Supreme Court of India
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIAversusA. NAGARAJA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 370
- Decided
- 7 May 2014
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
Jallikattu and bull‑ock cart races are prohibited as they violate sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act is void for repugnancy, and the 11 July 2011 notification banning bulls as performing animals is upheld.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether the traditional events of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bull‑ock cart races in Maharashtra violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) and the Constitution’s fundamental duties. Relying on affidavits and reports from the Animal Welfare Board of India, the Court found that the events inflict unnecessary pain, fear and suffering on bulls, breaching sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the rights guaranteed under Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h). The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 was held repugnant to the PCA Act and therefore unconstitutional, while the Central Government’s notification dated 11 July 2011 banning bulls as performing animals was upheld. The Court directed the AWBI and governments to enforce the statutory rights of animals and to take disciplinary action against officials who fail to do so.
Issues considered
- Whether Jallikattu and bull‑ock cart races constitute cruelty prohibited under sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act.
- Whether the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 is repugnant to the PCA Act and unconstitutional.
- Whether the Central Government notification dated 11 July 2011 under section 22(ii) of the PCA Act is valid and enforceable.
- Whether the doctrine of necessity under section 11(3) of the PCA Act can be invoked to justify the events.
- Whether the rights of animals under the PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution are enforceable against the State legislation.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. 21, s. 246(1), s. 254(1), s. 51A(g), s. 51A(h)
- Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001s. 8(v), s. 8(vii)
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960s. 11, s. 21, s. 22, s. 28, s. 3
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001s. 11
- Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965
- Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009s. 2(c), s. 5
Subjects
animal welfarecruelty to animalsJallikattubull‑ock cart racePrevention of Cruelty to Animals Actconstitutional lawfundamental dutiesrepugnancydoctrine of necessityanimal rights
Judgment
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 646
A ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA
v.
· A. NAGARAJA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014)
MAY 07, 2014.
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960:
c
ss.3 and 11of PCA Act read with Art. 51-A of the
Constitution - Conducting of Jal/ikattu and Bullock cart races
in States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra - Held: s. 3 casts a
duty on the person in-charge or care of animal to prevent
infliction upon an animal of unnecessary pain or suffering -
0
Primary duty on persons-in-charge or care of animal is to
ensure the well-being of the animal -'Well-being' means state
of being comfortable, healthy or happy - s.3 gives a
corresponding right to the animal to ensure its we/I-being -
Bulls cannot be performing animals, anatomically not
E designed for that, but are forced to perform, inflicting pain and
suffering, in total violation of ss. 3 and 11 (1) of PCA Act -
Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu, Vadamadu,
Erudhu, Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of
bulls - Jal/ikattu or Bullock-cart race, from the point of the
F animals, is not an event ensuring their well-being or an event
meant to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or
suffering, on the contrary, it is an event against their well-being
and causes unnecessary pain and suffering on them -
Therefore, Jal/ikattu and Bullock-cart race, as an event, being
G avoidable non-essential activities violate not only ss., 3,
11 (1 }(a} and (m) and· s. 22 of PCA Act, read with Art.51 A(g)
of the Constitution but also the notification dated 11. 7. 2011
issued by the Central Government uls 22(ii) of the PCA Act
- Rights guaranteed to the bulls ulss 3 and 11 of PCA Act .
H 646
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. ,• 647
NA GA RAJA
~ead with Articles 51A(g) and (h) cannot be taken away or A
~
urtailed, except u/ss 11 (3) and 28 of PCA Act - TNRJ Act
s declared unconstitutional and void -"" Government of India
Notification dated 11.7. 2011 upheld - Directions given to
implement provisions of PCA Act and safeguard freedom and
right of animals as enumerated in the judgment - Prevention B
of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965 -
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals
on Foot)- Rules, 2001 - r. 11 - Performing Animals
(Registration) Rules, 2001 - r. 8 - Government of India
Notification dated 11. 7. 2011. c
s. 11 - Treating animals cruelly - Held: s. 11 confers no
right on the organizers to conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race
- s. 11 is a beneficial provision enacted for the welfare and
protection. of animals and it is penal ·in nature - It confers
,rights on the animals and obligations on all persons, including D
thos~ who are in-charge or care of the animals, to look after
their well-being and welfare.
s. 11 (3) read with s. 11 (1) - Cruelty to animals -
Exceptions - Penalty - Held: PCA Act does not speak of E
'taming of animals' (over-powering animals) - Taming of
animal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition
or entertainment are entirely different - s.2(c) of TNRJ Act
speaks of 'taming of bulls' which is inconsistent and contrary
to the provisions of Chapter V of PCA Act - Sub-s. (3) of s. 11
carves out exceptions in five categories of cases mentioned F
in s. 11 (3)(a) to (e) - Exceptions are incorporated based on
the "doctrine of necessity" - Entertainment, exhibition or
amusement do not fall under these exempted categories and
cannot be claimed as a matter of right under the doctrine of
necessity - Penalty for violation of rights of animals are G
insignificant, Punishment prescribed in s. 11 (1) is not
commensurate with the gravity of the offence, thus, being
violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose
of the Act, therefore, there is necessity of taking disciplinary
action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 6 S.C.R.
A to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.51A(g) - Doctrines -
Doctrine of necessity.
Constitution of India, 1950:
B Arts. 21 and 51A(g) of the Constitution read with ss.3 and
11 of PCA Act - Protection of 'life' - Rights of animals - Held:
Art. 21 while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life
and the word "life" has been given an expanded definition; and
any disturbance from the basic environment which includes
C all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for
human life, fall within the meaning of Art. 21 - So far as
animals are concerned, "life" means something more than
mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human-
beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and
D dignity - Right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not
confined to human beings alone, but to animc;ils as well -
Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-driving, over-loading is
also a right recognized by s. 11 read with s. 3 of PCA Act.
Art. 51-A of the Constitution read with ss. 3 and 11 of PCA
E
Act - Held: Rights and freedoms guaranteed to animals u/
ss. 3 and 11 have to be read along with Art. 51A(g)&(h) of the
Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal rights -
Parliament, by incorporating Art.51A(g}, has reiterated and re-
emphasised the fundamental duties on human beings
F towards every living creature, which evidently takes in bulls
as well - All living creatures have inherent dignity and a right
to live peacefully and right to protect their well-being which
encompasses protection from beating, kicking, over-driving,
over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering etc. - Rights
G guaranteed to animals ulss. 3 and 11, etc. are only statutory
rights - Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of
animals to that of constitutional rights, as done by many of
the countries around the world, so as to protect their dignity
and honour - Legisfation - International Environmental Law
H - World Health Organization of Animal Health (OIE) -
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 649
NA GA RAJA
Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) - German A
Animal Welfare Law - Animals Welfare Act of 2006 (U.K.);
Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act - Animal Welfare Act,
2010.
Art. 254(1) rlw Art. 246(1) - Rule of repugnancy - Held: 8
PCA Act has been passed to prevent infliction of unnecessary
pain or suffering and for well-being and welfare of animals and
to preserve their natural instinct - PCA Act, therefore, casts
not only duties on human beings, but also confer
corresponding rights on animals, which is being taken away C
by the State Act (TNRJ Act) by conferring rights on the
organizers and bull tamers, to conduct Jallikattu, which is
inconsistent and in direct collision with s. 3, s. 11 (1 )(a),
s.11(1)(m)(ii) and s.22 of PCA Act read with Art. 51A(g) and
(h) of the Constitution and, as such, is repugnant to PCA Act,
which is a welfare legislation and, therefore, declared 0
unconstitutional and void, being violative of Art.254(1) - Tamil
Nadu Regulation of Jal/ikattu Act, 2009 - ss.2(c), 5.
Interpretation of Statutes:
E
Welfare legislation - Interpretation of - Held: PCA Act is
a welfare legislation which has to be construed bearing in mind
the purpose and object of the Act and the Directive Principles
of State Policy - In the matters of welfare legislation,
provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of the F
· weak and infirm - Court also should be vigilant to see that
benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare legislation are
not defeated by subtle devices - Regulations or guidelines,
whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport to dilute or defeat
the welfare legislation and the constitutional principles, court G
should not hesitate to strike them down so as to achieve the
ultimate object and purpose of the welfare /egislation-
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960-Doctrine of
parens patriae-Tami/ Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act,
2009.
H"
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A In the instant appeals, writ petition and transferred
cases, the issues for consideration before the Court were
as to the legality of the conducting of Jallikattu tn the
State of Tamil Nadu and Bullock cart races in the State
, of Maharasthra in view of the rights of the animals under
9 the Constitution of India, the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) and the Notification dated
11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government u/s 22 (ii) of
the PCA Act, and the rights of the organizers under the
Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jalikattu Act, 2009 (TNRJ Act).
c Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The affidavit filed by the Secretary, AWBI,
MoEF, Chnnai giving details of the manner in which
Jallikattu is conducted, indicates the torture and cruelty
meted out to the bulls, which is unimaginable. The
D situation is the same in the State of Maharashtra also. The
details furnished depict the state of affairs, which is cruel,
barbaric, inhuman and savage. In spite of the various
directions issued by this Court, in the conduct of
Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race etc., the regulatory
E provisions of TNRJ Act and the restrictions in the State
of Maharashtra, the situation is the same and no action
is being taken by the District Collectors, Police Officials
and others, who are in-charge to control the same, to see
that those directions are properly and effectively
F complied with and the animals are not being subjected
to torture and cruelty. Being dumb and helpless, they
suffer in silence. [para 18,19 and 21] [697-E-H; 698-D-F]
1.2. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (the
PCA Act) is a welfare legislation which has to be
G construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of the
A~t and the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is trite
law that, in the matters of welfare legislation, the
provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour
of the weak and infirm. Court also should be vigilant to
H see that benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 651
NA GA RAJA
legislation are not defeated by· subtle devices. Court has A
got the duty that, in every case, where ingenuity is
expanded to avoid welfare legislations, to go behind the
form and see the substance of the devise for which it has
to pierce the veil and examine whether the guidelines or
the regulations are framed so as to achieve some other s
purpose than the welfare of the animals. Regulations or
guidelines, whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport
to dilute or defeat the welfare legislation and the
constitutional principles, court should not hesitate to
strike them down so as to achieve the ultimate object and c
purpose of the welfare legislation. Court has also a duty
under the doctrine of parens patriae to take care of the
rights of animals, since they are unable to take care of
themselves as against human beings. [para 26) [702-G, H;
703-A-D]
D
1.3. The PCA Act has been enacted to prevent the
infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or cruelty on
animals. Section 3 of the Act deals with duties of persons
having charg~ of animals, which is mandatory in nature
and thus confers corresponding rights on animals. Rights E
so conferred on animals are thus the antithesis of a duty
and if those rights are violated, law will enforce those
rights with legal sanction. Primary duty on the persons-
in-charge or care of the animal is to ensure the well-being
of the animal. 'Well-being' means state of being F
comfortable, healthy or happy. Forcing the bull and
keeping the same in the waiting area for a number of
hours and subjecting it to scorching sun, is not for the
well-being of the animal. By forcing the bull into the vadi
vassal and then into the arena, subjecting it to all forms
G.
of torture, fear, pain and suffering by no stretch ·of
imagination, can be said to be "for the well-being of such
animal". [para 27) [703-D-F; 704-B-E]
1.4. Organizers of Jallikattu are depriving the rights
guaranteed to the bulls u/s 3 of PCA Act. Sadism and H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R ..
A perversity is writ large in the actions of the organizers of
Jallikattu and the event is meant not for the well-being o1
the animal, but for the pleasure and enjoyment of human
beings, particularly the organizers and spectators. First
limb of s.3 gives a corresponding right to the animal to
S ensure its well-being. AWBI, a body established to look
after the welfare of the animals has to see that the person-
in-charge or care of the animals lo'oks after their well-
being. [para 27) [704-E-G]
1.5. The second limb of s.3 casts a duty on the person
b in-charge or care of animal to prevent the infliction upon
an animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.
Considerations, which are relevant to determine whether
the suffering is unnecessary, include whether the
suffering could have reasonably been avoided or
b reduced, whether the conduct which caused the suffering
was in compliance with any relevant enactment. Duty is
to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering,
meaning thereby, no right is conferred to inflict
necessary/unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals.
i: [para 28) [704-H; 705-A-C]
1.6. Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race, from the point of
the animals, is not an event ensuring their well-being or
an event meant to prevent the infliction of unnecessary
pain or suffering., on the contrary, it is an event against
F their well-being and causes unnecessary pain and
suffering on them. Thus, the two limbs of s.3 of PCA Act
are violated by the organizers while conducting Jallikattu
and Bullock-cart race. [para 28) [705-E-F]
2.1. Section 11 confers no right on the organizers to.
G conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race. Section 11 is a
•
beneficial provision enacted for the welfare and
protection of the animals and it is penal in nature. It
confers rights on the animals and obligations on all
persons, including those who are in-charge or care of the
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 653
NAGARAJA
anima!,s, AWBI etc. to look after their well-being a·nd >,
welfare. [para 29) [705-G, H; 706-A]
2.2. Section 11 (1 )(a) uses the expressions "or
otherwise", "unnecessary pain or suffering" etc. Beating,
kicking etc. go with the event so also torture. The B
expression "or otherwise" is not used as words of
limitation and the legislature has intended to cover all
situations, where the animals are subjected to
unnecessary pain or suffering. Jallikattu, Bullock-cart
races and the events like that, fall in that expression u/s g
11 (1 )(a). The words "or otherwise" when used, apparently
intended to cover other cases which may not come within
the meaning of the preceding clause. Over and above,
clauses (b) to (o) of sub-s. (1) of s.11 also confer various
duties and obligations, generally and specifically, on the
persons in charge of or care of animals which, in turn, D.
confer corresponding rights on animals, which, if
violated, are punishable under the proviso to s.11 (1) of
the PCA Act. [para 29-30) [707-E-H; 708-F] .
Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay 1957 SCR 721 - relied i;
on
DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY:
3. Section 11 (3) carves out exceptions in five
categories of cases mentioned in s.11(3)(a) to (e). F
Exceptions are incorporated based on the "doctrine of
necessity". Entertainment, exhibition or amusement do
not fall under these exempted categories and cannot be
claimed as a matter of right under the doctrine of
necessity. Sections 3, 11 (1 )(a) and (o) of the PCA Act and ~
other related provisions have to be understood and read
alor;ig with Art. 51A(g) of the Constitution which cast
fundamental duties on every citizen to have "compassion
for living creatures". Parliament, by incorporating
Art.51A(g), has reiterated and re-emphasised the H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A fundamental duties on human beings towards every
living creature, which evidently takes in bulls as well. All
living creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live
peacefully and right to protect their well-being which
encompasses protection from beating, kicking, over-
s driving, over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering etc.
Animals also have intrinsic worth and value. Section 3 of
the PCA Act has acknowledged those rights and the said
section along with s.11 cast a duty on persons having
charge or care of animals to take reasonable measures
c to ensure well-being of the animals and to prevent
infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering. [para 31-32)
'[708-G-H; 709-D; 710-A,B-F]
PERFORMING ANIMALS
0 4.1. Bulls have been recognized as draught and pack
animals in the Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack
Animals Rules, 1965. Draught means an animal used for
. pulling heavy loads. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(Transportation of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001,
E especially r.11 says that no person shall use a whip or a
stick in order to force the animal to walk or to hasten the
pace of their walk. Bulls, therefore, oannot be used as a
performing animal, anatomically not designed for that, but
are forced to perform, inflicting pain and suffering, in total
F violation of ss. 3 and 11 (1) of PCA Act. When bull is
specifically prohibited to be exhibited or trained for
performance, the question whether such performance,
exhibition or entertainment is conducted with sale of
tickets or not, is irrelevant from the point of application
G of ss.3 and 11 (1) of the PCA Act. [para 33,34 and 36) [710-
G; 711-B, D, E; 712-E-F]
4.2. Rule S(vii) of the Performing Animals
(Registration) Rules, 2001, specifically cautions that the
owner shall train the animal as a performing animal to
H perform an act in accordance with the animals' natural
.. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A.
NA GA RAJA
655
instinct. Bull is trained not in accordance with its natural A
instinct for the Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race. Bulls, in
those events, are observed to carry out a "flight
· response" running away from the crowd as well as from
the bull tamers, since they are in fear and distress, this
natural instinct is being exploited. Animal Welfare Division B
of MoEF, especially taking note of the stand of AWBI, had
recommended that all such events be stopped, especially
bulls as performing animals u/s 22 of PCA Act, similar to
the ban already introduced in the case of Bears, Tigers
etc. Stand of the Animal Welfare Division of MoEF ·and c
AWBI was accepted by the Central G'Overnment (MoEF) ·
and a notification dated 11. 7.2011 was issued, including
bull also in the category of banned animals. [para 38, 39-
40] [713-E-G; 715-A-D]
4.3. Section 11 (1 )(m)(ii) of the PCA says, if any D
person, solely with a view to providing enterfainment
incites any animal to fight, shall be punishable under the
proviso to s.11 (1 ). In Jallikattu, bull is expected to fight
-with various bull tamers, for which it is incited solely to
provide entertainment for the spectators by sale of tickets E
or otherwise. Inciting the bull to fight with another animal
or human being matters little, so far as the bull is
concerned, it is a fight and, as such, cruelty. Jallikattu and
Bullock-cart race, as an event, being avoidable non-
essential activities therefore, violate not only ss., 3, 11 (1 )(a) F
and (m) and s. 22 of PCA Act, read with Art.51 A(g) of the
Constitution but also the notification dated 11.7.2011
issued by the Central Government u/s 22(ii) of the PCA
Act. [para 37] [713-C, DJ
G.
