The Supreme Court upheld the 2017 Amendment Acts permitting Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock-cart races, citing cultural significance and compliance with animal welfare laws. It overruled A. Nagaraja, affirming states’ legislative competence and balancing heritage with cruelty prevention.
“Jallikattu is legal”
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016
Date of Judgment: 18th May, 2023
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K.M. Joseph (J), Ajay Rastogi (J), Aniruddha Bose (J), Hrishikesh Roy (J), C.T. Ravikumar (J)
Facts
Decision of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court of India upheld the Amendment Acts (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017; Maharashtra Amendment Act, 2017 and; Karnataka Amendment Act, 2017) passed by the Legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka respectively thus permitting bull-taming sports like Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock-cart races.
- The Court overruled the A. Nagaraja (supra) decision that had banned such sports, finding the 2017 amendments to be valid.
- The Court acknowledged Jallikattu's cultural significance in Tamil Nadu, recognizing it as an integral part of the region’s heritage, a view upheld by the Tamil Nadu legislature. However, the Court stressed that cultural practices must comply with legal standards, and violations of the PCA Act would lead to penalties.
- The Court further clarified that animals do not have fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and while animal welfare must be protected, the statutory framework rather than constitutional rights governs their protection.
- The Court ruled that the amendments did not violate Articles 14 (Right to Equality) or 21 (Right to Life), as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 allows certain activities causing pain to animals for human purposes.
- The amendments were found not to constitute colorable legislation. Significant changes had been made by way of the amendments, rules and notifications to reduce cruelty during the sports, and the Court determined the state laws did not encroach on central legislation. The Court held that the amendments fell within the scope of Entry 17 in the Concurrent List, addressing cruelty to animals while allowing the states to regulate the sports.
- Finally, the Court concluded that the amendments did not contradict the A. Nagaraja (supra) judgment, as they addressed the concerns raised by the earlier decision and substantially reduced cruelty in the practices.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the amendments, balancing cultural heritage with animal welfare, and affirmed the state’s jurisdiction to regulate these sports under the constitutional framework.
Key legal issues discussed
1. Can the Amendment Acts be struck down on grounds of arbitrariness?
No
In order to declare a law arbitrary, there must be an irrational or unfair classification, but the Amendment Acts do not create such a classification. In this case, the unreasonableness argued by the petitioners stems from the unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted on the bovine species for entertainment purposes. However, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, already allows some activities that cause pain and suffering, even to a sentient animal.
The basis of the judgment in A. Nagaraja (supra) was that bulls are sentient beings and the bull sports in question were unnecessary for human survival. However, the 1960 Act permits the use of animals for certain purposes based on perceived human necessity, including both load-carrying and entertainment. For example, the Act allows bulls to be used for carrying loads even when alternatives exist, and it also permits horse racing[2], which involves some level of pain and suffering for horses.
The issue shifts from whether animals experience pain to the degree of pain and suffering inflicted when the sentient beings are compelled to perform activities that benefit humans. The court concluded that it is not the right forum to undertake this balancing exercise of human needs against animal welfare, as such decisions involve societal considerations and are better left to the legislature.
2. Do the Amendment Acts amount to colourable legislation?
No
The Amendment Acts were introduced by the State Legislatures to prevent cruelty against animals during bull sports. The Court observed that the three bull sports- Jallikattu, Kambala, and the Bull Cart Race- have undergone significant changes in their practice as a result of the Amendment Acts of 2017 (read with the Rules and Notifications regulating these sports) enacted by the three States. Thus, these changes indicate a substantial departure from the conditions that prevailed pre- A. Nagaraja (supra) judgment.
The court further acknowledged that while it cannot be concluded that under the amended framework all pain-inflicting practices have been entirely eliminated, it observed that the introduction of these statutory instruments has notably diluted many of the harmful practices associated with these sports in the pre-amendment period. Moreover, the amended Statutes when read with the respective Rules or Notification do not encroach upon the Central legislation.
