| Headnote |
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Prevention ofCruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Preventionof Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 –Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment)Act, 2017 – Held: The expressions Jallikattu, Kambala and BullCart Race as introduced by the Amendment Acts of the three Stateshave undergone substantial change in the manner they were usedto be practiced or performed and the factual conditions thatprevailed at the time the A. Nagaraja judgment was delivered cannotbe equated with the present situation – The Supreme Court cannotcome to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances,absolutely no pain or suffering would be inflicted upon the bullswhile holding these sports – But the Court is satisfied that the largepart of pain inflicting practices, as they prevailed in the mannerthese three sports were performed in the pre-amendment period havebeen substantially diluted by the introduction of these statutoryinstruments.Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Prevention ofCruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Is the TamilNadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17,List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or doesit further and perpetuate cruelty to animals; and can it, therefore,be said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals? Is itcolourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in theState List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List – Held: The Tamil NaduAmendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation – It relates,in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III of Seventh Schedule tothe Constitution of India – It minimises cruelty to animals in theconcerned sports and once the Amendment Act, along with their Rules and Notification are implemented, the bovine sports wouldnot come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3,11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Prevention ofCruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – The TamilNadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the cultural heritageof the State of Tamil Nadu – Can the impugned Tamil NaduAmendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of thepeople of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection ofArticle 29 of the Constitution of India – Held: Jallikattu is a type ofbovine sports – It is going on in the State of Tamil Nadu for at leastlast few centuries – But whether this has become integral part ofTamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysisin greater detail, which is an exercise that cannot be undertaken bythe Judiciary – The question as to whether the Tamil NaduAmendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particularState is a debateable issue which has to be concluded in the Houseof the People – This ought not be a part of judicial inquiry – Thisquestion cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings– Since legislative exercise has already been undertaken andJallikattu has been found to be part of cultural heritage of TamilNadu, the Court would not disrupt this view of the legislature.Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Prevention ofCruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Is the TamilNadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to ensure the survivaland well-being of the native breed of bulls? Is the Act, in pith andsubstance, relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India – Held:The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, toensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls – Thesaid Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution ofIndia – Incidental impact of the said Amendment Act may fall uponthe breed of a particular type of bulls and affect agriculturalactivities, but in pith and substance the Act is relatable to Entry 17of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Prevention ofCruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Does theTamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Held:The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to the Articles51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Prevention ofCruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Is theimpugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary to thejudgment in A. Nagaraja, and the review judgment dated 16.11.2016in the aforesaid case, and whether the defects pointed out in theaforesaid two judgments could be said to have been overcome bythe Tamil Nadu Legislature by enacting the impugned Tamil NaduAmendment Act – Held: The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act read alongwith the Rules framed in that behalf is not directly contrary to theratio of the judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja and judgment ofthis Court delivered on 16.11.2016 dismissing the plea for Reviewof the A. Nagaraja judgment as the defects pointed out in theaforesaid two judgments have been overcome by the State AmendmentAct read with the Rules made in that behalf.Constitution of India – Art. 48 – Recognising rights of animals– By virtue of Article 48 of the Constitution of India which essentiallyoperates as a national guideline for law makers, a two-way pathhas been devised – The first is imposing duty on the State to organiseagriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines –The second is emphasising the duty of the State to take steps forpreserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting slaughter ofcows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. |
