Page 490 - 495

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL

SCIENCE AND INNOVATION
[ISSN 2581-9453]
Volume 3 | Issue 2
2020
© 2021 International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ijlsi.com/

Under the aegis of VidhiAagaz – Inking Your Brain (https://www.vidhiaagaz.com)

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the International Journal of Legal Science and
Innovation at VidhiAagaz. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Legal Science
and Innovation after due review.

In case of any suggestion or complaint, please contact [email protected].

To submit your Manuscript for Publication at International Journal of Legal Science and
Innovation, kindly email your Manuscript at [email protected].
490 International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [Vol. 3 Iss 2; 490]

Jallikattu: An Analysis
MR. D. PATTABIRAMAN ML1

I. INTRODUCTION
Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport which takes place annually during and after the festival of
Pongal in Tamil Nadu, Jallikattu is an ancient cultural and traditional religious ritual of Tamil
People that honour and glorify the domestic milch and draught cattle.

All over India there are so many indigenous cows and bulls which has special traits and
Tamil Community strongly believes that Jallikattu is a way to conserve our indigenous cattle
breeds which is essential for our ancient agricultural practices. The supporters of Jallikattu
vehemently argued that Jallikattu is not only a cultural sport, it is an identity of a Tamil
community and the people have been celebrating their cattle for its immense support to their
life and livelihoods.

Animal right activists in India i.e PETA argued that Jallikattu causes immense mental and
physical torture to bulls, creating fear and distress in the animal to provoke aggression for
making the sport of bull taming more “enjoyable”. The event results in injuring and even
killing several people each year, including spectators. Various news sources have reported
that in the past ten years, around 1100 injuries and 17 deaths, including that of a child were
caused by Jallikattu. Several injuries and deaths go unreported.

There are numerous instances of cruelty perpetrated during Jallikattu, such as rubbing
irritants (chilli/pepper powder) into the eyes and nose of the bull; constant yanking and
dragging of bulls by a nose-rope; prodding and poking bulls in the vadi vassal (bull pen) with
iron rods, sticks, knives and other sharp objects, to agitate the bulls; biting, pulling, twisting
and breaking of the bulls’ tails to again injure and agitate the bull; beating and kicking; kept
in cramped conditions without sufficient food, water or shelter; cutting of ears; injuries and
deaths sustained by bulls trying to escape.

The Tamil Nadu Government had enacted a separate legislation to regulate the Jallikattu in
the year 2009 but our Hon’ble Judiciary has supported the view of animal right activists and
analysing the same with international perspective to our Constitutional view in the land mark
case of AWBI vs A.Nagaraja & others2 then the Tamil Nadu government had brought an

1
Author is an Advocate at Madras High Court, India.
2
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5387 OF 2014

© 2020. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [ISSN 2581-9453]

 491 International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [Vol. 3 Iss 2; 490]

amendment in the principal act i.e Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in the year 2017 to
lift the ban on Jallikattu and the Constitutional Validity of the Amendment of the same is still
pending before the five Judge Constitutional bench of our Hon’ble Supreme Court.

II. STATE ACTIONS ON JALLIKATTU SPORT

The Tamil Nadu State Government had enacted a legislation to regulate Jallikattu named as
The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 20093 after the judgement4 passed by Our
Hon’ble Madras High Court against Jallikattu Sport. Section 35 of the above said act gives
power to the district collector to regulate the sport and also states the responsibility of the
organisers to conduct the sport and to prevent human and animal rights violations but the
same was struck down by the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court6, meanwhile the
notification7 issued by MoEF (MoEFCC) banned the use of bulls as performing animals by
using its powers under Section 228 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Consequently, Jallikattu, Kambala, bullock cart races and all other similar events were also
prohibited.

The 2011 Notification of the MoEF was challenged on several grounds by proponents of
Jallikattu in the Madras High Court which upheld its validity. The matter came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and
Ors9.

III. SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT ON JALLIKATTU

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken two sets of cases while taking the case of
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and others.10 Our Hon’ble Apex Court has

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007)

3
Act No.27 of 2009, 5th Aug 2009.
4
K. Muniasamy thevar vs Dy. Superintendent of Police And others, AIR 2006 Mad 255
5
Section 3. Duties of persons having charge of animals—It shall be 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 upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.
6
Supra Note.1
7
Notification order no. GSR 528 (E) dated 11.07.2011
8
Section 22 in The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
No person shall exhibit or train—
(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, specify as an animal which shall not be exhibited or trained as a performing animal.
9
Supra Note 4
10
Para 3……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 (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 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

© 2020. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [ISSN 2581-9453]

492 International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [Vol. 3 Iss 2; 490]

clearly held that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races, bullfights and such events are inherently in
violation of Sections 3 and 11(1)(m)(ii)11 of the PCA Act. It upheld the 2011 Notification
prohibiting Jallikattu. The Apex Court expressly held that the practice of Bull-Fighting, Bull-
Taming or Racing have no support in Tamil culture and even assuming otherwise, the PCA
Act, being a welfare statute overrides traditions and culture which are violative of the
fundamental rights of animals guaranteed under Article 21 read with Article 51A(g) 12 of the
Constitution Of India read with Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act. The Apex Court clearly
held that the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act 2009 is Void13. Thereafter, a review
petition was filed against the Nagaraja judgment which was also dismissed by the Supreme
Court on 16.11.2016.