CULTURE AND TRADITION
5.1. MoEF, so far as the State of Maharashtra is
concerned, is not recognising that Bullock-cart race is
part and parcel of the tradition of the pttople of
Maharashtra and that it has any cultural, historical or H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 6 S.C.R.
A religious significance. The State of Maharashtra, in its
order dated 20.4.2012, has clearly acknowledged that the
organisation of animal sports in the State, mainly in its
rural hinterland, like Bull /Ox I Bullock-cart race etc. is
nothing but violence to the dumb animals and has to be
s prohibited. The State Government evidently did not give
its stamp of approval to the so-called cultural, historical
importance to the Bullock-cart race and that order has not
been challenged. But, so far as the State of Tamil Nadu
is concerned, a proposal has been made to exempt bulls,
c participating in Jallikattu from the purview of the
notification dated 11.07 .2011 stating that it has historic,
cultural and religious significance in the State. Jallikattu
includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu,
Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of bulls.
[para 16 and 41) [672-C; 715-H; 716-A-C)
0
5.2. Jallikattu or the bullock cart race, as is being
practised, has never been the tradition or culture of Tamil
Nadu. Assuming, it has been in vogue for quite some
time, the same should give way to the welfare legislation,
E like the PCA Act which has been enacted to prevent
infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and
confer duties and obligations on persons in-charge c;>f
animals. PCA Act has been enacted with an object to
safeguard the welfare of the animals and evidently to cure
F some mischief and age old practices, so as to bring into
effect some type of reform, based on eco-centric
principles, recognizing the intrinsic value and worth of
animals. [para 42-43 and 46) [716-G; 717-A-B; 718-A-B]
N. Adithayan v. Thravancore Dewaswom Board and
G Others 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR76 = (2002) 8 SCC 106 -
referred to.
INTERNATIONAL APPROACH TO ANIMALS
WELFARE
H 6.1. There js no international agreement that ensures
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 657
NA GA RAJA
the welfare and protection of animals. Of course, there A
has been a slow but observable shift from the
anthropocentric approach to a more nature's right centric
approach in International Environmental Law, Animal
Welfare Laws etc. Based on eco-centric principles, rights
of animals have been recognized in various countries. As B
regards the rights of animals from the national and
international perspective, every species has an inherent
right to live and shall be protected by law, subject to the
exception provided out of necessity. Animal has also
honour and dignity which cannot be arbitrarily deprived c
of and its rights and privacy have to be respected and
protected from unlawful attacks. [para 47, 49 and 511 [718-
C, E, F; 720-D; 721-E-F]
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and
Others 2012 (3) SCR 460 = (2012) 3 SCC 277, T. N. D
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others 2012
(1) SCR 923 = (2012) 4 SCC 362 and in Centre for
Environmental Law World Wide Fund - India v. Union of India
and Others (2013) 8 SCC 234 - referred to.
German Animal Welfare Law; Animals Welfare Act of E
2006 (U. K.); Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act; Animal
Welfare Act, 2010 Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare
(UDAW) - referred to.
6.2. Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW)
has had considerable support from various countries, F
including India. Five freedoms referred to in UDAW, find
support in PCA Act and the rules framed thereunder to a
great extent. World Health Organization of Animal Health
(OIE), of which India is a member, acts as the international G
reference organisation for animal health and animal
welfare. OIE has been recognised as a reference
organisation by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and,
in the year 2013, it had a total of 178 member countries.
On animal welfare, OIE says that an animal is in good
state of welfare if (as indicated by Scientific evidence) it H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to
express innate behaviour and if it is not suffering from
unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress. [para
52-53] [721-F-H; 722-A-C]
Freedom:
B
7.1. Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of OIE enumerates
five internationally recognized freedoms for animals,
namely (i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;
(ii) freedom from fear and distress; (iii) freedom from
c physical and thermal discomfort; (iv) freedom from pain,
injury and disease; and (v) freedom to express normal
patterns of behaviour. These five freedoms are
considered to be the fundamental principles of animal
welfare and these freedoms find a place in ss.3 and 11
0 of PCA Act and they are for animals like the rights
guaranteed to the citizens under Part Ill of the ·
Constitution of India. [para 54] [722-0-G]
7.2. Animals are world-wide legally recognised as
'property' that can be possessed by humans. On deletion
E of Art. 19(1)(f) from the Constitution of India, right to hold
on to a property which includes animals also, is now only
a legal right not a fundamental right and rights of animals
are to be seen in that perspective as well. Rights
guaranteed to animals u/ss. 3 and 11, etc. are only
F statutory rights. The same have to be elevated to the
status of fundamental rights, as has been done by few
countries around the world, so as to secure their honour
and dignity. Rights and freedoms guaranteed to the
animals u/ss. 3 and 11 have to be read along with Art.
G 51A(g)(h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of
animal rights. [para 55-56] [722-H; 723-A-D]
COMPASSION:
8. Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of
H citizens to have compassion for living creatures. This
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 659
NAGARAJA
Court has held that by enacting Art.51A(g) and giving it A
the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects
sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the
spirit and message of Arts. 48 and 48-A are honoured as
a fundamental duty of every citizen. Article 51A(g),
therefore, enjoins that it is a fundamental duty of every B
citizen "to have compassion for living creatures", which
means concern for suffering, sympathy, kindliness etc.,
which has to be read along withs. 3, 11(1)(a) and (m), 22
etc. of PCA Act [para 57] [723-D-F]
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
c
and Others 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582 = (2005) 8 SCC 534
- relied on.
HUMANISM:
9. Art. 51A(h) says that it shall be the duty of every D
citizen to develop the scientific temper, humanism and
the spirit of inquiry and reform. Humanism also means,
understand benevolence, compassion, mercy etc.
Citizens should, therefore, develop a spirit of
compassion and humanism which is reflected in the E
Preamble of PCA Act as well as in ss. 3 and 11 of the Act.
To look after the welfare and well-being of animals and
the duty to prevent infliction of pain or suffering on
animals highlights the principles of humanism in Arts.
51A(h). Both Art. 51A(g) and (h) have to be read into the F
PCA Act, especially into ss. 3 and 11 thereof and be
applied and enforced. [para 58] [723-G-H; 724-A-B]
SPECIES ISM:
10. The concept of speciesism as reflected in G
castism, racism and sexism are biological classification.
The inequalities like castism, racism, sexism etc. have
been taken care of through Constitutional and statutory
amendments, like Arts. 14 to 17, 19, 29 and so on. So far
as animals are concerned, s.3 of the PCA Act confers H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A right on animals so also rights u/s 11 not to be subjected
to cruelty. When such statutory rights have been
conferred on animals, it can always be judged as to
whether they are being exploited by human-beings.
Through PCA Act, Parliament has recognized the rights
B of animals, of course, without not sacrificing the interest
of human beings under the doctrine of necessity.[para
59-60] [725-A-C]
RIGHT TO LIFE:
11.1. Art. 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding
C the rights of humans, protects life and the word "life" has
been given an expanded definition; and any disturbance
from the basic environment which includes all forms of
life, including animal life, which is necessary for human
life, fall within the meaning of Art. 21. So far as animals
D are concerned, "life" means something more than mere
survival or existence or instrumental value for human-
beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour
and dignity. Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-driving,
over-loading is also a right recognized by s.11 read with
E s.3 of the PCA Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean
atmosphere and right to get protection from human
beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering i.s
a right guaranteed to the animals u/ss 3 and 11 of the PCA
Act read with Art. 51A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get
F food, shelter is also a guaranteed right u/ss 3 and 11 of
the PCA Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially
·· when they are domesticated. Therefore, ss. 21, 22 of the
PCA Act and the relevant provisions have to be
understood in the light of-the rights conferred on animals
G u/s 3, read with s.11(1)(a) and (o) and Articles 51A(g) and
(h) of the Constitution. [para 62 and 64] [726-D-H; 727-A;
728-A-B]
11.2. Penalty for violation of rights of animals are
insignificant, sinc·e laws. are made· by humans.
H Punishment prescribed in s.11(1) is not commensurate
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 661
NAGARAJA
with the gravity of the offence, thus, being violated with A
impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act,.
therefore, there is necessity of taking disciplinary action
against those officers who fail to discharge their duties
to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the
PCA Act. [para 62] [727 ·B, C] B
REPUGNANCY:
12.1. Repugnancy between Parliamentary Legislation
and State Legislation arises in two ways:
c
(i) Where the legislations, though enacted with
respect to the matters in their allotted sphere, overlap
conflict;
(ii) Where two legislations are with respect to the
same matters in the concurrent list and there is a conflict; D
and
(iii) Repugnancy will also arise between two
enactments even though obedience to each of them is
possible without disobeying the other, if a competent E
legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly
evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole
field.
In both the situations, the Parliamentary legislation F
will predominate in the first by virtue of the non-obstante
clause in Art. 246(1 ), and in the second by reason of
Article 254(1) of the Constitution. [para 65] [728-D-F; 729-
A-B]
Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka 1990 (1) G
=
SCR 614 (1990) 2 SCC 562; M. Karunanidhi v. Union of
India 1979 (3) SCR 254 =AIR 1979 SC 898; Jaya Gokul
Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to
Government Higher Education Department,
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 6 S.C.R. ·
A Thiruvanathapuram, Kera/a State and Another 2000 (2)
SCR 1234 = (2000) 5 sec 231 - relied on.
12.2. The TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentricl
legislation enacted not for the welfare of the animals,
unlike PCA Act, which is an eco-centric legislation,
8 enacted to ensure the well-being and welfare of the
animals and to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering of
·the animals. The State Act basically safeguards the
interest of the organizers and spectators while
conducting the event of Jallikattu. The PCA Act does not
C speak of 'taming of animals' (over-powering animals).
Taming of animal for domestic use and taming of animal
for exhibition or entertainment are entirely different.
Section 2(c) of TNRJ Act speaks of 'taming of bulls'
which is inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of
D Chapter V of PCA Act. Sections 4(vii), (viii) and 5 (viii)
speak of bull tamers. Bull tamers, therefore, tame the bulls
at the arena, thereby causing strain, stress, inflict pain
and suffering, which PCA Act wants to prevent u/s 11 of
the Act. Taming of bulls in arena during Jallikattu, as per
E the State Act, is not for the well-being of the animal and
causes the unnecessary pain and suffering, that is
exactly what the Central Act (PCA Act) wants to prevent
for the well-being and welfare of animals, which is also
against the basic natural instinct of the bulls. [para 73-74]
F [732-E-F; 734-A-D]
12.3. PCA Act, especially s.3, coupled with
s.11(1)(m)(ii), makes an offence, if any person solely with
a view to provide entertainment, incites any animal to
fight. Fight can be with an animal or a human being.
G Section 5 of TNRJ Act envisages a fight between a bull
and bull tamers, that is, bull tamer has to fight with the
bull and tame it. Such fight is prohibited u/s 11 (1 )(m)(ii)
of PCA Act read with s.3 of the Act. Therefore, there is
inconsistency between s.5 of TNRJ Act and s.11 (1 )(m)(ii)
H of PCA Act. PCA Act cast not only duties on human
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 663
NAGARAJA
beings, but _also confer corresponding rights on animals, A
which is being taken away by the State Act (TNRJ Act)
by conferring rights on the organizers and bull tamers,
to conduct Jallikattu, which is inconsistent and in direct
collision with s.3, s.11 (1 )(a), 11 (1 )(m)(ii) and s.22 of the
PCA Act read with Art. 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution B
and, as ~uch, is repugnant to the PCA Act, which is a
welfare<legislation.
<,
[para 75-76] [734-E-F; 735-B-D]
12.4. This Court, therefore, holds that AWBI is right
in its stand that Jallikattu, ·Bullock-cart race and such
events per se violate ss.3, 11 (1 )(a) and 11 (1 )(m)(ii) of PCA C
Act. This Court upholds the notification dated 11.7.2011
issued by the Central Government, consequently, bulls
cannot be used as performing animals, either for the
Jallikattu events or Bullock-cart races in the State of
Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country. The D
rights guaranteed to the bulls u/ss 3 and 11 of PCA Act
read with Articles 51A(g) and (h) cannot be taken away
or curtailed, except u/ss 11 (3) and 28 of PCA Act. TNRJ
Act is found repugnant to PCA Act, which is a welfare
legislation, and, as such, held unconstitutional and void, E
being violative or Art. 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of animals
to that of constitutional rights, as done by rnany of the
countries around the world, so as· to protect their dignity
and honour. Further directions given to implement the F
provisions of PCA Act to protect and safeguard freedoms
and rights of animals as enumerated in the judgment.
[para 77] [735-D-G; 737-B-C; 736-G-H]
12.5. The judgment of the Madras High Court is set
aside, but the judgment of Bombay High Court and the G
notification dated 11. 7 .2011 issued by the Central
Government are upheld. [para 78] [737-E-F]
N. R. Nair Others v. Union of India and Others 2001 (3)
SCR 353 =(2001) 6 sec 84 - cited.
H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference :
2001 (3) SCR 353 cited para 7
1957 SCR 721 relied on · para 29
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 76 referred to Para 43
B 2012 (3) SCR 460 referred to Para 48
2012 (1) SCR 923 referred to Para 48
(2013) 8 sec 234 referred to . Para 48
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR582 relied on para 57
c
19.90 (1) SCR 614 relied on para 65
1979 (3) SCR 254 relied on para 67
2000 (2) SCR1234 relied on para 68
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No
, 5387 of 2014) ·
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2007 in WP
No. 11478/2006 of the High Court of Madras.
· WITH
E CA Nos. 5388, 5389-5390, 5391, 5392, 5393, 5394 of 2014
WP (C) No. 145 of 2011
And
T.C (C). Nos~ 84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 127 of 2013
F
Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Raj Panjwani, Huzefa Ahmadi,
V.K. Bali, Rakesh Dwivedi, V.A. Mohta, Colin Gonsalves,
Subramonium Prasad, AAG, Anjali Sharma, Surabhi Aggarwal,
Rajiv Dewan, Rishi Kesh, Aniruddha Rajput, Yashvardhan,
G Rohan Sharma, S.K. Sabharwal, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis
mohd., Sandee~ Kumar, L. K. Pandey, P. Soma Sundaram,
Shivaji M. Jadhav, Anish R. Shah, Prashant R. Dahat, Anand
Selven, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Ravindra Kumar Verma,
Seema Rao, Priyanka Sinha, S.K, Bajwa, Mohit Nagar, Anirudh
H Tanwar, Ragini, S.N Terdal, C. Paramasivam, P. Ramesh, Y.
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 665
NAGARAJA
Anuragiri, M.P. Parthiban, Aditya Soni, Christine Kumar, M. A
Yogesh Kanna, A. Santhakumaran, Vanita Chandrakant Giri,
Devansh Mehta Neelkanth Nayak, Subodh S. Patil, Supriya
Deshpande, Vinay Navare, Satyajeet Kumar, Keshav Rajan,
Abha R. Sharma, Reena Chaudhary, Shankar Chillarge, A.P.
Mayee, V. Prabhkar, Revathy Raghavan, Jyo1j Prashar, Vijay B
Panjwani, B. Balaji, K. Shivraj Choudhuri, Naresh Kumar, K.V.
Vijayakumar, Purnima Bhat, V.N. Raghupathy, sekhar Kumar
for the Appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. c
2. We are, in these cases, concerned with an issue of
seminal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under
our Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion and ethology,
which we have to examine, in connection with the conduct of D
Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races etc. in the States of Tamil Nadu
and Maharashtra, with particular reference to the provisions of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short 'the
PCA Act'), the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009
(for short "TNRJ Act") and the notification dated 11. 7 .201'1 . E
issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the
PCA Act.
3. We have two sets of cases here, one set challenges the
Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court at Madurai
dated 09.03.2007, filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India F
(for short "AWBI"), Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011 filed by an
organisation called PETA, challenging the validity of TNRJ Act
and few other writ petitions transferred from the Madras High
Court at Madurai challenging/enforcing the validity of the MoEF
Notification dated 11.07.2011 and another set of cases, like G
SLP No. 13199 of 2012, challenging the Division Bench
judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12.03.2012
upholding the MoEF Notification dated 11.07 .2011 and the
corrigendum issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated
· 24.08.2011 prohibiting all Bullock-cart races, games, training,
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A exhibition etc. Review Petition No. 57 of 2012 was filed against
the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed
by the High Court on 26.11.2012, against whic'"' SLP No. 4598
of 2013 has been filed.