Consequently, it was held that the three bovine sports, as practiced after the Amendments, have acquired a different character in terms of performance and regulation and therefore do not constitute colourable legislation.
The Court held in Para 40:
“40. …
(i) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 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 minimises cruelty to animals in the concerned sports and once the Amendment Act, along with their Rules and Notification are implemented, the aforesaid sports would not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.”
3. Can “Jallikattu” be protected as a cultural practice of Tamil Nadu?
Yes
Jallikattu has been practiced in Tamil Nadu for several centuries. However, determining whether it constitutes an integral part of Tamil culture requires an in-depth religious, cultural, and social analysis, which lies beyond the scope of judicial authority. This analysis was undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Legislature, which recognized Jallikattu as a vital aspect of Tamil cultural heritage. Consequently, the judiciary upheld this legislative view, and held Jallikattu to be an integral part of Tamil cultural tradition.
In this regard, the Court overturned the ruling in the A. Nagaraja case (supra), which had concluded that Jallikattu was not a part of Tamil Nadu’s cultural heritage. The Court held that the Division Bench in A. Nagaraja (supra) lacked sufficient material to justify its conclusion. The Division Bench had found the cultural approach unsubstantiated and, referring to the pain and suffering inflicted on the bulls during Jallikattu, deemed the practice violative of Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The Court further clarified that even if an activity is recognized as part of a region’s or community’s cultural tradition, it may still attract penal consequences if it violates any law. In A. Nagaraja (supra), the sport was ordered to be restricted under the PCA Act, 1960 due to the manner in which it was conducted. Since then, the Tamil Nadu Legislature has enacted stringent rules and notifications to regulate Jallikattu, aiming to substantially minimize pain and suffering to the animals. Thus, as long as Jallikattu complies with these rules and does not violate existing laws, its practice and organization remain permissible under the framework established by the Amendment Act.
4. Did the State Legislatures inherently lack the jurisdiction to enact the impugned Amendments?
No
The State Legislatures had the jurisdiction to enact these Amendments under Entry 17 of List III (Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which explicitly includes the subject “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals”.
The Court relied on the ruling in I.N. Saksena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[3], where it was held that legislative lists in the Constitution ought to be interpreted in a wide amplitude. Additionally, the Court cited G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation (14th ed.), which clarifies:
“…If the pith and substance of the legislation is covered by an entry within the permitted jurisdiction of the Legislature any incidental encroachment in the rival field is to disregarded…”
Applying this principle, the Court determined that the pith and substance of the Amendments was to minimize cruelty to animals in bull sports. While the Amendments might have incidental impact on specific breeds of bulls or agricultural activities, such incidental effects do not affect their validity.
The Court also observed that these Amendment Acts, along with their Rules and Notifications, significantly altered the manner in which these sports are conducted. These changes ensure that the activities governed by the Amendments no longer fall under the prohibitions outlined in Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The Court also noted that the Amendments do not override the judgment in A. Nagaraja (supra). Instead, they address the concerns raised in that judgment by altering the nature and manner of the activities in question, thus ensuring compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions.
The Court explicitly answered in Para 40:
“40. …
(iii.) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, to ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls. The said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India. Incidental impact of the said Amendment Act may fall upon the breed of a particular type of bulls and affect agricultural activities, but in pith and substance the Act is relatable to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.”
5. Do the Amendment Acts go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
No
The Amendment Acts do not violate the Right to Equality under Article 14 or the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, nor do they contravene the provisions of Articles 51-A(g) and 51-A(h). The Constitution does not explicitly grant fundamental rights to animals, and their protections remain statutory as established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
While the Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja v. Union of India (supra) highlighted the need to elevate these statutory rights to the status of fundamental rights, such elevation is advisory and requires legislative action. The Court referred to Para 66 of A. Najaraja: “66. Rights guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3, 11, etc. are only statutory rights. The same has to be elevated to the status of fundamental rights, as has been done by few countries around the world, so as to secure their honour and dignity. Rights and freedoms guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 have to be read along with Article 51-A(g) and (h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal rights.”
