Review Sought Of SC Judgment Which Upheld Laws Allowing Jallikattu, Kambala & Bullock Cart Racing

Mentioning a review petition filed against the Supreme Court judgment of 2023, which upheld state amendments allowing conduct of animal sports (like Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing) in certain states, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra urged the Supreme Court today to constitute a Constitution Bench and list the matter at the earliest.

The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, which asked Luthra to move an appropriate email for listing.

It may be recalled that in 2014, the Supreme Court imposed a ban on jallikattu and similar activities [Ref: Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors]. Subsequently, a notification was issued by the Union of India on 07.01.2016 allowing the conduct of these animal sports activities.

Assailing the same, Animal Welfare Board of India, PETA and other animal rights groups approached the Supreme Court. The petitioners sought a direction to the concerned States to comply with the 2014 judgment of the top Court in A Nagaraja, which banned jallikattu.

While the matter was pending, states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka enacted amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (allowing jallikattu, etc). Thereafter, the writ petitions were modified to seek quashing of the said amendments.

In due course, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench. It finally came to be decided in 2023, when a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar dismissed the petitioners' pleas and upheld the constitutional validity of the state amendments.

It was held that the amended laws could not be construed as "colorable legislations" and the State legislature had legislative power to make them as per Entry 17 to List III of the 7th Schedule.

The court further observed that the amendments were not contrary to A Nagaraja; rather, they cured the defects pointed out in the judgment. It was also of the view that the amendments, having received the assent of the President, could not be faulted.

On the issue of animals' pain and suffering, the Constitution Bench opined that the effect of the laws was to minimize the same: "In A Nagaraja, the sport was held to attract the restrictions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, because of the manner in which it was practiced. The amendment Act and rules substantially minimises pain and suffering to animals".

While instructing that the amended laws be implemented strictly and charging District Magistrates with a duty to ensure the same, the Court also remarked, "We are satisfied on materials that in Jallikettu is going in TN for last one century. Whether this as part of integral part of Tamil culture requires greater detail, which exercise judiciary cannot undertake...When legislature has declared that jallikettu is part of cultural heritage of TN state, judiciary cannot take a different view. Legislature is best suited to decide that."

The decision and observations were clarified to apply to Kambala and Bullock Cart Racing in Maharashtra and Karnataka as well.

What Does The Review Petition Say?

The review-petitioners have raised the following contentions in support of their plea for review of the impugned judgment:

(1) The Constitution Bench failed to appreciate that in A Nagaraja, jallikattu and other similar "bovine sports" were held to amount to animal cruelty per se. Although after the judgment in A Nagaraja, the Tamil Nadu government enacted certain Rules, which modified the way in which jallikattu took place, the same did not do away with the inherent cruelty that prevailed in jallikattu;

(2) The state amendments and the Rules lacked legislative competence: "An amendment that explicitly seeks to exempt Jalikattu from the provisions of the PCA is evidently an exception to the PCA's underlying thrust against cruelty to animals; the impugned Rules at best seek to mitigate some of this cruelty";

(3) Animals may not have rights equivalent to human beings under Article 21 of the Constitution, but they have a core threshold of rights, including the right to live with dignity, the right to be free from unnecessary suffering, and the right against torture.

Case Title: N.G. Jayasimha and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., R.P.(C) No. 892/2023