4. ABWI, a statutory Board, established under Section 4
B of the PCA Act for the promotion of animal welfare ·and for the
purpose of protecting the animals from being subjected to
unnecessary pain or suffering has taken up a specific stand that
Jallikattu, Bull/Bullock-cart races etc., as such, conducted in the
States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra respectively, inherently
C violate the provisions of the PCA Act, particularly, Section 3,
Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) and Section 22 of the PCA Act. ABWI,
through its reports, affidavits and photographs, high-lighted the,
manner in which Jallikattu is being conducted, especially in the
Southern Part of the State of Tamil Nadu, and how the bulls
o involved are physically and mentally tortured for hum!ln pleasure
and enjoyment. Details have also been furnished by the 2nd
respondent, in SLP No. 13199 of 2012, along with photographs
explaining how the Bullock-cart race is being conducted in
various parts of the State of Maharashtra and the torture and
E cruelty meted out to the bullocks. ABWI has taken up the stand
that, by no stretch of imagination, it can be gainsaid that
Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race conducted, as such, has any
historical, cultural or religious significance, either in the State
of Tamil Nadu or in the State of Maharashtra and, even
F assuming so, the welfare legislation like PCA Act would
supersede the same, being a Parliamentary legislation. ABWI
has also taken up the specific stand that the bulls involved in
Jallikattu, Bullock-cart race etc. are not "performing animals"
within the meaning of Sections 21 and 22 of the PCA Act and
that the MoEF, in any view, was justified in issuing the
G notification dated 11.7.2011 banning the exhibition of Bulls or
training them as performing animals on accepting the stand
taken by it before this Court. Further, it has also taken up the
stand that the TNRJ Act is repugnant to the provisions of the
PCA Act and the rules made thereunder and State cannot give
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 667
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
effect to it in the absence of the assent of the President under A
Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Further, ABWI also
submits that the Bulls whictl"are forced to participate in the race
are subjected to considerable pain and suffering, which clearly
violates Section 3 and Sections 11 (1 )(a) & (m) of the PCA Act
read with Article 51A(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of B
India and hence exhibition or training them as performing
animals be completely banned.
5. Organizers of Jallikattu an.d Bullock-cart races,
individually and collectively, took up the stand that these events
take place at the end of harvest season (January and February) C
and sometimes during temple festivals which is traditionally and
closely associated with village life, especially in the Southern
Districts of the State of Tamil Nadu. Organizers of Bullock-cart
· races in the State of Maharashtra also took the stand that the
same is going on for the last more than three hundred years D
by way of custom and tradition and that extreme care and
protection are being taken not to cause any injury or pain to
the bullocks which participate in the event. Organizers also
submitted that such sport events attract large number of
persons which generates revenue for the State as well as E
enjoyment to the participants. Further, it was also stated that
no cruelty is meted out to the performing bulls in Bullock-cart
races so as to violate Section 11 (1 )(a) of the PCA Act and the
District Collector, Police Officials etc. are always on duty to
prevent cruelty on animals. Further, it is also their stand that the F
sport events can only be regulated and not completely
prohibited and the State of Tamil Nadu has already enacted the
TNRJ Act, which takes care of the apprehensions expressed
by the Board.
6. The State of Tamil Nadu has also taken up the stand G
that every effort shall be made to see that bulls are not subjected
to any cruelty so as to violate the provisions of the PCA Act
and the sport event can be regulated as per the provisions of
the TNRJ ,Act. Further, it was also pointed out that the bulls
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A taking part in the Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race etc. are
specifically identified, trained, nourished for the purpose of the
said sport event and owners of Bulls spend considerable
money for training, maintenance and upkeep of the bulls.
Further, the State has also taken up the stand that the Bulls are
B "performing animals'', and since there is no sale of tickets in
the events conducted, Section 22 will not apply, so also the
notification dated 11. 7 .20~ 1. State has also taken up the stand
that complete ban on such races would not be in public interest
which is being conducted after harvest season and sometimes,
c during temple festivals as well. The State of Maharashtra has
not challenged the judgment of the Bombay High Court and!I
hence we have to take it that the State is in favour of banning
the exhibition or training of Bulls, whether castrated or otherwise
as performing animals.
D , 7. MoEF, as early as on 2.3.1991, issued a notification
under Section 22 of PCA Act banning training and exhibition
of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs, which was
challenged by the Indian Circus Organization before the Delhi'
High Court but, later, a corrigendum was issued, whereby dogs
E were excluded from the notification. On the direction issued by
the Delhi High Court, a Committee was constituted and, based
on its report, a notification dated 14.10.1998 was issued
excluding dogs from its purview, the legality of the notification
was challenged before this Court in N. R. Nair Others v. Union
F of India and Others (2001) 6 SCC 84, which upheld the
notification. Later, MoEF issued a fresh notification dated
11.7.2011, specifically including "Bulls" also, so as to ban their
exhibition or training as performing animals, while this Court
was seized of the matter.
G 8. MoEF has now abruptly taken up the stand that though
"Bull" has been included in the list of animals, not to be exhibited
or trained ~s "performing animal" vide Notification dated
11.07.2011, it has been pointed out that, in order to strike a
balance and to safeguard the interest of all stakeholders,
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 669
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
including animals, and keeping in mind the historical, cultural A
and religious significance of the event, and with a view to ensure
that no unnecessary pain or suffering is caused to the animals,
participants as well as spectators, the Government proposes
to exempt bulls participating in Jallikattu in the State of Tamil
Nadu from the purview of the Notification dated 11.07.2011, B
subject to the guidelines, copy of which has been provided
along with the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary~ MoEF.
9. Shri Raj Panjwani, learned senior counsel appearing for
AWBI as well as for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 145 of C
2011, submitted that the event Jallikattu, even if conducted
following the TNJR Act, would still violate the provisions of PCA
Act, especially Section 11(1)(a). Learned senior counsel
submitted that Jallikattu, as an event, :nvolves causing the Bull
pain and suffering and cannot be free from cruelty and hence
falls within the meaning of Section 11 (1 )(a). Further, it was D
pointed out that, during Jallikattu, the Bulls, it is observed, carry
out a flight response, indicating both fear and pain and
suffering. Shri Panjwani made considerable stress on the
words "or otherwise" in Section 11(1)(a) and submitted that any
act which inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering on an animal is E
prohibited unless it is specifically permitted under any of the
provisions of PCA Act or the rules made thereur:ider. Stiri
Panjwani also submitted that since the event Jallikattu, as such,
is an offence under Section 11 (1 )(a), through a State Act, it can
neither be permitted nor regulated and hence the State Act is F
void under Article 245(1) of the Constitution, in the absence of
any Presidential Assent.
10. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
appearing for State of Tamil Nadu, referring to Section 11 (3) G
of PCA Act, submitted that the Act does not prohibit the
infliction of all forms of pain or suffering on animals and hence
Section 11 (1 )(a) has to be read and understood in that context.
Referring to Sections 11 (1 }(a), (g), (h}, (j), (m) and (n), learned·
senior counsel submitted that the expression "unnecessary pain
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A or suffering" is not used in those clauses and hence the events
like Jallikattu, which do not cause that much of pain or suffering
on the animal, cannot be completely prohibited, but could only
by regulated.
B 11. Shri Bali, learned senior counsel appearing for the
organizers, highlighted the historical and cultural importance of
Jallikattu event and submitted that, taking into consideration the
nature of the event, the same would not cause any unnecessary
pain or suffering to the Bulls which participate in that event, so
C as to violate Section 3 or Section 11(1)(a) of PCAAct. Learned
senior counsel submitted that such events could be regulated
under the regulations framed under TNRJ Act as well as the
additional safeguards taken by the State Government and the
proposed guidelines framed by MoEF. Learned senior counsel
also submitted that the mere fact that there has been some
D violation of the regulations would not mean that the entire event
be banned in the State of Tamil Nadu which, according to the
learned senior counsel, will not be in public interest. Learned
senior counsel also referred to the manner in which such events
are being conducted world-over, after taking proper precaution
E for the safety of the animals used in those events.
12. We have to examine the various issues raised in these
cases, primarily keeping in mind the welfare and the well-being
of the animals and not from the stand point of the Organizers,
F Bull tamers, Bull Racers, spectators, participants or the
respective States or the Central Government, since we are
dealing with a welfare legislation of a sentient-being, over
which human-beings have domination and the standard we have
to apply in deciding the issue on hand is the "Species Best
G Interest", subject to just exceptions, out of human necessity.
Bulls -Behavioral ethology
13. Bulls (Bos lndicus) are herbivores, prey by nature
adopted to protest themselves when threatened engaging in a
H 'flight response', that is run away stimulus, which they find when
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 671
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
threatening. Bulls, in that process, use their horns, legs, or brute A
force to protect themselves from threat or harm. Bulls are often
considered to be herd animals. Bulls move in a relaxed manner
if they are within a herd or even with other Bulls. Individual Bull
exhibits immense anxiety if it is sorted away from the herd. Bulls
vocalize when they are forced away from the rest of the herd B
· a'nd vocalization is an indicator of stress. Bulls exhibit a fight
or flight response when exposed to a perceived ,threat. Bulls
are more likely to flee than fight, and in most cases· they fight,
when agitated.
14. Bulls usually stand to graze and pattern of grazing C
behavior of each herd member is relatively similar, which moves
· slowly across the pasture with the muzzle close to the ground
and they ruminate resting. Bull is known to be having resting
behavior and will avoid source of noise and disturbance and
choose non-habitual resting sites if the preferred ones are close D
to the noise or disturbance, which is the natural instinct of the
Bull. Study conducted also disclosed that Bulls have long
memories. Factors mentioned above are the natural instincts
of Bulls.
15. Bulls, as already indicated, accordingly to the animal E
behavior studies, adopt flight or fight response, when they are
frightened or threatened and this instinctual response to a
perceived threat is what is being exploited in Jallikattu or
Bullock-cart races. During Jallikattu, many animals are
observed to engage in a flight response as they try to run away F
from arena when they experience fear or pain, but cannot do
this, since the area is completely enclosed. Jalrikattu
demonstrates a link between actions of humans and the fear,
distress and pain experienced by bulls. Studies indicate that
rough or abusive handling of Bulls compromises welfare and G
for increasing Bulls fear, often, they are pushed, hit, prodded,
abused, causing mental as well as physical harm.
JALLIKATTU
16. Jallikattu is a Tamil word, which comes from the term H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A "Callikattu", where "Calli", means coins and "Kattu" means a
package. Jallikattu refers to silver or gold coins tied on the bulls'
horns. People, in the earlier time, used to fight to get at the
money placed around the bulls' horns which depicted as an act
of bravery. Later, it became a sport conducted for entertainment
B and was called "Yeruthu Kattu", in which a fast moving bull was
corralled with ropes around its neck. Started as a simple act
of bravery, later, assumed different forms and ishapes like
Jallikattu (in the present form), Bull Race etc., which is based
on the concept of flight or fight. Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu,
c Oormaadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu, Vadam, Vadi and all such
events involve taming of bulls.
17. AWBI gives a first hand information of the manner in
which the event of Jallikattu is being conducted in Southern
parts of Tamil Nadu, through three reports submitted along with
D the a.dditional affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Animal
Welfare Board, MoEF, Government of India on 7 .9.2013,
flouting the various directions issued by this Court, High Court
and the regulatory provisions of TNRJ Act. Dr. Manilal Vallyate
and Mr. Abhishek Raje, the Observors of AWBI, have submitted
E the first report regarding Jallikattu events that took place at
Avnlapuram on 14.1.4013, Palamedu on 15.1.2013 and
Alanganallur on 16.1.2013. Relevant portions of the reports
read as under: '1
F "I. Executive Summary
In a comprehensive investigation authorized by the Animal
Welfare Board of India, investigators observed jallikattu
events at venues in Avaniapuram, Palamedu and
Alanganallur on the 14th, 15th and 16th of January 2013,
G respectively. During the course of the investigation, one bull
died and many more were injured. Investigators observed
that bulls were forced to participate and were deliberately
taunted, tormented,· mutilated, stabbed, beaten, chased.
and aenied even their most basic needs, including food,
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 673
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
water and sanitation. The findings of this investigation A
clearly show that bulls who are used in jallikattu are
subjected to extreme cruelty and unmitigated suffering.
All the acts of cruelty to animals detailed in the below
observations contravene the orders of the Supreme
Court of India and Madurai High Court, which B
mandate that bulls should not be harmed or tortured
in any way. Such animal abuse is also in violation of
numerous clauses of section 11 (1) of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
c
II. Welfare Implications and Violations of the Law
1. Ear Cutting/Mutilation
At least 80 per cent of the bulls observed had their ears
cut, with three-fourths of the external ear pinna absent. D
When asked about the reason for the mutilation, many bull
owners explained that by cutting the ear, the animal would
be able to hear sounds even from the back, which they
deemed to be very important while the animals are in the
jallikattu arena. E
Welfare Concerns
Cutting the external ear in no way helps to improve a bull's
hearing. Instead, the bu.II loses his natural ability to receive
sounds signals with appropriate positioning and movement F
of the ear pinna. Cutting the ear causes intense pain and
distress as the external ear pinna consists of cartilage and
is highly vascular with a rich nerve supply. The procedure
leads to physiological, neuroendocrine and behavioural
changes in the animal. Bu11s strongly resist being touched G
on the head or around the ear because of painful past
experiences. Many anin:ials get agitated if someone tries
to do so.
H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Violation
This is a violation of section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any
animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering,
and section 11 (1) (I), which prohibits the mutilation of an
B animal's body.
2. Fracture and Dislocation of Tail Bones
Many bulls suffered from dislocated or even amputated tails
c caused by deliberate pulling and twisting.
Welfare Concerns
The tail, which has nearly 20 small bones, is an extension
of the spinal cord and vertebral column. Dislocation and
D fracture of the tail vertebrae are extremely painful
conditions.
Violation
This is a violation of section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of
E Cruelty to Animals Act, ·1960, which prohibits treating any
animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering,
and section 11 (1) (I), which prohibits the mutilation of an
animal's body.
F 3. Frequent Defecation and Urination
Ninety-five per cent of the bulls were soiled with faeces
from below the base of their tails and across the majority
of their hindquarters.
G Welfare Concerns
Bulls were forced to stand together in accumulated waste
for hours on end. Frequent defecation and urination are
indicators of fear and pain in cattle.
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A 675
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Vio.lation A
Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, prohibits treating any animal in a way that
?auses unnecessary pain or suffering.
B
4. Injuries and Death
Because of the absence of a contained "collection area"
in Avaniapuram, a bull died after a head-on collision with
a moving passenger bus. In Palamedu, a terrified bull
sustained a crippling leg injury after he jumped more than C
10 feet off a narrow road to escape a mob carrying sticks.
In Alanganallur, two bulls, who were terrified after being
chased by onlookers, ran amok and fell into open wells in
an agriculture field. Both sustained serious injuries.
D
Welfare Concerns
An injury involving muscles, bones, nerves and blood
. vessels causes an animal tremendous pain. A complete
fracture of a lower joint in large animals takes time to heal
and leads to a deformation of the leg that leaves the animal E
unfit for any kind of work. Bulls also suffer from chronic pain
as well as mental trauma brought on by the injury and the
handlers' and bull tamers' cruel treatment.
Violation F
Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, prohibits treating any animal in a way that
causes unnecessary pain or suffering.
Ill. Cruel Practices and Violations of the Law G
1. Biting a Bull's Tail
On many occasions, bulls' tails bitten by the organizers and·
owners of the animals in the waiting area and inside the
vadi vasspl. The vadi vassal is a chamber that is closed H
. 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A off from public view. Abuse runs rampant In vadi vasals.
Bulls are poked, beaten and deliberately ~gitated before
they are forced into the jallikattu arena, where more than
30 "bull tamers" are waiting.
Welfare Concerns
B
Considered an extremity of the body, a bull's tail has many
vertebrae but very little muscle or subcutaneous tissue to
protect it. Any direct pressure or injury to the tail bones
causes extreme pain that sends bulls into a frenzy.
c
Violation
Section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, prohibits treating any animal in a way that
causes unnecessary pain or suffering.
D
2. Twisting a Bull's T~il
Owners routinely beat the bulls and twist their tails in order
to induce fear and pain while they are in the waiting area
E ar:id the vadi vassal. Many bulls had dislocated or even
amputated tails.
Welfare Concerns
The..~ls, which has nearly 20 small bones, is an extension
F of the spinal cord and vertebral column. Frequent pulling
and bending of the tail causes extreme pain and may lead
to a dislocation and/or fracture of the tail vertebrae. This
causes severe chronic pain and psychological changes
that make an animal easily frightened when someone
G goes behind him or tries to catch or hold his tail.
