INTRODUCTION
In Tamil Nadu, Jallikattu is a traditional and popular sport in which bulls are tamed. Since the Tamil classical period, the sport of Jalikatu has been played. In this sport a wild bull is released in the crowd and the participants in the crowd try to hold the bull’s hump as long as possible or try to control and tame the bull and the bull tries to escape. It is played during the festival of Pongal which comes in January. From the Indus Valley Civilization, a seal is obtained which shows the game of Jallikattu in existence.[1]
Various animal rights organizations demanded the banning of this sport as during this sport a lot of accidents and injuries resulted to both people and the bulls. It was contended that these animals endured suffering and pain due to this sport, which inflicted injuries on them. In the past, this issue has come in front of the Supreme Court many times and the court banned this sport for protecting animal rights and welfare. This was criticized and condemned by the Tamil people as it encroaches on their cultural right to perform practices like Jallikattu. In its recent judgment, the court upheld these sporting games as amended by various state governments.
CULTURAL RIGHTS IN CONFLICT WITH THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS
Article 29 (1) is a fundamental right that protects the cultural and educational rights of citizens. It was argued that Jallikattu is a religious as well as a cultural event and any ban on such event would go against the sentiments of the community celebrating it. Article 29(1) of the Indian constitution says, “Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.”[2]
The question before the bench was whether the people of Tamil Nadu under Article 29(1) could preserve the old age practice of Jallikattu as its cultural right.
In Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja (2014)[3], the apex court banned the practice of the Jallikattu and other bull-related sports and races. It was held that animals suffered pain and were inflicted injuries in this sport. Thus, these sports were in conflict with Sections 3[4] and Sections 11(1)(a)[5] and 11(m)[6]. Thus, to prevent cruelty to animals as per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 the Supreme Court banned this practice. However, in 2016 the Union government issued a notification that allowed the practice of Jallikattu, but several restrictions were also imposed to practice this event as the notification told the states to obey the judgment.
In 2017, the government of Tamil Nadu amended the law of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, to preserve the age-old tradition and culture of Jallikattu. Following these amendments made by Tamil Nadu, the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka also amended this act.
RIGHTS OF ANIMALS
Under the Constitution of India, the central and state governments are given the power to make laws for protecting wildlife and to prevent cruelty to animals under the concurrent list.
Article 48 says that “Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”[7]
Article 51 A(g) states “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.” [8]
In 1960, The Parliament came out with The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. This act established the Animal Welfare Board of India. It recognized animal welfare and it was established to prevent cruelty and any infliction of pain towards animals. In this act, various types and forms of cruelty towards animals are recognized which are punishable under this act. Another important act for preserving wildlife and protecting animals and their rights is The Wildlife Protection Act 1972[9]. It prohibits killing, trapping, poaching or harming any wild animal or bird.
In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja (2014),[10] the court held that under Article 21 ‘all living beings’ have the right to life under Article 21. Thus, animal’s right under Article 21 was recognised in this case as they also have the right to life and liberty.
RECENT JUDGMENTS REGARDING BOVINE SPORTS AND CULTURE
On May 18th, 2023 in the Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors case. v Union of India & Ors.[11], the Apex Court overturned its judgment of 2014. A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice K M Joseph upheld the amendments made by the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka to The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, allowing bull-taming sports like Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock-cart races.[12] The petition was filed by the following parties: the Animal Welfare Board, PETA, Animal Equality, Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, and Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, and the Respondents were: The Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, and the State of Tamil Nadu. Justice KM Joseph said that the sport of Jallikattu is a traditional sport and it forms an integral part of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu. The court dismissed the petitions challenging the state law of Tamil Nadu allowing the sports of Jallikattu and other bullock cart races. It was contended that this state law went against the central law of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960[13]. The court viewed the amendments and held that these amendments reduced the pain and suffering of the animals and it does not go against the constitution. Although the court upheld these amendments, it stated that the Lok Sabha should ultimately decide on this matter as the issue of Jallikattu is controversial and the community considerations can be best analysed by the legislature.
The bench opined that these amendments do not go against Articles 51-A(g)[14], and 51-A(h)[15] and also do not violate Article 14[16] and Article 21[17]. The bench was quoted as saying by news agency PTI: “Because there is death does not mean it is a blood sport. I don’t suggest that people who are going to participate and climb onto the bulls are going there to extract blood in that event. People are not going to kill the animals. Blood may be an incidental thing.”[18]
CONCLUSION
The judgment given by the Supreme Court has kept in view the customs, culture, and traditions of the people of Tamil Nadu under Article 29(1)[19]. It has recognized their cultural rights to hold events like Jallikattu and other bovine sports according to their traditions. In other states like Maharashtra and Karnataka where bovine sports like bullock cart races etc. hold great importance, the court recognised their cultural rights as well. The Supreme Court after considering the viewpoint of all the parties and stakeholders has rightly struck a balance by considering and maintaining the sentimental value these cultural practices hold for the people of these states while also taking into view the animal rights and their lives. Due to the growing demands of both cultural as well as animal rights the amendments made by states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka are a good step in the direction of maintaining the delicate balance between the extreme demands from both sides. Thus, the Supreme Court has rightly upheld the amendments made by these states to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960[20]. Cultural and religious values held by a community vary from state to state thus the state law should prevail over the central laws when viewing the customs and traditions of the state. The legislature should also step in to make laws for bovine sports that are in line with the cultural values of the people such that sentimental values are heard and animal rights are not ignored. The state legislature has a greater responsibility to maintain the peace of the state by not ignoring the cultural demands of people and the demands of animal rights organizations as the law gives equal protection and the right to life and liberty to all the living beings under which animals are also included.
Author(s) Name: Simar Sarup Kaur (Jamia Millia Islamia)
References:
[1] Jeyalakshmi Ramanujam, ‘Jalikattu: From Indus Ritual to Tamil Cultural Icon’(The New Indian Express, 17 January 2023) <https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2023/jan/17/jallikattu-from-indus-ritual-to-tamil-cultural-icon-2538431.html> accessed 21 August 2023
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 29(1)
[3] Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
[4] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, s 3
[5] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, 11(1)(a)
[6] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, 11(m)
[7] Constitution of India 1950, art 48
[8] Constitution of India 1950, art 51A(g)
[9] Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972
[10] Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
[11] Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors v Union of India & Ors. (2023) SCC OnLine SC 661
[12] ‘Supreme Court upholds Tamil Nadu law allowing Jallikatu’ (The Indian Express, 19 May 2023) <https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/supreme-court-upholds-tamil-nadu-jallikattu-explained-8616020/> accessed 21 August 2023
[13] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960
[14] Constitution of India 1950, art 51-A(g)
[15] Constitution of India 1950, art 51-A(h)
[16] Constitution of India 1950, art 14
[17] Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[18] Mehak Agarwal, ‘Supreme Court upholds Jallikattu sport in TN, Maharashtra, Karnataka’ (Business Today, 18 May 2023) <https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/in-focus/story/supreme-court-upholds-tamil-nadu-law-allowing-jallikattu-sport-381783-2023-05-18> accessed 21 August 2023
[19] Constitution of India 1950, art 29(1)
[20] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960
