench of the Supreme Court, while examining the claim of the petitioners therein held that Jallikattu is dangerous not only to bulls but also to human and many participants and spectators sustained injury in course of such events. So far as human beings are concerned, their injuries would attract the principle of Tort known in common law as “voluntary non fit injuria”. The Supreme Court has answered five questions referred to it as under: (i) the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is is not a piece of colourable legislation. It relates, in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It minimise cruelty to animals in the concerned sports and once the Amendment Act, along with their Rules and Notification are implemented, this sports would not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act. (ii) Jallikattu is a type of bovine sports and the Court is satisfied with the materials disclosed before it, that it is going on in the State of Tamil Nadu for at least last few centuries.

 

This event essentially involves a bull which is set free in an arena and human participants are meant to grab the hump to score in the “game”. But whether this has become integral part of Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail, which in the Court’s opinion is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by judiciary. The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular State is a debatable issue which has to be concluded in the House of the People. This ought not to be part of judicial inquiry and particularly, having regard to the activity in question and materials in the form of texts cited before the Court by both the petitioners and the respondents, this question cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings. Since the legislative exercise has been already undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be part of cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, the Court will not disrupt this view of the Legislature. According to the Court, in Nagaraja’s case, there was not sufficient material before the Court for coming to the conclusion quite opposite to the view being held by the Court (at present in this case).

 

The SC has pointed out that The Tamil Nadu Amendment having received Presidential assent, the Court does not think that there is any flaw in the State action. “Jallikattu as bovine sports have to be isolated from the manner in which they were earlier practiced and organising the sports itself would be permissible, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules. The Supreme Court has also stated that its decision on the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act would also guide the Maharashtra and Karnataka Amendment Acts. All the three Amendment Acts are valid legislations. The Supreme Court has directed that the District Magistrates /competent authorities shall be responsible for ensuring strict compliance of the law, a amended along with its Rules/Notifications.