Violation
This is violation of section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any
H animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, ·
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 677
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.f
and section 11 (1) (I), which prohibits the mutilation of an A
animal's body.
3. Poking Bulls with Knives and Sticks
Many bulls were poked with sticks by owners, police
officials and organizers inside the vadi vassal and near the B
collection yard. People inside the vadi vassal often poked
bulls on their hindquarters, aces and other parts of their
bodies with pointed wooden spears, tiny knives, sticks and
sickle-shaped knives used for cutting nose ropes ..
c
Welfare Concerns
Poking bulls with sticks or sharp knives causes immense
pain and agitation. Distressed bulls often adopt a flight
response and desperately try to escape through the half-
D
closed gates of the vadi vasals. While attempting to flee
from people in the arena, agitated bulls often injure
themselves when they run into barricades, electric polls,
water tanks, tractor carriages and police watch towers
placed inside the jallikattu arena.
E
Violation
Section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, prohibits treating any animal in a way that
causes unnecessary pain or suffering.
F
4. Using Irritants
Irritant solutions were rubbed into the eyes and noses of
bulls inside the vadi vassal in order to agitate them.
G
Welfare Concerns
E)fes and noses are very sensitive, sensory organs, and
the use of any irritating chemicals causes pain, distress
and an intense sensation. Bulls who try to escape from
such torture often end up injuring themselves by hitting H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A walls, gates, fencing and other erected structures inside·
the Vadi Vasal and jallikattu arena
Violation
This practice violates section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention
8 of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating
any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or
suffering. It also violates section 11 (1 )(c), which prohibits
the willful and unreasonable administration of any injurious
drug or substance to any animal.
c
5. Using Nose Ropes
Nose ropes were frequently pulled, yanked or tightened in
order to control bulls before they were released into arenas
and collection yards. Some animals were even bleeding
D from the nose as a result of injuries caused by pulling the
rope.
Welfare Concerns
Pulling or twisting the nose rope exerts pressure on the
E
nerve-rich and extremely sensitive septum, causing bulls
pain and making it easier for handlers to force them to
move in a desired direction. According to one study, 47
per cent of animals whose noses were pierced had
lacerations and ulcerations, and 56 per cent had pus in
F
their nostrils. They study also pointed out that 57 per cent
of cattle had extensive and severe nose injuries.
Violation
G Section. 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, prohibits treating any animal in a way that
causes unnecessary pain or suffering.
6. Cramped Conditions
H Bulls were packed so tightly into narrow waiting corridors
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 679
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
that they were unable to take a step forwards or A
backwards. Forced to stand for more than eight hours in
line at the waiting area for a health examination and in the
vadi vassal, bulls had no protection from the blistering sun
and the crowds of people, who shouted and hooted at
them, harassed them and frightened them. Bull owners B
start lining up the night before the jallikattu event, and they
are given serial numbers. Some were in line until the events
ended at 2 pm the next day.
Welfare Concerns
c
Bulls were denied shade and were not allowed to lie down
and rest. This causes exhaustion and extreme distress and
discomfort.
Violation D
This is a violation of section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any
animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering,
and section 11(1) (f), which prohibits trying an animal for
an unreasonable time with an unreasonably short rope. E
7. Forcing Bulls to Move Sideways
The animals were forced to move sideways at a slow pace
for more than eight hours over a distance of approximately
F
500 to 1000 metres.
Welfare Concerns
Forcing bulls to walk sideways - which is an unnatural gait
for any animal - for a long duration causes them extreme G
discomfort.
Violation
This is a violation of section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering,
and section 11 (1) (d), which prohibits conveying any animal
in such a manner or position as to cause unnecessary pain
or suffering.
8. Lack of Food and Water
B
All the bulls observed were not offered food, water or
shelter from 8 am, when they were forced to line up, until
1
the jallikattu events ended at 2.30 pm. Though concrete
water troughs were available at the registration area and
c collection yards, none of the animals were offered water.
Bulls were so terrified and focused on surviving at the
collection yards in Palamedu and Alanganallur that they did
not drink water. Several bulls became recumbent and were
unable to stand up because of dehydration and exhaustion.
D Many people kicked, beat and bit the bulls in order to force
them back onto their feet.
Welfare Concerns
As ruminants, bulls normally graze for several hours a day
E in an open field or eat a bulk quantity of feed when kept in
stalls. They loiter around chewing their cud before grazing
or eating again. During jallikattu, the animals are starved
and prevented from chewing their cud (they won't do it
when they are frightened or in pain distress). No intake of
F food and water and the absence of shade lead to
dehydration and exhaustion. This often results in injuries
or death.
Violation
G This is a violation of section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any
animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering,
and section 11 (1) (h), which states that failing to provide
animals with sufficient food, drink or shelter is an act of
cruelty.
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 681
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
9. Forcing Bulls to Drink Liquids A
On many occasions, bulls were forced to drink fluids that
were likely liquor. Animals' heads were raised by pulling
on the nose ropes, and the fluids were forced into their
mouths using a plastic bottle. B
Welfare Concerns
Forcing bulls to drink causes them physical discomfort and
fear. They often become excited and frenzied as the
alcohol affects their central nervous system. Forcing them C
to drink can also cause the aspiration of fluid in the upper
and lower respiratory tracts (lungs). This can cause
pneumonia, a serious respiratory disease that can lead to
death. Normally, bulls drink water at their own pace from
a bucket, but no such allowances were witnessed during D
any of the jallikattu events.
Violation
This is a violation of section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any E
animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering,
and section 11 (1) (c), which states that giving any injurious
drug or substance to any animal is prohibited.
10. Forcing Bulls to Stand in their Own Waste
F
. In the waiting areas, bulls were forced to wait for more
than eight hours while standing in their own faeces and
urine.
Welfare Concerns G
No sanitation facilities were made available, and bulls
were forced to stand together in the accumulated faeces
and urine for hours. The accumulated waste attracts flies
.that bother the animals and cause them discomfort. The
H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A eggs laid by the flies may lead to maggot infestation of any
wounds the bulls may have.
Violation
This is a violation of Supreme Court and Madurai High
B Court orders, which mandate that sanitation facilities
should be made available during jallikattu events and that
bulls should not be allowed to suffer in any. Section
11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes
c unnecessary pain or suffering.
11. Spectators Beating and Agitating Bulls
When collection yards were not present or not used,
injured, exhausted bulls were tormented by spectators as
D they exited; "Parallel jallikattu" events happened at each
venue as the aggressive crowds agitated the bulls exiting
the arena by shouting at them, beating them and jumping
on them. Many people, including police officials, beat
exhausted bulls with sticks and jumped in front of the bulls
E in an effort to frighten them. Running for their lives, terrified
bulls ran amok, stumbling into shops and houses and
slamming into barricades and vehicles parked nearby.
Both the bull who died after a head-on collision with a
passenger bus in Avaniapuram and the bull who fractured
F his leg after jumping off a road in Palamedu were running
loose when their injuries occurred "Parallel jallikattu" is
often considered to be the "real jallikattu", as the most risky
action takes place during the deliberate harassment by
spectators.
G
Welfare Concerns
When bulls are not afraid, they stand still and engage in
normal behaviour to the species, such as grazing, chewing
cud, lying down or grooming. None of these types of
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 683
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
behavior were seen at any point during any of the jallikattu A
events. Jallikattu causes bulls severe mental and physical
anguish. When bulls are frightened or in pain, they adopt
a flight response that can often lead to serious physical
injuries and even death. Near the collection area, the
spectators didn't allow the bulls to calm down and relax - B
they instead induced further fear, distress, discomfort and
pain.
Violation
This is a violation of section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of C
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which states that beating,
kicking, torturing or otherwise treating any animal so as to
subject the animal to unnecessary pain or suffering is an
act of cruelty.
D
12. Restraining and Roping
When bulls entered the collection yard, they were caught
using looped rope that was attached to a long stick. At no
point were the frightened bulls allowed to calm down. After
a long struggle, bulls were captured by handlers. who E
inse.rted two fingers into their noses and pulled them to the
nearest tree while three to four men held their horns and
necks using multiple ropes. Once an animal was tied to a
, tree, a new thick nose rope was forcefully inserted through
the existing hole in the nasal septum. Often the rope was F
very thick, and pulling it vigorously caused injuries to the
nasal septum, which led to profuse bleeding in many
animals.
Welfare Concerns G
As a prey animal, bulls are better controlled using
behavioural techniques instead of crude and painful
restraining techniques that cause intense mental suffering
and physical injuries. Such a painful experience will cause
H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A long-lasting psychological and behavioural changes in
bulls.
Violation
Section 11 (1 )(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
B Act, 1960, prohibits treating any animal· in a way that
causes unnecessary pain or suffering.
IV. xxx xxx xxx
V. Injuries and Deaths
c
Jal/ikattu is dangerous not only to bulls but also to humans.
Many participants and spectators sustained serious
injuries at all three jallikattu events. A total of 58
participants and 56 spectators were injured in the three
D jallikattu events. One police constable was also injured in
Avaniapuram.
1. lnAvaniapuram, a total of 55 persons were injured
during the jallikattu event. Of the 26 people who
E were injured while trying to tame the charging bulls
by clinging to their backs, five were seriously
injured. Twenty-four spectators, including a police
constable, were injured following a melee after
some bulls ran into the crowd. Five people were
injured when a section of the gallery erected for
F
spectators collapsed because of severe crowing.
2. In Palamedu, 21 people, including 11 tamers, were
injured during the jallikattu event. Ten spectators
were injured by bulls who escaped the fighting
G arena. The 21 people who suffered injuries were
admitted to the Palamedu Primary Health Centre.
One ·onlooker, who was hit in the abdomen, was
later moved to the Government Rajaji Hospital in
Madurai while others were treated as outpatients.
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 685
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
3. In Alanganallur, 38 people were injured during the A
jallikattu event. Twenty-one were tamers, and others
injured included onlookers and owners. Two people
who were seriously wounded were admitted to the
government hospital in Madurai.
B
VI. xxx xxx xxx
VII. xxx xxx xxx
VIII. Conclusion
c
Bulls are prey animals. According to animal behavioural
studies, bulls adopt a flight or fight response when they feel
frightened or threatened. This instinctual response to a
perceived threat is deliberately exploited by jallikattu
organizers. During jallikatt, many animals are observed to D
engage in a flight response as they run away from people
when they experience pain or fear. This flight response is
not surprising, given the amount of pain and terror bulls are
subjected to before, during and after jallikattu. Bulls are
beaten, poked, prodded, harassed and jumped on by
E
numerous people. They have their tails bitten and twisted
and their eyes and noses filled with irritating chemicals.
Many peer-reviewed papers demonstrate a link between
the actions of humans and the fear, distress and pain
experienced by animals. Research has shown that rough
or abusive handling of animals compromises welfare by F
increasing an animal's fear of humans. Bulls - who are
pushed, hit, prodded and abused in jallikattu - suffer
mentally as well as physically.
Detailed Reports on Jallikattu in Avaniapuram, G
Palamedu and Alanganallur
The cruelty and animal abuse detailed below in sections
A, B and C also violate the Prevention of
H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. three jallikattu locations have
broadly under four categories:
Waiting area
Vadi vasal Observations of been grouped
B
Arena
Collection yard
Avaniapuram - 14 January 2013"
c
Waiting Area
Bulls were forced to stand in long lines for more
than eight hours without shade, food and water or
room to move.
D
Many animals were forced to drink fluids, likely
alcohol, to disorient them.
Bulls were continuously pulled and yanked by
E
nose ropes. Handlers forced bulls to move in the
lines sideways by painfully pulling and yanking their
tails.
Some reluctant bulls jumped out of the line and
F attacked their owners out of fear.
None of the animals had the JK number given to
them by the Animal Welfare Board of India on their
horns, which is a registration requirement.
G Vadi Vasa/
Bulls were pulled by nose ropes into the narrow,
closed enclosure. Participants also pushed on the
bulls' backs as the animals resisted.
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 687
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Inside the vadi vasal, nose ropes were cut with a A
sharp sickle. At times, bulls were poked with these
sickles in order to force them to enter the arena.
Much of the cruelty the bulls were subjected to
during jallikattu happened inside the vadi vasal.
B
Closed off from the public, the high-walled vadi
vasal is a torture chamber. Here, organizers hit the
bulls with wooden sticks and owners bit and brutally
twisted bulls' tails. Organisers and owners of bulls
also beat bulls with their bare hands, whipped them
with snapped nose ropes and poked them with
c
small, sharp knives.
Some animals returned to the vadi vasal after being
terrified by the jallikattu participants.
D
Arena
The Supreme Court's guideline for arena
barricades calls for them to be no less than 8 feet
high. This guideline was flagrantly ignored, and the
barricade in the main area was as low as 5-1 /2 E
feet. The non-compliance of a guideline as basic
as the barricade's height endangers the lives of
spectators.
The Supreme Court's guideline of double F
barricading was not implemented anywhere around
the arena or along the path from the main arena to
the town's street.
As many as six to eight matadors jumped onto bulls G
to take them. Unable to carry the weight, the bulls
often feel to the ground.
Collection Yard
There was .no collection yard. H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Because of the absence of a collection yard, the
bulls ran amok in the streets, which were lined with
unruly crowds eager to hit the scared animals.
Many spectators pounded on the petrified bulls and
tried to perform jallikattu· on the streets.
B
Bulls entered bylanes and trampled both men and
parked vehicles.
Because of the lack of a collection ·area, one bull
c lost his life after a head-on collision with a moving
passenger bl.is.
2. Palamedu - 15 January 2013
Waiting Area
D
The bulls were forced to move sideways for hours
as they inched closer to the vadi vasal. This
sid~ways gait is unnatural and uncomfortable to
them.
E Even though there were water troughs 'flear the,
m~dical examination area, bulls were not allowed
to drink water because the owners did not want to
lose their place in line.
F There was no food or fodder for the bulls who were
forced to stand in-line the night before the event.
The bulls in line defecated constantly, which is a
sign of fear.
G The ears of almost all the bulls were cut and
mutilated.
Several bulls in line were dragged by their tails.
Owners dragged bulls around by inserting their
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 689
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
fingers into bulls' noses and pulling them. A
Bulls were forcibly beaten, pushed and pulled into
the vadi vasal. The reluctant bulls had their tails
painfully twisted, broken and ~itten. These abusive
practices, though common, were particularly B
rampant in Palamedu.
Bulls were hit and poked with wooden sticks. One
of the organiser's sole duty was to force bulls into
the vadi vasal by striking and prodding them with a
wooden stick. C
Shockingly, police in uniform blatantly hit and poked
the bulls with their wooden lathis instead of stopping
the abuse. ·
On the sly, owners forced suspicious liquids, likely D
alcohol, down the throats of bulls in order to disorient
them.
Vadi Vasal
E
The vadi vasal is hidden from the view of the public
and media and can be accessed and viewed only
by select jallikattu personnel.
,..':e vadi vasal was a permanent cement structure.
Its walls hid some of the cruelty from spectators and F
TV cameras.
The practice of inflicting pain by poking and hitting
the bulls is common. Almost every bull that stayed
in the vadi vasal for more than a couple of seconds G
after his nose rope was cut was subjected to
physical torture. This rampant cruelty proves that the
court's guidelines regarding jallikattu are completely
disregarded.
H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Bulls' tails were brazenly twisted and broken in
order to force bulls to run out of the vadi vasal into
the arena.
A bull's anus was deliberately injured to cause pain
to the animal.
B
Inside the vadi vasal, bulls' eyes and noses were
forcibly rubbed with irritant liquids to disorient and
agitate them.
c Feeling immense fear, some bulls jumped against
the exit door of the vadi vasal to try to flee the
enclosure.
Arena
D The path from the arena to the collection area was
dotted with dangerous obstructions, such as tractor
carriages, water tanks, and a small truck. These
obstructions posed serious threats to speeding
bulls who were being chased away by participants.
E
The Supreme Court's guidelines were not
implemented as the barricades were not 8 feet high.
An electric pole posed grave danger to speeding
bulls who charged out of the vadi vasal.
F
Collection yard
The Collection yard was nowhere close to half an
acre in size as instructed by the court guidelines.
G The collection area was also impractical by design
as bulls sped right through its narrow enclosure,
which was erected in the path from the main arena
to the town's streets.
H Because of the insufficient collection yard, bulls ran
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 691
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
along streets and into moving traffic. A
Bull were brutally beaten by unruly spectators who
drew sadistic pleasure in landing blows with their
fists and sticks. As the loud crowd hooted, bulls ran
for cover.
B
Some bulls injured themselves when they jumped
off the narrow roads into fields that were 10 feet
below. Others jumped into dry river
.'
beds .
