The Supreme Court on Thursday termed Jallikattu a “type of bovine sport” existing in Tamil Nadu for at least a century, and did not interfere with the State legislature’s finding that the bull-taming event is part of the cultural heritage and tradition of the people of Tamil Nadu.

A Constitution Bench headed by Justice KM Joseph upheld the validity of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017.

“The Amendment Act has received the Presidential assent. We do not think there is any flaw in the State action,” the judgment held.

‘Constitutionally valid’

The court also found similar State laws passed by Karnataka and Maharashtra, allowing bullock-cart races and buffalo racing ‘Kambala’, valid. “Our decision on the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act also guides the Maharashtra and Karnataka Amendment Acts and we find all three legislations valid,” the Bench declared.

The Constitution Bench held that the Jallikattu law “substantially minimises” the pain and suffering of the animals participating in the event.

The judgment, authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose, however directed that the district administrations and competent authorities in Tamil Nadu would be responsible to ensure that Jallikattu events are conducted in strict compliance of the safeguards laid out in the 2017 Amendment Act and Rules.

“Jallikattu is a type of bovine sport and we are satisfied that it has been present in Tamil Nadu for at least a century,” Justice Bose observed.

The court described Jallikattu as an event during which “a bull is set free in an arena and human participants are made to grab its hump to score in the game”.

The A Nagaraja case

Justice Bose said Jallikattu was banned in 2014 by the apex court in the A Nagaraja case and called it “cruel”. But that was before the State passed the Amendment Act in 2017, introducing several measures to prevent any abuse to the participating bulls or loss of human life. “The Amendment Act overcomes the defects pointed out in the A Nagaraja judgment,” the court concluded.

“The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a mere piece of colourable legislation… It minimises cruelty to animals and allows the continuation of the traditional sport,” Justice Bose held.

The Bench held that the State was empowered to enact the 2017 law. The court dismissed the arguments made by petitioners, who included animal welfare activists and organisations, that Jallikattu harmed bulls as they were not built to run and be grabbed at. They had argued that the sport was against the fundamental nature of bovine animals.

The court said the Act and its Rules did not violate Article 51A (g) and (h) which makes it a fundamental duty to “have compassion for living creatures” and “develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”. The court said the Act was also not “relatable” to Article 48 of the Constitution which deals with the duty of the State to “organise agriculture and animal husbandry”. Further, the court said the amended Jallikattu law did not offend the fundamental rights to life and equality.

The court concluded that the amended law encompasses the spirit of entry 17 (prevention of cruelty to animals) in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The law, its rules and the notifications issued by the State under the Act has further remedied the “mischiefs” highlighted in Sections 3 (duties of persons in charge of animals) and 11 (cruelty to animals) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The Constitution Bench found that the Division Bench of the court in the A Nagaraja judgment had erred in concluding that Jallikattu was not part of the cultural tradition of Tamil Nadu without sufficient material to back its finding.

For itself, the Constitution Bench refrained from delving into the issue. “Whether Jallikattu has become an integral part of Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail, which in our opinion is an exercise which cannot be undertaken by the judiciary,” Justice Bose said.

Traditional sport

The court said whether the Amendment Act was introduced to “preserve the cultural heritage” of Tamil Nadu was also a debatable issue to be decided in the House of the People and not in a judicial enquiry during writ proceedings.

“Since the legislative exercise has already been undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to have been part of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, we would not disrupt this view of the legislature… In the preamble to the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, Jallikattu has been described to be part of the culture and tradition of Tamil Nadu,” Justice Bose noted.

However, the court added a rider that any culture and tradition, if it offended the law, would suffer penal consequences. “Such activities cannot be justified on the ground of being part of the cultural tradition of a State,” the judgment cautioned.

Related Topics