Overview of Jallikattu Verdict

Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport that is celebrated every year in the month of January. This bull-taming sport is most popular in Madurai, Theni, Dindigul, Tiruchirappalli, and Pudukkottai districts known as the Jallikattu belt. It is practiced as a part of Pongal celebrations on Mattu Pongal Day. Jallikattu is a rural and traditional sport performed for more than 2000 years. In this sport, usually, of rare breed Kangayam or Bangur bull is released from a closed space and bullfighters attempt to hold on to the bull’s hump to win the award. These breeds are addressed as the strongest breed of bulls. Apart from the cultural importance of this sport, it has been determined that the sport is cruel to animals. The Bovine cruelty concerned the Animal welfare activists who were against the handling of the bulls before they were released for the sport. Practices such as prodding the bul with scythes or sticks, biting off the bull’s tail, forcing them to drink alcohol, and rubbing chili & pepper in their eyes to aggravate them. Further, to subdue the bull, they are punched, jumped on, stabbed by a knife or other equipment, and dragged to the ground. This may result in serious injuries to humans as well as to the bulls. 

In 2007, Jallikattu came under legal scrutiny when the animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the Animal Welfare Board of India moved the Supreme Court challenging Jallikattu and Bullock cart races. This judgment was further challenged in the Supreme Court via a special leave petition. In 2009, the ban was lifted as the Tamil Nadu Government passes a law, Tamil Nadu Regulation of the Jallikattu Act, 2009, which was further challenged before the top Court by PETA. Further in 2011, a notification under Section 22(ii) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was issued by the then Ministry of Environment and Forest and added bulls to the list of animals whose exhibition is prohibited. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2014 judgment, Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja & Ors. banned Jallikattu and bullock-cart race. After three years, in 2017, a massive protest originated across Tamil Nadu against the ban and the TN government enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules, 2017, which allowed Jallikattu sport within the state. 

To stay the implementation of the 2017 Act and Rules, various petitions were filed before the Supreme Court but it refused to entertain them. Further, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Bill, 2017, and the Maharashtra Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Bullock Cart Race) Rules, 2017, were enacted for conducting Kambala and Bullock Cart race sports respectively. In 2018, a two-judge bench (Justice Deepak Misra, and Justice RF Nariman) of the Supreme Court in the Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. case referred the matter to the constitution bench of fine Hon’ble Justices of the Supreme Court. Five questions were formed for adjudication which include, “(1) Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or does it further and perpetuate cruelty to animals Said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals? (2) Can the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of India (3) Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to ensure the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls? Is the Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India? (4) Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? (5) Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary to the judgment in A. Nagaraja”. Later on December 8, 2022, the top Court reserved the judgment on the matter comprising the amendments made by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra to the 1960 Act. 

2023 judgment on the legalization of Jallikattu 

On 18 May 2023, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court gave its judgment in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. The bench upheld the 2014 judgment that banned Jallikattu stating “it is not a cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu”. The verdict was given by a five-judge bench consisting of Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Ajay Rastogi, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. 

Key Points from the Judgment

• The Supreme Court after hearing both the parties found the new amendment to be valid legislation and the apex Court agreed that it is the custom in Tamil Nadu which has been there for centuries. This sport is a “Cultural heritage born out by texts and evidence, the court cannot intervene into the matter.”
• “The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colorable legislation. It relates, in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It minimizes cruelty to animals in the concerned sports and once the Amendment Act, along with their Rules and Notification are implemented, the aforesaid sports would not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.”
• “The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, to ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls. The said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India. The incidental impact of the said Amendment Act may fall upon the breed of a particular type of bull and affect agricultural activities, but in pith and substance, the Act is relatable to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.”
• “The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
• “Supreme Court’s decision on the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act would also guide the Maharashtra and the Karnataka Amendment Acts and we find all three Amendment Acts to be valid legislations.”
• “We direct that the law contained in the Act/Rules/Notification shall be strictly enforced by the authorities. In particular, we direct that the District Magistrates/competent authorities shall be responsible for ensuring strict compliance of the law, as amended along with its Rules/Notifications.”

Supreme Court concluded that “The Amendment having received Presidential assent, we do not think there is any flaw in the State action. “Jallikattu” as bovine sports have to be isolated from the manner in which they were earlier practiced and organizing the sports itself would be permissible, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules.”