One bull who was being chased and beaten by a
mob jumped into a field and fractured his font leg. c
It took 90 minutes for the suffering 4. Alanganallur
- 16th January 2013 Waiting Area . The waiting
area had long lines. . No shade or fodder was
supplied to the bulls .. The breaking, twisting and
biting of bulls' tails animal to receive medical 0
attention proving that having ambulances on
standby is of no use.
Several bulls trampled the metal barricades and
ran into residential homes and bylanes. One bull
entered a house. E
Another bull plunged into a sewage drain that was
more than 10 feet below the road.
Several young people were injured when bulls
trampled them on the streets.
F
4. Alanganallur - 16th January 2013
Waiting Area
The waiting area had long lines.
No shade or fodder was supplied to the bulls. G
The breaking, twisting and biting of bulls' tails was
rampant in the line.
One person's sole job was to force bulls into the
vadi vasal by beating them with sticks. H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A Bull owners were seen rubbing suspicious liquids
into the eyes of bulls moments before the bulls were
taken inside the vadi vasal.
Vadi Vasal
B . The vadi vasal at Alanganallur was no different from
those inprevious jallikattu locations. Bulls were
subjected to barbaric cruelty inside the enclosure,
which was shielded from public view.
c Organisers armed with sticks perched inside the
vadi vasal and repeatedly hit bulls who were
reluctant.
The practice of biting tails was most rampant in this
vadi vasal, as every other bull had his tail bitten by
D people sitting inside.
Bulls had their tails pulled, twisted and broken
inside the vadi vasal.
E
Some bulls were brutally hit on the bridge of the
nose right before their nose ropes were cut open.
Bulls were kicked in their hindquarters.
People guarding and sitting on top of the vadi vasal
F smoked beedis, completely disregarding the safety
of the bulls.
Cruelty was most rampant and brazen in this vadi
vasal.
G Collection Yard
In Alangannlur, the collection area did not prevent
bulls from running amok and injuring sp~ctators and
villages standing outside the barricades.
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 693
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Many bulls ran straight out of the collection area and A
into the nearby fields. Two bulls fell into wells filled
with water and injured themselves.
The fact that bulls fell into wells in spite of a
collection yard that was erected as per the B
Supreme Court's guidelines proves that the lives of
bulls are at stake even if the guidelines are followed.
The scope for mishaps is immense.
Several bulls who ran into the collection yard were C
frightened by the bull catchers and ran back into the
barricaded passageway to the main arena.
Cops standing on a tractor carriage in the
passageway between the main arena and
collection yard often hit the bulls with long wooden D
sticks.
Bulls who escaped from the collection yard ran
amok and stayed into nearby fields. The bulls also
trampled and injured spectators around the E
collection yard.
Manoj Oswal, Animal Welfare Officer to the Board,
submitted the second interim report on 25.1.2012 with regard
to the events witnessed at various places like Avanlapuram and
Palamedu. The operative portion of the report reads as under: F
"Primary observation:
While it is not possible to conduct animal sport like
Jallikattu without causing trauma and cruelty to animals, it G
was anticipated that the guidelines and rules would ensure
that the cruelty is minimum.
The events at the surface looked very organized and
orderly but scratching a little below the surface showed that
the abuse and violations now have been hidden away from H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A the main arena. The unruly people have been found their
own place away from media glare and eyes of Animal
Welfare Officers.
The fundamental issue remains that a large section of
people come to the events with a hope-expectation that
B they are also a part of the action, which indeed has been
a way of Jallikattu always. Such people continue to handle
bulls in crude fashion, continue to risk their own lives and
create hazard for themselves and others and they undo
whatever the system has built as check and balance.
c Queuing of bulls
The most stressful time for the animals is the long wait,
particularly when events are back to back. The same
animals participate in many events and travel to new
events every day. No animal has the possibility of basic
D
shelter from sun and wind, food or water while it awaits its
turn.
The situation in all districts remain the same as it was last
year. Between 200 to 400 bulls come to the venue but the
E facility of pens and shelter are symbolic, holding at the
most 10-12 animals. These poster boys are shown as how
well bulls were treated. However, in reality they are not even
a fraction of the bulls that participate.
The bull are held tightly by their ropes. There is no
F possibility to move even an inch. The bull that cannot even
lower hold itself to its natural position, it is held up tightly
that is how it remains in that single position for hour at a
stretch. If the bull stands naturally the holder will have bend
himself in an awkward position.
G In such a situation there is no possibility of either feeding
or watering the animal. The bull start queuing from 1 am
and they are held that way till 4pm till then the program
usually ends. The bull coming first may get released about
2 hours earlier.
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 695
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Cruelty before release A
The bull does not want to go into the arena. It does not like
people and does not like the crowd. The only way to get it
go before the crowd is to prod it and threaten it. Cause
the animal so much pain and fear that it believes that going
B
before the thousands of people is a better escape than
being tortured here in the small box like enclosure.
The methods of torture vary, but the essence remains the
same. The bull has to run for its life. The bull is scared of
both scenarios the large crowd outside and the captive and C
painful life with the current owner. Given an opportunity the
bull prefers to stay in the small enclosure than run into a
crowd of strangers, the way the bull is made to run is to
give it immediate pain or restrain it unnaturally.
D
Despite ban, people were seen giving alcohol to the
animal in the sly. The tail of the animal is one of the
sensitive part of the body, so is the nose and the eyes.
Torture to these parts is one quick way to get the bull run.
Cruelty within arena: E
Mental Torture
Physical abuse is not the only kind of injury that is illegal
and hurtful. Mental abuse is also amongst the worst kind
of abuse as it leaves a lifelong mark on the mind. F
It is a known fact that victims of accident, crime or disasters
recover from their physical injuries in certain time but
mental injuries remain etched for decades, play havoc in
day to day life. Animals, irrespective of the fact whether G
they can express it or not, in this particular case were seen
going through the same shock and terror as a person goes
into in a hostage situation. Constant fear of death and
continuous torture.
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A Physical torture
With the entire world watching at the events, it was not
expected that the animals will be harassed in the arena.
The animals got a respite from physical abuse in the arena
that was well covered by media, however, as soon as they
B left the main arena, the tale of torture remained the same
what it has been for long.
Outside the Arena:
c What has changed
- Registered bulls marked in five out of six venues (not so
in Previyasuriyal).
- Symbolic testing done for alcohol (actual testing done in
D Previyasuriya, rest of the places the test was just a cover
up).
- Obvious and visible forms of cruelty disallowed in public
view.
E - The double barricades were less porous and so it was
not easy for unruly peop~e to enter arena. (not so in
Siravayal)
Everything else, the issues highlighted in the report
F in 2011 remain active
1. Queuing of animals and holding them in unnatural
position for hours without food and water.
2. In the secluded and enclosed area, all forms of
G animal abuse.
3. The animals are invariably not going into the yard
but onto the street, groves, cluttered vegetation, dry
canals and other free-for- all areas, all misnamed
as yards.
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 697
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
A
4. Animals running out the yard to escape brutality
straying into the streets of the village.·
5. Jallikattu barricades punctured at certain points or
that they being open at one end leading to non
participants indulging in the same kind of cruelty B
that were seen last year.
6. A complete parallel set of jallikattus happening with
the crowd as people release the unregistered bulls
into the crowd, this is more particular and obvious C
in Sivagangai.
7. A less obvious but with same effect, parallel
Jallikattu happening in areas designated as bulls
yards. So instead of rest, the bull yards are the
areas designated as bull ya.rds. So instead of rest, D
the bull yards are the areas where the bulls get
tortured the most.
18. We have also perused the recent affidavit filed by Smt.
Uma Rani, the Secretary, AWBI, MoEF, Chennai on 7.4.2014, E
giving the details of the manner in which Jallikattu was
conducted in various parts of Tamil Nadu, like Avaniapuram,
Palamedu etc., and the torture and cruelty meted out to the
Bulls, which is unimaginable.
19. We notice that the situation is the same in the State F
of Maharashtra also. The details furnished by the 2nd
respondent in I.A. No. 5/2014 sn 20.1.2014 along with the
photographs, depict the state of affairs, which is also cruel,
barbaric, inhuman and savage. Report highlights the manner
in which it is being conducted. G
BULLOCK-CART RACE IN MAHARASHTRA:
20. We notice, in various parts of Maharashtra, varied
types of Bullock- cart races are being organized. Bailgada
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R. ·
A Sharyat is a race where no person mrides the cart. In such a
race, at times, Bullocks are brought to the venue blind folded
through trucks and let free, through a ghat either side of which
spectators, large in number, assem.ble. Due to sudden
expqsure to the light, after unfolding, and the huge noise source
B made by spectators, Bullock get terrified and run in straight on
the slope. Many of the Bullocks are tortured and whipped to
make them run and the price is decided on the basis of time
taken to cover gap of approximately 300 meter distance. Races
are also there where Bullocks have to cover 10 kilometres and
c more. Before and during the course of the race, cruel practices
like beating, twisting of tail, biting tail, poke with spiked
instruments, electric shock etc. is given. Races, such as,
Ghoda Bail Sharyat which involves a horse and a bull on the
same cart is also being held. Sometimes, a bigger Bullock is
D paired with a smaller one. Various forms of torture are adopted
in all these races.
21: We are sorry to note, in spite of the various directions
issued by thi!:) Court, in the conduct of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart
Race etc., the regulatory provisions of TNRJ Act and the
E restrictions in the State of Maharashtra, the situation is the
same and no action is being taken by the District Collectors,
Police Officials and others, who are in-charge to control the
· same, ,to see that those directions are properly and effectively
complied With and the animals are not being subjected to torture
F -· and cr~Jty. 6eing·'dt1mb and helpless, they suffer in silence.
;,. __ .. ..,,,..
. -Z2. We notice, following the Central Government
notification dat~d 11. 7 .2011, the Committee. constituted in the
State of Maharashtra to monitor animal welfare laws in the State,
submitted a letter dated 1.8.2011 to the then Chief Minister, with
·G specific reference to the notification dated 11. 7 .2011, stating
as follows:
"N9w that the exhibition and training as performing animals
• of bulls also is prohibited, bullocks cart races which are
H very widely organized in the State become illegal. During
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 699
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the month of Shravan, many such races are organized in A
the rural parts of the State and these must be stopped in
compliance with the above notification.
We, therefore, request you to issue instructions through the
Collectors all over the State, prohibiting such bullock cart
8
races with immediate effect.
This issue has been agitated in the State of years now by
animal welfare activists and the Central Government's
move should put an end to it. As the notification may not
have come to the notice of people and even administration C
at large, we hope you will kindly take necessary action as
requested above at the earliest.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely, D
For Committee to Monitor Animal
Welfare Laws in Maharashtra
Sd/- E
C.S. Dharmadhikari
Chairman"
The State of Maharashtra, based on the notification dated F
11.7.2011 and the letter dated 1.8.2011 of the Committee,
issued a notification dated 24.8.2011, the operative portion of
the same reads as follows:
"Reference Item No. 1 above, as per the Notification of G
Environment & Forest Department of Central Government dated
11.7.2011, has been brought on training, exhibition and as such
the performance of animals like bears, monkeys, tigers,
leopards, lions and bullocks etc. Accordingly, it was under
consideration of the State Government to bring about a ban on H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A the bullock cart races and various exhibitions taking place in
the State.·
Accordingly, by this notification, a ban has been imposed
on bullock cart races I games/ training I exhibition in the State
B in accordance with the above reference item No. (1) Notification
of the Central Government.
As per order of the Government of Maharashtra.
Sd/-
C. N. Suryavanshi
c Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra"
The State of Maharashtra later issued a corrigendum
dated 12.9.2011 clarifying that the word "Bull" be read as Valu/
Sand, meaning thereby, it would. take both Bulls whether
0 castrated or not. The State of Maharashtra later, through the
Government decision dated 20.4.2012 imposed total
prohibition in the State of organizing Bull/Bullock-cart Races,
Bulls Fight, Training of Bulls/Bullocks for the sport, sport
activities The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
E "PREAMBLE
The organization of animal sports in State, mainly in its rural
hinterland especially sports such as bull ox/ bullock cattle
exhibition, organizing their race, their cart race, fight etc.,
F is nothing but violence to these dumb animals for which,
to stop the continuation of the same, to prohibit the same,
the State Government has already taken a decision to
•
prohibit them on 24.8.2011. Moreover, as in the list in this
regard of prohibited animals by Central Government as
G bulls, bullock has not been included but not in State
Government, the State Government issue.d a corrigendum
by prohibiting bulls instead of bullock in State Govt. list too.
In this regard, the corrigendum of the State Government
was issued on 12.9.2011. But by opposing this
corrigendum of State Government, above referred No.1,
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 701
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.. ]
and No.2 cases were filed in the Hon'ble High Court, A
Mumbai. In accordance with the judgment given by the
Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai in those cases, to the State
Government issued abovementioned circular Nos.4 and 5
are superseded now and the government decision in this
regard is now being issued as under:- B
GOVERNMENT'S DECISION:
In compliance of Central Govt.'s Department of Forest and
· Environment Departmental Notification dated .11. 7 .2011
and also in the light of relevant judgment pronounced by C
Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai Bullock Cart Race, Bullock
Race/ Bull Fight/ training of bull / Bullock I Ox for such race,
·fights I using them for any anima1 sport activities is being
prohibited herewith now. ·
D
In accordance with letter dated 7.10.2011 .of Central
Government, Bamboo Cart I Cart I Ox I Cow I Calf etc.,
are also increased in the broader sense of technical
definitions of 'Bulls' prohibited under this act. which must
be prohibited for usage as sort sporting I animal sporting/ E
fighting I right sports related training.
If anybody is found guilty of the aforesaid prohibited act
and activities, then on such offenders, let action be taken
stringently and effectively against them under the
provisions of cruelty to animals act and the concerned F
District Collectors, Police Superintendents have the entire
enforcement responsibility.
Under the directions of and in the name of Hon'ble
G.overnor of Maharashtra State.. G
Sd/-
(S. T. SHENDE)
Under Secretary
Govt. of Maharashtra"
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 $,C.R.
A 23. We have already indicated that the State of
Maharashtra has accepted the judgment of the High Court and
the Government decision dated 20.4.2012 is also not under
challenge.
24. We have to examine, in the light of the above facts,
8
whether the events that are being conducted in the States of
Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are in violation of Sections 3,
11(1)(a) & (m), 21 and 22 of the PCA Act read with Articles
51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution and the notification dated ,
11.7.2011.
c
PCA ACT:
25. The PCA Act was enacted even before the introduction
of Part IV-A dealing with the fundamental duties, by the
,0 Constitutional 47th Amendment Act, 1956. Earlier,, the then
British in India enacted the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1890 for
the human beings to reap maximum gains by exploiting them
with coercive methods with an idea that the very existence of
the animals is for the benefit of the human beings. During the
E course of administering the above mentioned Act, many
deficiencies were noticed by the Government of India and a
Committee was constituted to investigate and suggest
measures for prevention of cruelty to animals. Following that,
a'Bill was introduced in the Parliament and, ultimately, the PCA
Act, 1960 was enacted so as to prevent the infliction of
F unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to amend the law
relating to prevention of cruelty to animals.
JUDICIAL EVALUATION
G 26. PCA Act is a welfare legislation which has to be
construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of the Act.
and the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is trite law that,
in the matters of welfare legislation, the provisions of law should .
be liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm. Court
H also should be vigilant to see that benefits conferred by such
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 703
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
remedial and welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle A
devices. Court has got the duty that, in every case, where
ingenuity is expanded to avoid welfare legislations, to get
behind the smoke-screen and discover the true state of affairs.
Court can go behind the form and see the substance of the
devise for which it has to pierce the veil and examine whether B
the guidelines or the regulations are framed so as to achieve
some other purpose than the welfare of the animals.
Regulations or guidelines, whether statutory or'6therwise, if they
purport to dilute or defeat the welfare legislation and the
constitutional ~rinciples, Court should not hesitate to strike them c
down so as to achieve the ultimate object and purpose of \he
welfare legislation. Court has also a duty under'the doctrine of
parents patriae to take care of the rights of animals, since they'
are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings.
\
27. The· PCA Act, as already indicated, was enacted to D
prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or cruelty
on animals. Section 3of the Act deals with duties of persons
having charge of animals, which is mandatory in nature and
hence confer corresponding rights on animals. Rights.so
conferred on animals are thus the antithesis of a duty and if E
those rights are violated, law will enforce those rights with legal
sanction. Section 3 is extracted hereunder for an easy
reference:
3. Duties of persons having charge of animals.- It shall be F
the duty of every person having the care or charge of any
animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-
being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upoA such
animal of unnecessary pain or suffering."
SP-ction 3 of the Act has got two limbs, which are as G
follows:
(i) Duty cast on persons:.in-charge or care to take all
reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of
:;1e animal; H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A (ii) Duty to take reasonable measures to prevent the
infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain and
suffering.
