Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear Pleas Challenging Constitutionality of Laws Permitting Jallikattu From Nov 23

A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court will commence hearing pleas challenging Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka laws that allow bull-taming sport 'Jallikattu' and bullock cart races on 23rd November, 2022.

On Tuesday, the matter was listed before a bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar.

Senior Advocates, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Anand Grover apprised the Bench that they are appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Grover apprised the Bench that the petitioners are assailing the laws that permit Jallikattu, while the respondents are defending them.

Senior Advocate, Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu informed the Bench that the concerned Tamil Nadu legislation was referred to the President for assent and the same has been obtained. Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the State of Maharashtra.

The present petitions were filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on 07.01.2016 and to direct the concerned States to comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547. While the matter was pending, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 was passed. Thereafter, the writ petitions were modified to seek quashing of the said Amendment Act. Considering the grounds for assailing the legislation, a Division Bench of the Apex Court was of the opinion that the petitions involve substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution of India. The issues framed are as under -

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; and can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals? Is it colourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List?
2. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of 4 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 and the review judgment dated 16th November, 2016, in the aforesaid case, and whether the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be said to have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature by enacting the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?

Subsequently, writ petitions with similar challenges against statutes enacted with respect to the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra were listed before the Apex Court. Notice was issued and the matters were tagged with the main petition challenging the Tamil Nadu legislation.

Case Status: The Animal Welfare Board of India And Anr. v. UoI And Anr. WP(C) No. 23/2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order