- >>
NEW DELHI: The Central Government issued a notification on January 7, 2016 exempting the event of Jallikattu from the otherwise illegal act of bulls being exhibited or trained as performing animals. This exemption allowed for events such as Jallikattu in deference to customs and traditions of certain communities.
The Centre issued this notification in spite of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in 2014 (Animal Welfare Board of India vs A.Nagaraja) having declared “Jallikattu” an illegal act as it violated the provisions of The Prevention of Cruelty Act 1960.
Significantly, in 2011 the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEOF) had taken out a notification that specifically included the “bull” to be protected from any exhibition or training as a performing animal. However during the hearing of the Animal Welfare Board Case in 2014 the MEOF had told the court that they would seek exemption of bulls participating in Jallikattu from this notification.
So there is nothing in the January notification that the Supreme Court of India has not previously decided in its 2014 judgment. To briefly mention the statutory laws and rules that the court in the Animal Welfare case found “jallikattu” violating:
One, reports filed by the Animal Welfare board and other organizations detailed a record of fracture and dislocation of tail bones, frequent defecation and urination resulting from fear arising from the poking of bulls with sticks and knives, packing of bulls in small areas, rubbing of irritants in eyes and nose, forcing consumption of liquids and other forms of physical abuse that have often lead to the death of bulls. The court found these acts violating various clauses of section 11 of the PCA Act 1960 (treatment of animal causing pain and suffering, willful administration of injurious drug and substance, mutilation of body etc.).
Two, bulls are not performing animals. They are recognized by the Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animal Rules 1965 as draught and pack animals used for agriculture and farming purpose. Bullocks because of their large abdomen, thorax and limited flexion of joints have a limited ability to run. Interestingly The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of animals on foot) 2011 states that no person can use a stick or whip to fasten pace of walk of the bull. In Jallikattu they are made to run by making them fearful and nervous. Bulls are not performing animals. They are forced to perform by inflicting pain. This violates sections 3 (duty of person in charge of animal) and 11 of the PCA Act 1960.
Three, it violates section 11 (m) ii (to incite any animal to fight for providing entertainment) of the PCA Act 1960 and section 8 (1) (vii) (should train as according to animal instinct) of performing animals (Registration) rules 2011. The court decided that to incite a bull to fight and force him in a situation where he is fearful and hurt is cruel. Further a bull is not trained according to his natural instinct. As senior lawyer KK Venugopal told the court the bull left alone at the Jallikattu arena will walk from one end to another looking for someone to give him a banana! That is their natural instinct. They are tortured to panic and be in “flight response”
Four, the Court also struck down the state notified Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act 2009 finding the act inconsistent with several provisions of the central statute of PCA Act 1960. The court correctly concluded that as per Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India, a state made law when found to be inconsistent to any provision of a law made by parliament should be void.
The only argument the Centre has raised in its latest 2016 notification is for continuing this sport for the cultural and traditional significance that it has for certain communities in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court in the Animal welfare case and the TNRJ Act 2009 itself has recognized that Jallikattu does not violate any religious rights. Further the Court in its judgment made clear that PCA Act being a welfare provision to protect animals from human exploitation for entertainment overrides tradition and culture. No custom when violating a mandate of the Constitution and the law of the land can be upheld by a Court of law.
Article 51A (g) of the Constitution was invoked by the court to remind Indians of the fundamental duty to protect and have compassion for living creatures. The court also reminded us that killing of animals and experimenting on animals stands exempted under the PCA Act as it has certain human benefits. The judges found acts like Jallikattu non-essential activities where bulls are intentionally physically and emotionally hurt for human pleasure. Bulls are naturally peaceful animals and do not rush into the fighting arena to enjoy themselves. It is the aggravating pain when put in narrow vessels (vadi vassal) for hours, faced with constant injuries that they try and escape only to be surrounded by mobs of persons. The meaning of “life” for animals must include a life of intrinsic worth and dignity.
Jallikattu has not taken place since 2011 and it is no coincidence that the year when the state of Tamil Nadu goes to elections there is sudden flurry of action in MEOF. What is dangerous is that the political establishments blatantly disregard the judgment of our highest constitutional court. The State of Tamil Nadu has requested an Ordinance (Article 123 of the constitution allows for ordinances to be promulgated when both houses of parliament are not in session and the president is satisfied that the circumstances exist that render immediate action.) to overcome the Animal Welfare judgment and enforce Jallikattu contrary to the position held by the Supreme Court. This would completely disregard the Supreme Courts judgment and can be read as a case of legislative overreach.
On January 12 and 13, 2016 the Supreme Court again has made clear that Jallikattu will not be allowed in view of the previous judgment of the court. The political class will put forward the now familiar argument of representing the will of the people to push the case for an ordinance. The Supreme Court for the last 65 years has importantly served, as per our constitutional scheme, as a strong anti majoritarian institute (as I have argued in Supreme Court: The Bulwark Of Democracy). In this case also the court has correctly held above sectarian political interest the ideals of the constitution of humanism and compassion for living creatures while also upholding the law as stated in PCA Act 1960.