Both the above limbs have to be cumulatively satisfied. Primar}j
duty on the persons-in-charge or care of the animal is to ensurei
8
the well-being of the animal. 'Well-being' means state of bein ·
comfortable, healthy or happy. Forcing the Bull and keeping th
same in the waiting area for a number of hours and subjectin
it to scorching sun, is not for the well-being of the animal.
Forcing and pulling bulls by nose ropes into the narrow closed
C enclosure of vadi vassal, subjecting it to all forms of torture,
fear, pain and suffering by forcing it to go the arena and also
over-powering it at the arena by the Bull tamers, are not for the
well--being of the animal. The manner in which the Bull tamers
are treating the bulls in the arena is evident from the reports
D filed before this Court by ABWI. By forcing the bull into the vadi
vassal and then into the arena, by no stretch of imagination, can
be said to be "for the well-being of such animal". Organiz~rs of
Jallikattu are depriving the rights guaranteed to the bulls under
Section 3 of PCA Act. Sadism and perversity is writ large in
E the actions of the organizers of Jallikattu and the event is meant
_ not for the well"being of the animal, but for the pleasure and
enjoyment of human beings, .particularly the organizers and
· spectators. Organizers of Jallikattu feel that their bulls have only
instrumental value to them, forgetting their intrinsic worth. First
F limb. of Section 3, as already indicated, gives a corresponding
right 'fo the animal to ensure its well-being. AWBI, a body
established.to look after the welfare of the animals has to see
that the person-in-charge or care of the animals looks after their
well-being. We have no hesitation to say that Jallikattu /Bullock-
G cart race, as such, is not for the well-being of the animal and,
by undertaking such events, organizers are clearly violating the
first limb of Section 3. of the PCA Act. :
., 28. We will now examine whether the second limb of
H Section 3 which casts a duty on, the person in-charge or care
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 705
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
of animal to prevent the infliction upon an animal, unnecessary A
pain or suffering, discharges that duty. Considerations, which
are relevant to determine whether the suffering is unnecessary,
include whether the suffering could have reasonably been
avoided or reduc~d. whether the conduct which caused the
suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment. B
Another aspect to be examined is whether the conduct causing
the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as, the purpose
for benefiting the animals or the purpose of protecting a person,
property or another animal etc. Duty is to prevent the infliction
of unnecessary pain or suffering, meaning thereby, no right is c
conferred to inflict necessary/unnecessary pain or suffering on
the animals. By organizing Jallikattu and Bullock-cart race, the
organizers are not preventing the infliction of unnecessary pain
or suffering, but they are inflicting pain and suffering on the bulls,
which they are legally obliged to prevent. Section 3 is a · D
preventive provision casting no right on the organizers, but only
duties and obligations. Section 3, as a1ready indicated, confers
corresponding rights on the animals as against the persons in-
charge or care, as well as AWBI, to ensure their well-being and
be not inflicted with any unnecessary pain or suffering. Jallikattu
E
or Bullock-cart race, from the point of the animals, is not an
event ensuring their well-being or an event meant to prevent the
infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, on the contrary, it is
an event against their well-being and causes unnecessary pain
and suffering on them. Hence, the two limbs of Section 3 of PCA
Act have been violated while conducting Jallikattu and Bullock- F
cart race.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS:
29. Section 11 generally deals with the cruelty to animals. G
Section 11 confers no right on the organizers to conduct
Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race. Section 11 is a beneficial provision
1 enacted for the welfare and protection of the animals and it is
penal in nature. Being penal in nature, it confers rights on the
animals and obligations on all persons, including those who are
H
. 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A in-charge .or care of the animals, AWBI etc. to look after their
well-being and welfare. The relevant portion of Section 11 reads
as follows:
"11. Treating animals cruelty.- (1) If any person-
8 (a) Beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads,
· tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to
subject it to unneeessary pain or suffering or causes
or, being the owner permits, any animals to be so
treated; or
c
(b) xxxxxxxxx.
(c) willfully and unreasonably- administers any injuries
drug or injurious substance to any animal or wilfully
and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any
D such drug or substance to be taken by any animal;
or
(d) xxxxxxxxx
E (e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other
receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in
height, length or breadth to permit the animal a
reasonable opportunity for movement; or
(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained
F or tethered upon an unreasonably short or
unreasonable heavy chain or cord; or
(g) xxx xxx xxx
(h) being the owner of any animal, fails to provide such·
G
animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(j) xxx xxx xxx
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. . 707.
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(k) xxxxxxxxx .A
.· (I) mutilates any animal or kills ~.animal (including
stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine·
injections in the heart or in any o$er unnecessarily .
cruel manner; or; .. ·~ · '· · ., ' · ·. · B
xxxxxxxxx
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1)..~an' owner shalt be·
deemed to have committed an offence if he has failett. to
· exercise reasonable care and supervision with a . VieWto C
the prevention of such offence:
Provided that where an owner is convicted of pmitting
cruelty by reason only of having failed to exer:eise such
care and supervision, he shall not· be '·fi,ble to .
0
.imprisonment without the option of a fine.
(3) )()()( )()()( xxx''
Section 11 (1 )(a) uses the expressions,'.'!"ot ~rwise", ·
,"unnecessary pain or suffering" etc. Beating, kicking ·etc. go with E
the event so also torture, if the report submitted ~y AWBI is
accepted. Even otherwise, according to AWBI, the expression
"or otherwise" takes in Jallikattu, Bullock~rt race etc. but,
according to the State of Tamil Nadu, that expres~ion has to
be understood applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis . In our F
view, the expression "or otherwise" is not used as words of
limitation and the legis,lature has intended to cover all situations,
where the animals are subjected to unnecessary pain or
suffering. Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races and the events like that,
fall in that expression under Section 11 (1 )(a). The meaning of · .·· ·
the expression "or otherwise" came up for consideration in ·-G
Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay 1957 SCR 721 and the Court
held that the words "or otherwise" when used, apparently
intended to cover other cases which may not come within the
meaning of the preceding clause. In our view, the said
H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A principles also can be safely applied while interpreting Section
11(1)(a).
30. Pain and suffering are biological traits. Pain, in
particular, informs an animal which specific stimuli, it needs to
B avoid and an animal has pain receptors and a memory that
allows it to remember what caused the pain. Professor of
Animal Welfare, D.M.Broom of University of Cambridge in his
articles appearing in Chapter fourteen of the Book "Animal
Welfare and the Law" Cambridge University Press (1989) says:
C "Behavioural responses to pain vary greatly from one
species to another, but it is reasonable to suppose that
the pain felt by all of these animals is similar to that felt by
man".
0 Suffering has the same function, but instead of informing
the animal about stimuli to avoid, which informs it about a
situation to avoid. An animal might be regarded as suffering, if
is in pain, distress, or acute or unduly prolonged discomfort.
Consequently, to experience the suffering, the animal needs an
E awareness of its environment, the ability to develop moodi?.that
coordinate a behavioral response, and the capacity to change
adverse situation or avoid them. Reports submitted by AWBI
clearly indicate that Bulls are being treated with extreme cruelty
and suffering, violating the provisions of Section 11 (1) of the
PCA Act. Over and above, Section 11 (1 ), clauses (b) to (o) also
F confer various duties and obligations, generally and specifically,
on the persons in charge of or cj:lre of animals which.. in turn,
confer corresponding rights on animals, which, if violated, are
punishable under the proviso to Section 11 (1) of the PCA Act.
G DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY:
31. Section 11 (3) carves out exceptions in five· categories
of cases mentioned in Section 11 (3)(a) to (e), which are as
follows: ·
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 709
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
"11 (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to- A
(a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding
or nose-roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner;
or
(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or B
by such other methods as may be prescribed; or
(c) the extermination or destruction of any animal under
the authority of any law for the time being in force; or
(d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or
c
(e) the commission or omission of any act in the course
of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any
animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or
preparation was accompanied by the infliction of D
unnecessary pain or suffering."
Exceptions are incorporated based on the "doctrine of
necessity". Clause (b) to Section 11 (3) deals with the
destruction of stray dogs, out of necessity, otherwise, it would E
, be harmful to human beings. Clause (d) to Section 11 (3) deals
with matters dealt with in Chapter IV, incorporated out of
necessity, which deals with the experimentation on animals,
which is for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of
physiological knowledge or of knowledge which would be useful F
for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for
combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or
plants, which is not prohibited and·is lawful. Clause (e) to
Section 11(3) permits killing of animals as food for mankind,
of course, without inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering, which G
clause is also incorporated 'out of necessity'. Experimenting
on animals and eating their flesh are stated to be two major
forms of speciesism in our society. Over and above, the
Legislature, by virtue of Section 28, has favoured killing of
animals in a manner required by the religion of any community.
H
710 SUP~EME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Entertainment, exhibition or amusement do not fall under these
exempted categories and cannot be claimed as a matter of right •
under the doctrine of necessity.
32. Sections 3 and 11, as already indicated, therefore,
B confer no right on the organisers of Jallikattu or bullock-cart
race, but only duties, responsibilities and obligations, but confer
corresponding rights onfanimals. Sections13, 11(1)(a) & (o) and
other related provisions have to be understood and read along
with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution which cast fundamental
C duties on every citizen to have "compassion for living creatures".
Parliament, by incorporating Article S1A(g), has again reiterated
and re-emphasised the fundamental duties on human beings
towards every living creature, which evidently takes in bulls as
well. All living creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live
peacefully and right to protect their well-being which
D encompasses protection from beating, kicking, over-driving,
over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering etc. Human life, we
often say, is not like animal existence, a view having
anthropocentric bias, forgetting the fact that animals have also
got intrinsic worth and value. Secjion 3 of the PCA Act has
E acknowledged those rights and the said section along with
Section 11 cast a duty on persons having charge or care of
animals to take reasonable measures to ensure well being of.
the animals and to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain and
suffering. ·
F
PERFORMING ANIMALS
33. All animals are not anatomically designed to be
performing animals. Bulls are basically Draught and Pack
animals. they are live-stock used for farming and agriculture
G purposes, like ploughing, transportation etc. Bulls, it may be
noted, have been recognized as Draught and Pack animals in
the Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules,
1965. Draught means an animal used for pulling heavy loads.
Rules define large bullock to mean a bullock the weight of which
H exceeds 350 Kgs. Bullocks have a targe abdomen and thorax
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 711
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
and the entire body has a resemblance to a barrel shape, which A
.limits ability to run. Bulls have also limitations on flexing joins
and the rigid heavily built body and limited flexion of joints do
not favour running faster. Due to that body constitution, the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals on
Foot) Rules, 2001, especially Rule 11 says that no person shall B
use a whip or a stick in order to force the animal to walk or to
hasten the pace of their walk. Bulls, it may be noted, are cloven
footed (two digits) animals and two digits in each leg can
comfortably bear weight only when they are walking, not running.
Horse, on the other hand, is a solid hoofed plant-eating c
quadruped with a flowing mane and tail, domesticated for riding
and as a draught animal. Horse power, we call it as an imperial
unit of power, equal to 550 foot-pounds per second. Horse's
anatomy enables it to make use of speed and can be usefully
used for horse racing etc., unlike Bulls.
D
34. Bulls, therefore, in our view, cannot be a performing.
animal, anatomically not designed for that, but are forced to
perform, inflicting pain and suffering, in total violation of Sections
3 and Section 11(1) of PCA Act. Chapter V of the PCA Act
deals with the performing animals: Section 22 of the PCA Act E
·places restriction on exhibition and training of performing
animals, which reads as.under:
"22. Restriction on exhibition and training of performing
animals : No person shall exhibit or train F
(i) any performing animal unless he is registered in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter;
(ii) as a performing animal, any animal which the Central
Government may, by notification in the official gazette, G
specify as an animal which shall notbe exhibited or trained
as a performing animal."
35. The words 'exhibit' and 'train' are defined in Se,ction
21 of the PCA Act; which is as follows:
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A "21. "Exhibit" and "train" defined: In this Chapter,
"exhibit" means exhibit or any entertainment to which the
public are admitted through sale of tickets, and "train"
means train for the purpose of any such exhibition, and the
expressions "exhibitor" and "trainer" have respectively the
B corresponding meanings."
36. Section 23 of the PCA Act deals with the procedure
for registration. Section 24 of the PCA Act deals with the
powers of th~ court to prohibit or restrict exhibition and training
of performing animals. Section 25 of the PCA Act confers
C powers on any authorised person to enter into the premises to
examine as to whether the statutory requirements are properly
complied with. Section 26 of the PCA Act deals with the
offences and Section 27 of the PCA Act deals with exemptions.
Performing Animals Rules, 1973 define 'performing'animal' to
D mean any animal which is used at, or for the purpose of any
entertainment to which public are admitted through sale of 1
tickets. Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races, it was contended, are·
conducted without sale of tickets and hence Section 22 of the
PCA Act would not apply, so also the notification dated
E 11.7.2011. We find no substance or logic in that submission. It
may be noted lhat when Bull is specifically prohibited to be
exhibited or trained for performance, the question whether such.
performance, exhibition or entertainment is conducted with sale
of tickets or not, is irrelevant from the point of application of
F Sections 3 and 11 (1) of the PCA Act.
37. We may, in this respect, refer to Section 11 (1 )(m)
which reads as fallows:
"11. Treating animals cruelty.- (1) If any person-
G
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment-
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 713
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal A
(including tying of an animal as a bait in a
tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an
object of prey for any other animal; or
(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other B
animal; or."
Section 11 (1 )(m)(ii), therefore, says, if any person, solely
with a view to providing entertainment incites any animal to fight,
shall be punishable under the proviso to Section 11 (1 ). In
Jallikattu, Bull is expected to fight with various Bull tamers, for C
which it is incited solely to provide entertainment for the
spectators by sale of tickets or otherwise. Inciting the Bull to
fight with another animal or human being matters little, so far
as the Bull is concerned, it is a fight, hence, cruelty. Jallikattu,
Bullock-cart Race, therefore, violate not only Sections, 3, D
11(1 )(a) & (m) and Section 22, but also the notification dated
11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government under Section
22(ii) of the PCA Act.
38. We may, in this connection, also refer to the Performing E
Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001. Rule 8 deals with the
general condition of registration. Rule 8(v) states that the owner
shall ensure that any animal is not inflicted unnecessary pain
or suffering before or during or after its training or exhibition.
Rule 8(vii) specifically caution that the owner shall train the
F
animal as a performing animal to perform an act in accordance
with the animals' natural instinct. Bull is trained not in
accordance with its natural instinct for the Jallikattu or Bullock-
cart race. Bulls, in those events, are observed to carry out a ~,,,'
"flight response" running away from the crowd as well as from
the Bull tamers, since they are in fea~ and distress, this natural G
instinct is being exploited.
39. Animal Welfare Division of MoEF, represented by its
Director, submitted a note file on 27 .1.2011 to the Minister
specifically referring to the affidavit filed by the AWBI before H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A this Court in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011 and the relevant
portion of the affidavit reads as follows:
"I affirm on behalf of the Animal Welfare Board of India that
Jallikattu is indeed an extremely cruel and barbaric sport,
B in which the Bulls that are forced to participate are
brutalized and subjected to unnecessary pain and
suffering. Surrounded by huge crowds of shouting,
screaming people intent upon seeing them cruelly subdued
and overpowered, regardless of what they endure, the bulls
are subjected to terrible acts of cruelty. They are beaten,
c kicked, and chilly- powder rubbed into their eyes. Their
humps and horns are seized and twisted and turned during
the course of the 'sport', leading to injuries, tears and
bleeding and the animals toppling over. All of this occurs
while they are surrounded by the jeering, frenzied crowd.
D In fact, the tails of the animals are routinely pulled, twisted
and turned, leading to painful injuries and often to broken
tails. By no stretch of imagination can the bulls be termed
as "performing animals" or "trained for the sport". In fact,
what occurs during the event is that the participating bulls
E are forced to endure unnecessary pain and suffering
beyond measure. It is for this reason that the answering
respondent had represented to the Central Government
that this barbaric. pre-historic event masquerading under
the guise of sport. be banned:
F
(emphasis supplied)
Further, it was also stated in the affidavit that:
"I also affirm on behalf of the Answering Respondent that
G seeking to 'regulate' a barbaric event involving.
unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals forced to
participate in the same cannot legalize or confer legitimacy
upon the event. Moreover, that the Tamil Nadu Regulation
of Jallikattu Act 2009 is ultra vires the Constitution of India,
H and repugnant to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 715
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
to Animals Act." A
Note referred to above also made a reference to the
Madras High Court judgment pointing out that Jallikattu and
other related events are exhibition of performance of trained
animals, permitted under Chapter V of PCA Act. Noticing all B
those aspects, especially taking note of the stand of AWBI, it
recommended that all such events be stopped, especially Bulls
as performing animals under Section 22 of PCA Act, similar
to the ban already introduced in the case of Bears, Tigers etc.
