On May 18, the Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the state amendments made to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to allow animal sports such as Jalikattu, Kambala and other bull-cart racing sports in these states.
The state governments made these amendments after the Supreme Court banned Jalikattu and similar activities in 2014. The Constitution Bench held that these state amendments cannot be construed as “colourable legislations” and that the state legislatures had the power to make these amendments under Entry 17 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule.
The Supreme Court noted that these amendments do not contravene the judgements in Nagaraja case, instead, it cures the defects pointed out in the case. The state amendments minimise the pain and suffering caused to these animals. Furthermore, the amendments have received the President of India’s assent and therefore, cannot be faulted.
Constitution Bench disagrees with the 2014 decision
The Supreme Court further observed that courts are not equipped to decide whether Jalikattu is an integral part of Tamil culture as it requires greater detail. Furthermore, when the legislature has declared it as cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, then the judiciary cannot take a different view.
The Supreme Court said, “We are satisfied on materials that in Jallikettu is going in TN for last one century. Whether this as part of integral part of Tamil culture requires greater detail, which exercise judiciary cannot undertake…When legislature has declared that jallikettu is part of cultural heritage of TN state, judiciary cannot take a different view. Legislature is best suited to decide that.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the preamble to these state amendment stated that Jalikattu is a part of the state’s cultural heritage. The Supreme Court said, “We will not disrupt the view of the legislature that it is part of the cultural heritage of the state.”
Background
In February 2018, the Supreme Court referred to the Constitution bench whether the people of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra can conserve “Jalikattu” and bullock-cart races as their cultural right and demand their protection under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court had earlier said that the petitions challenging the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, needed to be decided by a larger bench since they involved substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.
It had said that a larger bench would decide whether states have the “legislative competence” to make such laws on grounds, including that Jalikattu and bullock cart racing fell under the cultural rights enshrined under Article 29(1) and can be protected constitutionally.
Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra had amended the central law, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and allowed Jalikattu and bullock cart racing, respectively. The petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the state laws.
A batch of petitions, led by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sought direction to quash the “Jalikattu” law passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, which brought bulls back into the fold of “performing animals”.
PETA had challenged the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Bill 2017 passed by the state assembly on several grounds, including that it circumvented the Supreme Court verdict holding the bull-taming sport as “illegal” in the state.
The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the Tamil Nadu government’s plea seeking a review of the 2014 judgement banning the use of bulls for Jalikattu events in the state and bullock cart races across the country.
