Supreme Court Allows Maharashtra To Conduct Bullock Cart Races; Says State Amendments Will Operate During Pendency Of Matter Before CB

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilar and CT Ravikumar was hearing the interim application in Maharashtra's special leave petition, which was filed in 2018 challenging the stay order passed by the Bombay High Court against the conduct of bullock cart races in the State. The High Court passed the order in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Animal Welfare Board v A Nagaraja case which banned traditional animal sports events like Jallikettu, terming them as offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The bench noted that after the Nagaraja judgment, the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka passed amendments to the PCA Act to allow the conduct of jallikettu and buffalo races. Though writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of those amendments, a 2-judge bench did not pass any interim stay against them. The 2-judge bench referred the matters to the Constitution Bench, after reserving orders following elaborate hearings.

"Same dispensation must apply to the provisions of the State of Maharashtra which are similar to the amendments carried out in other states", the bench observed taking note of these factors.

The bench observed that the amendments made by the State of Maharashtra to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Rules will continue to operate during the pendency of the matter, in view of the fact that the earlier bench did not pass any order against similar amendments passed by the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnakata.

"Validity of the amended provision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the rules framed thereunder by the state of Maharashtra would operate during the pendency of the writ petition, as the entire matter has been referred to the Constitution Bench including the question as to whether the similar amended Acts of the States of Tamil Nadu overcomes the defect pointed out in 2 judgements of this court", the bench observed in the order.

The effect of this pronouncement is that the Court has allowed the Maharashtra amendments, which permit bullock cart races, to operate, during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had earlier withdrawn to it the writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the Maharashtra amendments which permitted bullock cart race.

Today, the bench noted that the High Court, while restraining bullock cart races, did not appreciate if the amendments made by the Staet subsequent to the Ngaraja judgment will govern the issue.

The bench also said that the writ petition relating to the Maharashtra law must be heard along with the cases relating to Tamil Nadu and Karnataka amendments.

"One country, one race, we need to have uniformity and there has to be one rule. If the races are going on in other states, why should it not be allowed by Maharashtra", Justice Khanwilkar orally observed during the hearing.

"It is a traditional sport going on for several years, judgment came it was stopped- amendment came- allowed in a regulated manner. If it is a traditional sport and going all across the country except Maharashtra, it does not appeal to common sense", Justice Khanwilkar further observed.

Arguments

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organization(FIAPO), submitted that Maharashtra was not entitled to any discretionary relief in view of the delay in moving the application. He pointed out that though the SLP was filed in 2018, they are pressing interim relief only now.

However, the bench observed that the SLP itself was pending.

Grover also argued that in the Maharashtra case, there was an application of mind by the Bombay High Court. The High Court passed an order observing that the Supreme Court judgment cannot be overcome through the rules framed by the Government. On the other hand, with respect to the laws of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the Supreme Court did not pass any order to stay them and referred the matter to the Constitution Bench. Therefore, Grover argued that Maharashtra cannot claim parity with Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.