40. Stand of the Animal Welfare Division of MoEF and C
AWBI was accepted by the Central Government (MoEF) and
a notification dated 11.7.2011 was issued, which was also
gazetted on the same date, including Bull also in the category
of banned animals. Power is conferred on the Central
Government under Section 22(ii) to ban the exhibition or training D
of any animal as a performing animal. Following its earlier
notification dated 14.10.1998, as already stated, the MoEF
issued another notification dated 11. 7.2011 including "Bull" also
as an animal not to be exhibited or trained for exhibition as a
performing animal, which is a conscious decision taken by the E
MoEF on relevant materials, while this Court was seized of the
matter. AWBl's advice under Sections 9(a) and (I) as well as
the note of Animal Welfare Division of MoEF was accepted by
the Central Government and now it cannot take a contrary stand,
that too, without consulting the AWBI, whose advice was F
already accepted and acted upon.
41. Jallikattu as well as the Bullock-cart races etc., as an
event, according to the Board, violate Sections 3 and 11 (1 )(a)
& (m) of the PCA Act read with Article 51 A(g) of the Constitution
of India. MoEF, in exercise of its powers conferred under G
Section 22 of the PCA Act, as already stated, after noticing the
stand of the Board, issued a notification specifying that Bulls
shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals, that
position still stands. MoEF, it is seen, so far as the State of
Maharashtra is co.ncerned, is not recognising that Bullock- cart H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A race is part and parcel of the tradition of the people of
Maharashtra and that it has any cultural, historical or religious
significance. The State of Maharashtra, in its order dated
20.4.2012, has clearly acknowledged that the organisation of
animal sports in the State, mainly in its rural hinterland, like Bull
B /Ox I Bullock-cart race etc. is nothing but violence to the dumb
animals and has to be prohibited. The State Government
evidently did not give its stamp of approval to the so-called
cultural, historical importance to-the Bullock-cart Race and that
order has not been challenged. But, so far as the State of Tamil
c Nadu is concerned, now a proposal has been made to exempt
bulls, participating in Jallikattu from the purview of the notification
dated 11.07.2011 stating that it has historic, cultural and
religious significance in the State.
CULTURE AND TRADITION
D
42. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the TNRJ
Act refers to ancient culture and tradition and does not state
that it has any religious significance. Even the ancient culture
and tradition do not support the conduct of Jallikattu or Bullock
E cart race, in the form in which· they are being conducted at
present. Welfare and the well-being of the bull is Tamil culture
and tradition, they do not approve of infliction of any pain or
suffering on the bulls, on the other hand, Tamil tradition and
culture are to worship the bull and the bull is always considered
F as the vehicle oflord Shiva. Yeru Thazhuvu, in Tamil tradition,
is to embrace bulls and not over-powering the bull, to show
human bravery. Jallikattu means, silver or gold coins tied to the
bulls horns and in olden days those who get at the money to
the bulls horns would marry the daughter of the owner. Jallikattu
G or the bullock cart race, as practised now, has never been tha
tradition or culture of Tamil Nadu.
43. PCA Act, a welfare legislation, in our view, over-
shadows or overrides the so-called tradition and culture.
Jallikattu and Bullock cartraces, the manner in which they are
H conducted, have no support of Tamil tradition or culture.
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 717
NAGARAJA [K.S. RA[)HAKRISHNAN, J.]
Assuming, it has been in vogue for quite some time, in our view, A
the same should give way to the welfare legislation, like the
PCA Act which has been enacted to prevent infliction of
unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and confer duties and
obligations on persons in-charge of animals. Of late, there are
some attempts at certain quarters, to reap maximum gains and B
/the animals are being exploited by the human beings by using
· coercive methods and inflicting unnecessa~ pain for the
pleasure, amusement and enjoyment. We have a history of
doing away with such evil practices in the society, assuming
such practices have the support of culture and tradition, as tried c
to be projected in the TNRJ Act. Professor Salmond states that
Custom is the embodiment of those principles which have
commended themselves to the national consciepce as t)1e
principles of justice and public utility. This Court, in N.
Adithayan v. Thravancore Dewaswom Board and Others 0
(2002) 8 sec 106, while examining the scope of Articles 25(1),
2(a), 26(b}, 17, 14 and 21, held as follows:
"18 .......... Any custom or usage irrespective of even any
. proof of their existence in pre-constitutional days cannot
be countenanced as a source of law to claim any rights E
when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social
equality and the specific mandate of the Constitution and
law made by Parliament. No usage which is found to be
pernicious and considered to be in derogation of the law
of the land or opposed to public policy or social decency F
can be accept\:d or upheld by courts in the country."
44. As early as 1500-600 BC in lsha-Upanishads, it is
professed as follows:
"The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land. G
No creature is superior to any other. Human beings should
not be above nature. Let no one species encroach over
the rights and privileges of other species."
45. In our view, this is the culture and tradition of the country, H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
~ particularly the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
46. PCA Act has been enacted with an object to safeguard
the welfare of the animals and evidently to cure some mischief
and age old practices, so as to bring into effect some type of
reform, based on eco-centric principles, recognizing the
8
intrinsic value and worth of animals. All thesame, the Act has
taken care of the religious practices of the community, while
killing an animal vide Section 28 of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL APPROACH TO ANIMALS WELFARE
c
47. We may, at the outset, indicate unfortunately, there is . ·
no international agreement that ensures the welfare and
protection of animals. United Nations, all these years,
safeguarded only the rights of human beings, not the rights of
!) other species like animals, ignoring the fact Mthat many of them,
including Bulls, are sacrificing their lives to alleviate human
suffering, combating diseases and as food for human
consumption. International community should hang their head
in shame, for not recognizing their rights all these ages, a
E species which served the humanity from the time of Adam and
Eve. Of course, there has been a slow but observable shift from
the anthropocentric approach to a more nature's right centric
approach in International Environmental Law, Animal Welfare
Laws etc. Environmentalist noticed three stages in the
development of international environmental law instrument,
F which are as under:
(a) The. First Stage: Human self-interest reason for
environmental protection
G The instruments in this stage were fuelled by the
recognition that the conservation of nature was in the
common interest of all mankind.
Some the instruments executed during this time
included the Declaration of the Protection of Birds Useful
H to Agriculture (1875), Convention Designed to Ensure the
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A 719
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Protection of Various Species of Wild Animals which are A
Useful to Man or Inoffensive (1900), Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling (1931) which had the objective of
ensuring the health of the whaling industry rather than
conserving or protecting the whale species.
B
The attitude behind these treaties was the assertion
of an unlimited right to exploit natural resources - which
derived from their right as sovereign nations.
'
(b) The Second Stage: International Equity
c
This stage saw the extension of treaties beyond the
requirements of the present generation to also meet the
needs to future generations of human beings. This shift
signalled a departure from the pure tenets of
anthropocentrism. D
For example, the 1946 Whaling Convention which
built upon the 1931 treaty mentioned in the preamble that
"it is in the interest of the nations of the world to safeguard
for future generations the great natural resource.
represented by the whale stocks". Similarly, the Stockholm E
Declaration of the UN embodied this shift in thinking,
stating that "man ...... bears a solemn responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for present and future
generations" and subsequently asserts that "the natural
resources of the earth .... must be safeguarded for the F
benefit of present and future generations through careful
planning and management". Other documents expressed
this shift in terms of sustainability and sustainable .
development.
G
• (c) The Third Stage: Nature's own rights
Recent Multinational instruments have asserted th.e
intrinsic value of nature.
UNEP Biodiversity Convention (1992) "Conscious of >
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the
ecological; genetic, social, economic, educational, cultural,
·recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity
and its components .... [we have] agreed as follows: ...... ".
The World Charter for Nature proclaims that "every form
B of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth
to man." The Charter uses the term "nature" in preference
to "environment" with a view to shifting to non-
anthropocentric human- independent terminology."
48. We have accepted and applied the eco-centric
C principles in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. ,Union of India
and Others (2012) 3 SCC 277, T. N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others (2012) 4 SCC 362
and in Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund - India
v. Union of India and Others (2013) 8 SCC 234.
D
49. Based on eco-centric principles, rights of animals have
been recognized in various countries. Protection of animals has
been guaranteed by the Constitution of Germany by way of an
amendment in 2002 when the words "and the animals" were
E added to the constitutional clauses that obliges 'state' to
respect 'animal dignity'. Therefore, the dignity of the animals
is constitutionally recognised in that country. German Animal
Welfare Law, especially Article 3 provides far-reaching
protections to animals incluqing inter alia from animals fight and
F other activities which may result in the pain, suffering and harm
for the animals. Countries like Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia
have enacted legislations to include animal welfare in their
national Constitutions so as to balance the animal owners'
fundamental rights to property and the animals' interest in
G freedom from unnecessary suffering or pain, damage and fear.
50. Animals Welfare Act of 2006 (U.K.) also confers
considerable protection to the animals from pain and suffering.
The Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act also recognises
man's responsibilities towards his fellow creatures and the
H subject "Federal Act" aims at the protection of life and well
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 721
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
being of the animals. The Animal Welfare Act, 2010 (Norway) A
states "animals have an intrinsic value which is irrespective of
the usable value they may have for man. Animals shall be
treated well and be protected from the danger of unnecessary
stress and strain. Section 26 of the Legislation prohibits training
an animal to fight with people, the operative portion of the same B
reads as follows :
"Any person who trains animals and who uses animals
which are used for showing, -entertainment and
competitions, including those who organise such activities,
shall ensure that the animals:
c
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) )()()( xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx
D
(d) are not trained for or used in fights with other
animals or people."
51. When we look at the rights of animals from the national E
and international perspective, what emerges is that every
species has an inherent right to live and shall be protected by
law, subject to the exception provided out of necessity. Animal
has also honour and dignity which cannot be arbitrarily deprived
of and its rights and privacy have to be respected and
F
protected from unlawful attacks.
52. l,Jniversal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) is a
campaign led by World Society for the Protection of Animals
(WSPA) in an attempt to secure international recognition for the
principles of animal welfare. UDAW has had considerable G
support from various countries, including India. WSPA believes
that the world should look to the success of the Universal
Declaration of.Human Rights (UDHR) to set out what UDAW
can achieve for animals. Five freedoms referred to in UDAW,
which we will deal with in latter part of the judgment, find support H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A in PCA Act and the rules framed thereunder to a great extent.
53. World Health Organization of Animal Health (OIE), of
which India is a member, acts as the international reference
organisation for animal health and animal welfare. OIE has been
recognised as a reference organisation by the World Trade
8
Organisation (WTO) and, in the year 2013, it has a total of 178
member countries. On animal welfare, OIE says that an animal
is in good state of welfare if (as indicated by Scientific
evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able
C to express innate behaviour and if it is not suffering from
unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress.
FREEDOM:
54. Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of OIE, recognizes five
0 internationally recognized freedoms for animals, such as:
(i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;
(ii) freedom from fear and distress;
E (iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;
(iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and
(v) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.
F Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in its "Legislative
and Regulatory Options for Animal Welfare" indicated that
these five freedoms found their place in Farm Welfare Council
2009 U.K. and is also called Brambell's Five Freedoms. These
five freedoms, as already indicated, are considered to be the
G fundamental principles of animal welfare and we can say that
these freedoms find a place in Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act
and they are for animals like the rights guaranteed to the citizens
of this country under Part Ill of the Constitution of India.
55. Animals ar§! world-wide legally recognised as 'property'
H that can be possessed by humans. On deletion of Article
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 723
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
19(1 )(f) from the Indian Constitution, right to property is more A
a fundamental right in India, this gives the Parliament more a
leeway to pass laws protecting the rights of animals. Right to
hold on to a property which includes animals also, is now only
a legal right not a fundamental right. We have also to see the
rights of animals in that perspective as well. B
56. Rights guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3, 11,
etc. are only statutory rights. The same have to be elevated to
the status of fundamental rights, as has been done by few
countries around the world, so as to secure their honour and
dignity. Rights and freedoms guaranteed to the animals under C
Sections 3 and 11 have to be read along with Article 51A(g)(h)
of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal rights.
COMPASSION:
D
57. Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of citizens
to have compassion for living creatures. In State of Gujarat v.
Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others (2005) 8
sec 534, this Court held that by enacting Article 51A(g) and
giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects E
·sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit
and message of Articles 48 and 48-A are honoured as a
fundamental duty of every citizen. Article 51A(g), therefore,
enjoins that it was a fundamental duty of every citizen "to have
compassion for living creatures", which means concern for
suffering, sympathy, kindliness etc., which has to be read along F
·with Sections 3, 11 (1 )(a) & (m), 22 etc. of PCA Act.
HUMANISM:
58. Article 51A(h) says that it shall be the duty of every G
citizen to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit
. of inquiry and reform. Particular emphasis has been made to
the expression "humanism" which has a number of meanings,
but increasingly designates as an inclusive sensibility for our
·species. Humanism also means, understand benevolence,
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A compassion, mercy etc. Citizens should, therefore, develop a
spirit of compassion and humanism which is reflected in the
Preamble of PCA Act as well as in Sections 3 and 11 of the
Act. To look after the welfare and well- being of the animals and
the duty to prevent the infliction of pain or suffering on animals
B highlights the principles of humanism in Article 51A(h). Both
Articles 51A(g) and (h) have to be read into the PCA Act,
especially into Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act and
be applied and enforced.
SPECIESISM:
c
59. Speciesism as a concept coined by Richard Ryder in
his various works on the attitude to animals, like Animal
Revolution, Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1989), Animal Welfare and the Environment
D (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1992) etc. Oxford English
Dictionary defines the term as "the assumption of human
superiority over other creatures, leading to the exploitation of
animals". Species ism is also described as the widespread
discrimination that is practised by man against the other
E species, that is a _prejudice or attitude of bias towards the
interest of members of one's own species and against those
of members of other species. Speciesism as a concept used
to be compared with Racism and Sexism on the ground that
all those refer to discrimination that ten to promote or encourage
F domination and exploitation of members of one group by
another. One school of thought is that Castism, Racism and
Sexism are biological classification, since they are concerned
with physical characteristics, such as, discrimination on the
ground of caste, creed, religion, colour of the skin, reproductive
G role etc. rather than with physical properties, such as the
capacity for being harmed or benefited.
60. We have got over those inequalities like Castism,
Racism, Sexism etc. through Constitutional and Statutory
amendments, like Articles 14 to 17, 19, 29 and so on. So far
H as animals are concerned, Section 3 of the Act confers right
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 725
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
on animals so also rights under Section 11 not to be subjected A
to cruelty. When such statutory rights have been conferred on
animals, we can always judge as to whether they are being
exploited by human-beings. As already indicated, an
enlightened society, of late, condemned slavery, racism,
castism, sexism etc. through constitutional amendments, laws B
etc. but, though late, through PCA Act, Parliament has
recognized the rights of animals, of course, without not
sacrificing the interest of human beings under the Doctrine of
necessity, like experiments on animals for the purpose of
advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or c
of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging
life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease,
whether of human beings, animals or pTunts and also
destruction of animals for food under Section 11 (3) of the PCA
Act. Legislature through Section 28 also saved the manner of . 0
killing of animals in the manner prescribed by religions, those
are, in our view, reasonable restrictions on the rights enjoyed
by the animals under Section 3 read with Section 11(1).
Evidently, those restrictions are the direct inevitable
consequences or the effects which could be said to have been
E
in the contemplation of the legislature for human benefit, since
they are unavoidable. Further, animals like Cows, Bulls etc. are
all freely used for farming, transporting loads etc., that too, for
the benefit of human beings, thereby subjecting them to some
pain and suffering which is also unavoidable, but permitted by
the Rules framed under the PCA Act. F
NON-ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES:
61. We have, however, lot of avoidable non-essential
human activities like Bullock-cart race, Jallikattu etc. Bulls, G
thinking that they have only instrumental value are intentionally
used tpough avoidable, ignoring welfare of the Bulls solely for
human pleasure. Such avoidable human activities violate rights
guaranteed to them under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act.
AWBI, the expert statutory body has taken up the stand that
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A events like Jallikattu, Bullock-cart race etc. inherently involve
pain and suffering, which involves both physical and mental
components, including fear and distress. Temple Grandin and
Catherine Johnson, in their work on "Animals ir. Translation"
say:
B
"The single worst thing you can do to an animal emotionally
is to make it feel afraid. Fear is so bad for animals I think
it is worse than pain. I always get surprised looks when I
say this. If you gave most people a ch,oice between intense
pain and intense fear, they'd probably pick fear."
c
Both anxiety and fear, therefore, play an important role in
animal suffering, which is part and parcel of the events like
Jallikattu, Bullock- cart Race etc ..
o RIGHT TO LIFE:
62. Every species has a right to life and security, subject
to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of
human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while
safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word
E "life" has been given an expanded definition and ,any
disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms
of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life,
fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far
as animals are concerned, in our view, "life" means something
F more than mere survival Mor existence or instrumental value for
human-beings, but to lead a life Mwith some intrinsic worth,
honour and dignity. Animals' well-being and welfare have been
statutorily recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and
the rights framed under the Act Right to live in a healthy and
G clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human
beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right
guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA
Act read with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get food,
shelter is also a guaranteed right under Sections 3 and 11 of
H the PCA Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially when
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 727
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
they are domesticated. Right to dignity and fair treatment is, A
therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to animals
as well. Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-ridder, over-
loading is also a right recognized by Section 11 read with
Section 3 of the PCA Act. ·Animals have also a right against
the human beings not to be tortured and against infliction of B
unnecessary pain or suffering. Penalty for violation of those
rights are insignificant, since laws are made by humans.
