THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA vs UNION OF INDIA, 2023
Case Title and Citation THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23 OF 2016 (and connected petitions)
Factual Background
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court previously outlawed bovine sports, specifically ‘Jallikattu’ (Tamil Nadu) and ‘Bullock Cart Race’ (Maharashtra), finding them contrary to the provisions of Sections 3, 11(1)(a), and (m) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (1960 Act) in the A. Nagaraja case (2014). The Court also held a regulating State Act (Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009) to be void due to repugnancy. In response to this judicial decision, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a notification in January 2016 attempting to create an exception to Section 22 of the 1960 Act, permitting these bovine events (including Kambala in Karnataka) subject to certain conditions. Following this, the States of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka enacted Amendment Acts in 2017 to the 1960 Act, receiving Presidential assent in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution. These Amendment Acts sought to legitimize Jallikattu, Bullock Cart Race, and Kambala by defining them as traditional sports and exempting them from key provisions of the 1960 Act. A batch of petitions, including the lead petition by the Animal Welfare Board of India (later prosecuted by a single advocate), challenged the legality of these 2017 Amendment Acts, arguing that they were colorable legislation that failed to cure the defects pointed out by the A. Nagaraja judgment.
Issue(s)
The Constitution Bench considered five core questions, primarily concerning the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act:
- Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), or if it is colorable legislation that perpetually furthers cruelty to animals?
- Whether the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act can be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection of Article 29?
- Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is, in pith and substance, relatable to Article 48 (survival and well-being of native breeds of bulls)?
- Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is contrary to the Fundamental Duties under Articles 51-A(g) and 51-A(h), and therefore unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?
- Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is directly contrary to the A. Nagaraja judgment, and whether the defects pointed out in that judgment have been overcome?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed all writ petitions and held that all three State Amendment Acts (Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka) are valid legislations.
Reason for the Decision
- Legislative Competence and Pith and Substance: The Amendment Acts were found to relate, in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). The State Legislatures inherently possessed the jurisdiction to bring these amendments, and the Presidential assent was valid under Article 254(2). The Court rejected the contention that the Acts were primarily relatable to Article 48.
- Overcoming A. Nagaraja: The Court determined that the Amendment Acts, when read together with the consequential Rules (Tamil Nadu/Maharashtra) or Notifications (Karnataka), have overcome the defects pointed out in the A. Nagaraja judgment. The new statutory instruments, which regulate the arena and prohibit specific acts like beating or poking bulls, substantially dilute the pain-inflicting practices that existed in the pre-amendment period.
- Colorable Legislation and Arbitrariness: The argument that the Acts were colorable legislation was rejected because the sports, under the new framework, “assume different character in their performance and practice”. The Court also found no irrational classification or unreasonableness to strike down the legislation under Article 14.
- Animal Rights and Article 21: The Court confirmed that the Constitution does not recognize any Fundamental Right for animals. The Court refused to engage in “judicial adventurism” to bring bulls within the protection of Article 21.
- Culture and Tradition: While acknowledging that judicial inquiry cannot conclusively determine if Jallikattu is an integral part of Tamil culture, the Court deferred to the legislature’s view as expressed in the Preamble of the Amendment Act. The Court found the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not violate Articles 14, 21, 51-A(g), or 51-A(h).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2017 Amendment Acts introduced by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Court concluded that these Acts, when read with their corresponding Rules and Notifications, successfully minimize cruelty and are legally permissible, thereby overcoming the legal challenges posed by the A. Nagaraja judgment. The Court directed authorities to strictly enforce the amended law and corresponding Rules/Notifications.
Case Materials
Day 1 of Arguments: 24 November 2022 (Video Recording)
Day 2 of Arguments: 29 November 2022 (Video Recording)
Day 3 of Arguments: 30 November 2022 (Video Recording)
Day 4 of Arguments: 01 December 2022 (Video Recording)
Day 5 of Arguments: 06 December 2022 (Video Recording)
Day 6 of Arguments: 07 December 2022 (Video Recording)
