Introduction 

This is a landmark judgment discussing the amendments made by legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka to the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960 allowing ‘Jalikattu’ and other bull taming sports.    

• This judgment was delivered by a 5-judge bench comprising of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar.  

Facts 

• In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Others (2014) the Supreme Court had outlawed two sports ‘Jalikattu’ and ‘Bullock Cart Race’ practiced in States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra respectively. 
• It was held that these sports were contrary to the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA), a statute enacted by the Parliament. 
•  A notification was issued in exercise of powers by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change allowing conduct of ‘Jallikattu’ and other similar events with certain regulations. 
• The notification was challenged in the Supreme Court. 
• Supreme Court re-imposed the ban on the festival. 
• The Central Government introduced an Ordinance to allow the conduct of ‘Jallikattu’ in Tamil Nadu with certain safeguards. 
• The President of India gave assent to the bill, amending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, to explicitly allow Jallikattu and bullock cart races in Tamil Nadu and other states with certain regulations. 
• The petitioners contended that the use of bulls in Jallikattu events subjected the animals to unnecessary pain and suffering, which was against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a law aimed at preventing cruelty to animals. 

Issue Involved

• Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or does it further and perpetuate cruelty to animals? 
• Is it colourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List? 
• Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950?

Observations

• The Court observed that at the relevant point of time when the decision in the case of A. Nagaraj was delivered the manner in which ‘Jallikattu’ was performed did breach the provisions of the 1960 Act. However, the position changed with the Amendment Acts that introduced a new regime for conducting these events. 
• The Court observed that ‘Jalikattu’, ‘Kambala’ and Bull Cart Race’ underwent a substantial change in the manner they are being practised and performed. 
• The Court held that it cannot be said taht the three Amendment Acts were merely a piece of colourable legislation with cosmetic changes to override the Central Legislataion. 
• The next issue that the Court answered was whether the Amendment Acts can be struck down as being arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• The element of unreasonableness alleged here was that the bovine species was subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. The Court held that the 1960 Act itself categorizes several activities which cause pain and suffering, even to a sentient animal. 
• Thus, the Court held that it is not arbitrary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in this case held that the Amendment Act and Rules were not contrary to the judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja and the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments have been overcome by the State Amendment Act.