Articles 48 and 51-A(g) & (h) create a dual framework of duties. Article 48, which operates as a national guideline for law makers, guides the State to promote scientific and humane agricultural and animal husbandry practices while preserving and improving animal breeds. Article 51-A(g) and (h) mandate citizens to protect the environment and show compassion toward living creatures. However, these provisions impose duties rather than confer enforceable rights on animals.
Moreover, animals cannot claim rights under Article 14 as “persons”, and any legal scrutiny of the Amendment Act for arbitrariness or unreasonableness must be initiated by human or juridical entities advocating animal welfare. While human actions affecting animals must align with statutory and constitutional principles, judicial precedents do not support extending Article 21 or Article 14 protections directly to animals. Therefore, the Amendment Act aligns with the constitutional framework and does not contravene these rights.
Court observed in Para 24 that:
“24. On the question of conferring fundamental rights on animals we do not have any precedent. The Division Bench in the case of A. Nagaraja (supra) also does not lay down that animals have Fundamental Rights. The only tool available for testing this proposition is interpreting the three Amendment Acts on the anvil of reasonableness in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While the protection under Article 21 has been conferred on a person as opposed to a citizen, which is the case in Article 19 of the Constitution, we do not think it will be prudent for us to venture into a judicial adventurism to bring bulls within the said protected mechanism. We have our doubt as to whether detaining a stray bull from the street against its wish could give rise to the constitutional writ of habeas corpus or not. In the judgment of A. Nagaraja (supra), the question of elevation of the statutory rights of animals to the realm of fundamental rights has been left at the advisory level or has been framed as a judicial suggestion. We do not want to venture beyond that and leave this exercise to be considered by the appropriate legislative body. We do not think Article 14 of the Constitution can also be invoked by any animal as a person. While we can test the provisions of an animal welfare legislation, that would be at the instance of a human being or a juridical person who may espouse the cause of animal welfare.”
6. Are the Amendment Acts in violation of the Supreme Court's ban on Jallikattu in A. Nagaraja v. Animal Welfare Board of India (2014)?
No
The Amendment Acts are not contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in A. Nagaraja v. Animal Welfare Board of India (supra) or the subsequent judgment dismissing the review plea on November 16, 2016. The defects highlighted in these judgments have been addressed by the Amendment Acts and the Rules framed under them.
Referring to State of U.P. and Others v. Babu Ram Upadhya[4] and Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Another v. Reserve Bank of India[5] the court held that these rules and notifications must be read as integral to the Amendment Acts, ensuring their proper interpretation and alignment with the legislative framework. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act allows the conduct of Jallikattu subject to rules and regulations framed by the State Government, ensuring compliance with animal welfare principles. Similarly, the Maharashtra and Karnataka Amendments include provisions to mitigate unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and make the conduct of events like Kambala and Bull Cart Races subject to state-prescribed conditions.
Moreover, the bull sports, namely, "Jallikattu," "Kambala," and "Bull Cart Race" have undergone significant transformation in their practice post-amendment, addressing many of the concerns raised in A. Nagaraja (supra). While it cannot be concluded that these sports are entirely free of pain or suffering, the amendments (along with their rules and notifications) have substantially reduced such practices compared to their pre-amendment state.
Therefore, the amended statutes, when read with their corresponding rules and notifications, do not conflict with central legislation or encroach upon its scope. Consequently, the Amendment Acts are consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings and address the deficiencies identified in A. Nagaraja (supra).
[1] (2014) 7 SCC 547.
[2] Permissible under Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001.
[3] (1976) 4 SCC 750.
[4] (1961) 2 SCR 679.
[5] (1992) 2 SCC 343.