Punishment prescribed in Section 11 (1) is not commensurate
with the gravity of the offence, hence being violated with impunity
defeating the very object and purpos·e of the Act, hence the c
necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers
who fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory
rights of animals under the PCA Act.
63. Jallikattu and other forms of Bulls race, as the various
reports indicate, causes considerable pain, stress and strain
D
on the bulls. Bulls, in such events, not only do move their head
showing that they do not wan to go to the arena but, as pain is
being infliCted in the vadivasal is somuch, they have no other
go but to flee to a situation which is adverse to them. Bulls, in
that situation, are stressed, exhausted, injured and humiliated.
Frustration of the Bulls is noticeable in their vocalization and, E
looking at the facial expression of the bulls, ethologist or an
ordinary man can easily sense their suffering. Bulls, otherwise
are very peaceful animals dedicating their life for human use
and requirement, but are subjected to such an ordeal that not
only inflicts serious suffering on them but also forces them to F
behave in ways, namely, they do not behave, force them into
the event which does not like and, in that process, they are
being tortured to the hilt. Bulls cannot carry the so-called
performance without being exhausted, injured, tortured or
humiliated. Bulls are also intentionally subjected to fear, injury G
- both mentally and physically - and put to unnecessary stress
and strain for human pleasure and enjoyment, that too, a
species totally dedicated its life for human benefit, out of
necessity.
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A 64. We are, therefore, of the view that Sections 21, 22 of
the PCA Act and the relevant provisions have to be understood
in the light of the rights conferred on animals under Section 3,
read with Sections 11 (1 )(a) & (o) and Articles 51A(g) and (h)
of the Constitution, and if so read, in our view, Bulls cannot be
B used as a Performing Animals for Jallikattu and Bullock-cart
Race, since they are basically draught and pack animals, not
anatomically designed for such performances.
REPUGNANCY:
C 65. We may now examine whether provisions of the TNRJ
Act, which is a State Act, is repugnant to the PCA Act, which
is a Central Act, since, both the Acts fall under Entry No. 17 in
the Concurrent List. Repugnancy between the Parliamentary
Legislation and State Legislation arises in two ways:
D
(i) Where the legislations, though enacted with respect
to the matters in their allotted sphere, overlap
conflict and
(ii) Where two legislations are with respect to the
E same matters in the concurrent list and there is a
conflict.
In both the situations, the Parliamentary legislation will
predominate in the first by virtue of the non-obstante clause in
F Article 246(1), and in the second by reason of Article 254(1)
of the Constitution. The law on this point has been elaborately
discussed by this Court irI the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma v.
State of Karnataka (199Q) ' 2 SCC 562.
66. Instances are many, where the State law may be
G inconsistent with the Central law, where there may be express
inconsistency in actual terms of the two legislations so that one
cannot be obeyed without disobeying the other. Further, if the
Parliamentary legislation, if intended to be a complete and
exhaustive code, then though there is no direct conflict, the
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 729
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
State law may be inoperative. Repugnancy will also arise A
between two enactments even though obedience to each of
them is possible without disobeying the other, if a competent
legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly
evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field.
8
67. In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 898,.
this Court held that, in order to decide the question of
repugnancy, it must be shown that the two enactments contain
inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions, therefore, they·
cannot stand together or operate in the same field. Further, it C
was also pointed out that there can be no repeal by implication,
unless inconsistency appears on the face of those statutes.
Further, where two statutes occupy a particular field, but there
is room or- possibility of both the statutes operating in the same
field without coming into collision with each other, no
repugnancy results. Further, it was also noticed that there is no D
inconsistency, but a statute occupying the same field seeks to
create distinct and separate offences, no question of
repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate
in the same field.
E
68. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner &
Secretary to
Government Higher Education Department,.
Thiruv~nathapuram, Kera/~ State and Another (2000) 5 S?C . F
231, this Court took the view that the repugnancy may arise·
between two enactments even though obedience of each of
them is possible without disobeying the other, if a competent
legislature of superior efficacy, expressly or impliedly, evinces
by the State legislation a clear intention to cover the whole field
and the enactment of the other legislature, passed before or G
after, would be over-borne on the ground of repugnancy .
..
69. We may, bearing in mind the above principles,
examine whether there is any repugnancy between PCA Act .
and TNRJ Act so as to have inconsistent and inconceivable H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A provisions so that they cannot stand together or operate in the
same field. Both the legislators trace their legislative power\in
Entry 17 List Ill. ·
"Prevention of Cruelty to animals.'"
B 70. We have to examine whether while enacting the PCA
Act, the Parliament has evinced its intention to cover the whole
field. To examine the same, we have to refer to the Statement
of Objects of the Act, Preamble and other relevant i>tatutory
provisions, which would indicate that the Parliament wa·nted a
C comprehensive act with the object o( promoting message of
animal welfare and for preventing cruelty to the animals. The
Statemer:t of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows:
"Statement of Objects and Reasons I
D
The Committee for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
appointed by the Government of India drew attention to a·
number of deficiencies in the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1890 (Central Act No. 11 of 1980) and
suggested a replacement by a more comprehensive Act.
E The existing Act has restricted scope as:
(1) it applies only to urban areas within municipal limits;
(2) it defines the term 'animal' as meaning any
domestic or captured animal and thus contains no
F
provision for prevention of cruelty to animals other
than domestic and captured animals;
(3) it covers only certain specified types of cruelty to
animals; and
G
(4) penalties for certain offences are inadequate.
The Bill is intended to give effect to those recommendations
of the Committee which have· been accepted by the·
Government of India and in respect of which Central
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 731
NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Legislation can be undertaken .. The existing Act is A
proposed to be repealed.
Besides declaring certain type of cruelty to animals to be
offences and providing necessary penalties for such
offences .and making some of the more serious of them B
cog·nizable, the Bill also contains provisions for·the
establishment of an Animal Welfare Board with the object
of promoting measures for animal welfare.
Provisions is also being made for the establishment of a
Committee to control experimentation on animals when C
the Government, on the advice of the Animal Welfare
Board, is satisfied that !t is necessary to do s.o for
preventing cruelty to animals during experimentation. The
Bill also contains provisions for licensing and regulating the
training and performance of animals for the purpose of any D
entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale
of tickets. '
71 ~ Section 3 has been specifically enacted, as already
.·indicated, to confer duties on persons who are in-charge or E
care of the animals, which says, it is the duty of such persons
to ensure the well-being of such animals and to prevent infliction
of unnecessary pain or suffering upon the animals. In other
words, the well-being and welfare of _the animals is the
paramount and dominant intention of the PCA Act and with that
F
intention it has conferred duties on the person in-charge or care
of the animals and correspondent rights on the animals.
Section 11 confers obligations on all persons, including
persons-in-charge or care of the animals to see that Section 3
has been fully obeyed. Exemptions to Section 11 have been
provided in sub-section (3) on the doctrine of necessity, which G
concept we have already dealt with in the earlier part of the
judgment. Section 22 of PCA Act, which deals with "performing
animals", has to be read along with Sections 3, 11 (1), 11 (3) of
the Act and that expects only the animal to perform in an
exhibition and Bull tamers have no role unlike TNRJ Act. H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Sections 21 and 22 refer to training of animals for performance
and not training to withstand the onslaught of Bull tamers.
Sections 3, 11 or 22 do not confer any right on the human
beings to over-power the animals while it is performing, on the
other hand, under Section 11 (m), inciting an animal to fight is
B an offence.
72. Section 38 of the PCA Act confers rule-making powers
on the Central Government and, in exercise of its rule-making
powers, the Central Government made the Performing Animal
Rules, 1973 and the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules,
C 2001 and thrust of all the substantive and procedural provisions
is the welfare and well-being of the animal and the duties and
obligations of the persons who are in-charge of the animals and
also to safeguard the rights conferred on the animals. Rule 8(vii)
•. · specifically refers to animals' "basic natural instinct" and
D cautions that the basic natural instinct of the animals be
protected and be not exploited.
73. The TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentric legislation
enacted not for the welfare of the animals, unlike PCA Act,
E which is an eco-centric legislation, enacted to ensure the well-
being and welfare of the animals and to prevent unnecessary
pain or suffering of the animals. The State Act basically
safeguards the interest of the organizers and spectators w.,hile
conducting the event of Jallikattu. Act has no Preamble and the
F Statement of Objects and Reasons. of the Act reads as follows:
. . ;· .' . . ~ \ ' ' ' .
'!STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS. "Jallikattu"
includes "manjuvirattu", "Oormadu", "Vadamadu" or
"Erudhu vidum vizha":The said function consists of taming
of bulls as a part of ancient culture and tradition of the
G Tamils. The said tradition is in vogue for more than 400
years. At present, there is no legislation to regulate the
'conduct .of JaUikattu, manjuvirattu, Oormadu, Vadamadu,
Erudhu vidum vizha or any such activity involving the taming
of bulls. The Government have, therefore, decided to bring
H out a legislation to regulate the conduct of the Jallikattu in
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 733
-- NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the State of Tamil Nadu by prescribing norms to hold such .A
events and to ensure the safety of animals, participants and
the spectators.
2. The Bill seeks to give effect to the above decisions."
Section 4 deals with the responsibility of the organizers. B
Section 4(3) provides for double barricade area in order to
avoid injuries to the spectators and by-standers, t~e prime
consideration is, therefore, to avoid injuries to spectators and
by-standers and not that of the animal. Section 4(iv) deals with
the fixing the gallery for the spectators to sit and watch the event. C
Section 4(vi) empowers the Animal Husbandry Departmef'lt to
test the bulls to ensure that performance enhancement drugs
are not administered. Duties have also been assigned to the ·
District Collector, under Section 5 of the Act, to ensure safety
of the spectators and to see that bulls are free from diseases D
and not' intoxicated or administered with any substance like
nicotine, cocaine etc. to make them more aggressive and
ferocious. Sections 5"(ix) and (x) authorize the District Eollector
to give wider publicity to the provisions of the PCA Act and the
rules made thereunder and to ensure the presence of animal E
welfare activists of AWBI during the conduct of the event.
Section 7 deals with penalty, it says 'whoever contravenes the
provisions of this Act shall, on conviction, be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine, which
may extend to Rs.10,000/-, or with both'. Section 11 of PCA F
Act, it may be noted, provides for imprisonment for a term which
may extend maximum to three months, to that extent, there is
inconsistency between Section 7 of the TNRJ Act as well as
Section 11 of the PCA Act.
74. Section 2(d) of the PCA Act speaks of domestic G
animal and taming the animal for use of men, which is evidJmtly
for domestic use, being domestic animal, not for entertainment
or amusement. Section 11 (3), as already stated, excludes five
categories of cases from Section 11 'due to necessity' a_nd
Section 28 speaks of killing of animal in a manner required by H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A the religion of any community. Section.22 of the Act speaks of
performing animal, meaning thereby, exhibition and training only
for performance of the animal. The PCA Act does not speak
'
of 'taming of animals' (over-powering animals). Taming of
ahimal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition or
B e·ntertainment are entirely different. Section 2(c) of TNRJ Act
speaks of 'taming of bulls' which is inconsistent and contrary
to the provisions of Chapter V of PCA Act. Sections 4(vii), (viii)
and 5 (viii) speak of Bull tafnier6. Bull tamers, therefore, tame
the bulls at the arena, thereby causing strain, stress, inflict pain
c and suffering, which PCA Act Wants to prevent under Section
11 of the Act. Taming of bulls in arena during Jallikattu, as per
the State Act, is not for the well-being of the animal and causes
the unnecessary pain a~d suffering, that is exactly what the
'Central Act (PCA Act) wants to prevent for the well-being and
0 welfare of animals, which is also against the basic natural
instinct of the bulls.
75. PCA Act, especially Section 3, coupled with Section
11 (1 )(m)(ii), as already stated, makes an offence, if any person
solely with a view to provide entertainment, incites any a,nimal
E to fight. Fight can be with an animal or a human being. Section
5 of TNRJ Act envisages a fight between a Bull and Bull tamers,
that is, Bull tamer has to fight with the bull and tame it. Such
fight is prohibited under Section 11 (1 )(m)(ii) of PCA Act read
with Section 3 of the Act. Hence, there is inconsistency
F between Section 5 of TNRJ Act and Section- 11 (1 )(m)(ii) of
PCA Act.
76. TNRJ Act, in its Objects and Reasons, speaks of
ancient culture and tradition and also safety of animals,
G participants and spectators. PCA Act was enacted at a time
when it was noticed that in order to reap maximum gains, the
animals were being exploited by human beings, by using
coercive methods and by inflicting unnecessary pain. PCA Act
was, therefore, passed to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain
or suffering and for the well-being and welfare of the anim_als
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 735
. -NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
and to preserve the natural instinct of the animal. Over-powering A
the performing animal was never in the contemplation of the
PCA Act and, in fact, under Section 3 of the PCA Act, a
statutory duty has been cast on the person.who is in-charge or
care of the animal to ensure the well-being of such animal and
to prevent infliction on the animal of unnecessary pain or B
- suffering. PCA Act, therefore, cast not only duties on human
beings, but also confer corresponding rights on animals, which
is being taken away by the State Act (TNRJ Act) by conferring
rights on the organizers and Bull tamers, to conduct Jallik~ttu,
which is inconsistent and in direct collision with Section 3, c
Section 11(1)(a),T1(1)(m)(ii) and Section 22 of the PCA Act
read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution and hence
repugnant to the PCA Act, which is a welfare legislation and
hence declared unconstitutional and void, being violative of
Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
D
77. We, therefore, hold that AWBI is right in its stand that
Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events per se violate
Sections 3, 11 (1 )(a) and 11 (1 )(m)(ii) of PCA Act and hence we
uphold the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central
Government, consequently, Bulls cannot be used as performing E
animals, either for the Jallikattu events or Bullock- cart Races
in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maha~ashtra or elsewhere in the
country. We, therefore, make the following declarations and
directions:
F
(1) We declare that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls
under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with
Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or
curtailed, except under Sections 11 (3) and 28 of
PCA Act.
G
(2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to
earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act,
be protected and safeguarded by the States,
Central Government, Union Territories (in short
"Go,vernments"), MoEF an.d AWBI. H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A (3) AWBI and Governments are directed to take
appropriate steps to see that the persons-in-charge
or care of animals, take reasonable measures to
ensure the well-being of animals.
(4) AWBI and Governments are directed to take steps
B
to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or
suffering on the animals, since their rights have
been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11
of PCA Act.
c (5) AWBI is also directed to ensure "that the provisions
of Section 11 (1 )(m)(ii) scrupulously followed,
meaning thereby, that the person-in-charge pr care
of tl1e animal shall not incite any animgl -t6 fight
against a human being or another animal.
D
(6) AWBI and the Governments would also see that
even in cases where Section 11 (3) is involved, the
animals be not put to unnecessary pain and
suffering and adequate and scientific methods be
adopted to achieve the same. ·
E
(7) AWBI and the Governments should take steps to
impart education in relation to human treatment of
'animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating
the spirit of Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution.
F
(8) Parliament is expected to make proper
amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective
deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the
Act and for violation of Section 11, adequate
penalties and punishments should be imposed.
G
(9) Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of
animals to that of constitutional rights, as done by
many of the countries around the world, so as to
protect their dignity and honour.
H
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 737 :
• NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(10) The Governments would see that if the provisions A
of the PCA Act and the decfarations and the
directions issued by this Court are not properly and
effectively complied with, disciplinary action be
taken against the erring officials so that the purpose
and object of PCA Act could be achieved. B
(11) TNRJ Act is found repugnant to PCA Act, which is
a welfare legislation, hence held constitutionally
void, being violative or Article 254( 1) of the
Constitution of lhdia.
c
(12) AWBI is directed to take effective and speedy
steps to implement the provisions of PCA Act in
consultation with SPCA and make periodical
reports to the Governments and if any violation is
noticed, the Governments should take steps to D
remedy the same, including appropriate follow-up
action.
78. Appeals, transferred cases and the Writ Petition are
disposed of as above, setting aside the judgment of the Madras E
High Court, but upholding the judgment of Bombay High Court
and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central
Government. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
will be no order as to costs.
Rajendra Prasad Matter disposed of. F
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "animal welfare"Sign in to search