The AWBI informed the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Supreme Court’s clear
finding of cruelty in such events, and its directions upholding the ban on performing bulls and
enforcing the PCA Act. The AWBI categorically stated that Jallikattu, bull races, bull fights,
Kambala and all similar events perpetuate cruelty to animals and have been struck down by
the Supreme Court as illegal and unconstitutional. Despite the direction of Supreme Court
and AWBI the Central Government against taking a contrary stand to its own Notification
order GSR 528 (E) dated 11.07.2011 without consulting the AWBI, the Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change in supersession of the 2011 Notification issued
another notification14(“2016 Notification”) allowing bulls to be used as performing animals
for events such as Jallikattu and bullock cart races practiced traditionally as part of customs
and culture, subject to ensuring that the rights of animals under Sections 3 and clauses (a) and
(m)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the PCA Act, and five freedoms declared by the
Supreme Court in the Nagaraja judgment, are fully protected.

There were many petitions filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for quashing the 2016

corrigendum issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 24.08.2011 prohibiting all Bullock-cart races,
games, training, 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 which SLP No. 4598 of 2013 has
been filed.
11
Section 11(1) in The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
(1) If any person—
(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to
unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animals to be so treated; or
[m) solely with a view to providing entertainment—
(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal (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 animal;
12
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures;
13
Para 77…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 India.
14
No. GSR13(E) dated 07.01.2016

© 2020. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [ISSN 2581-9453]

 493 International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [Vol. 3 Iss 2; 490]

Notification and seeking a stay order to that effect. The Court was pleased to grant an interim
stay on the 2016 Notification, thus upholding the ban on Jallikattu15.

IV. MARINA PROTEST

The Tamil Nadu had witnessed a massive protest on January 2017 famously known as
“Marina Protest” against the ban on Jallikattu ordered by our Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
protests erupted across the State of Tamil Nadu to lift the ban on Jallikattu, response to these
protests, the Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu promulgated an Ordinance dated
21.01.2017 amending the PC Act to allow Jallikattu to be held.

Thereafter, the Legislative Assembly of State of Tamil Nadu passed a law on 23.01.2017
amending the Act by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act,
2017, which replaced the Ordinance promulgated on 21.01.201716 viz. amending Sections
3,11, 22, 27 and 28.

V. PCA ACT 1960- TAMIL NADU AMENDMENT 2017

Tamil Nadu government was forced to bring an amendment in the PCA Act 1960 due to a
massive Marina Protest at Marina Beach, Chennai and the amendment was brought out on the
grounds of cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu and to ensure the survival and
wellbeing of the native breeds of bulls.

Section 3 of the PCA Act was amended by adding a sub-section 217 which permitting
Jallikattu with the rules and regulations framed by state government.

Section 1118&2719 of PCA Act was amended with added subclause which supports the
purpose of Jallikattu especially about the preservation of native breeds of bulls.

The amendment also lifts the ban to exhibit & training the bulls for Jallikattu by amending
section 22 and also inserted saving Clause as section 28-A in the PCA Act to save Jallikattu
sport.

VI. LEGALITY OF THE TN AMENDMENT ACT-ANALYSIS

The TN amendment Act 2017 is somewhere replacing the Tamil Nadu Regulation of

15
WP (C) 24/16 Compassion Unlimited Plus Action Vs U.O.I dated 12.01.2016
16
Act 1 of 2017 dated 31st January 2017
17
“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), conduct of ‘Jallikattu’, subject to such rules and
regulations as may be framed by the State Government, shall be permitted.”
18
“(f) the conduct of ‘Jallikattu’ with a view to follow and promote tradition and culture and ensure preservation
of native breeds of bulls as also their safety, security and wellbeing.”.
19
“(c) the conduct of ‘Jallikattu’ with a view to follow and promote tradition and culture and ensure survival
and continuance of native breeds of bulls.”.

© 2020. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [ISSN 2581-9453]

 494 International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [Vol. 3 Iss 2; 490]

Jallikattu Act 2009 and how the state can amend the Central Act on the grounds of cultural
rights is the major question involved in the amendment and the same was expressed by our
Hon’ble Supreme Court while transferring the matter into five Judge Constitution bench.20

The Animal rights activists who fight against the Jallikattu Sport expressed their agitation
against the TN amendment Act which seeks to legalise the Jallikattu indirectly. The TN
amendment Act in essence seeks to overcome the Nagaraja judgment and an amendment Act
cannot subvert or circumvent the judicial determination of the Supreme Court through
legislation.

The Nagaraja judgment has been reaffirmed by the Apex Court21. The review against the
judgment, filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, was also dismissed. This reaffirmation is an
unambiguous, categorical and unassailable endorsement of the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has authoritatively held that where legislation seeks to correct the defect
found by the Courts in such Act, the validating Act may be effective only when the
ineffectiveness or invalidity is removed. In this case, the amendment Act cannot and does not
state that Jallikattu is not a cruel practice, and therefore, the basis of the determination of the
Supreme Court’s decision is unchanged.

The Nagaraja judgment held that the underlying basis of the event is one that is cruel.
Therefore, the only way in which the Amendment Act may legally render the Nagaraja
judgment ineffective is to conduct an entirely different event than the one that is referred to
and described as Jallikattu in ancient texts, historical accounts which it has not done.

VII. CONCLUSION
From the above analysis it is clearly understood that the Animal rights activist and the
organisers of Jallikattu are having a similar thought that to save our Native cattle breeds but
the way of saving is differed. Our Hon’ble Supreme Court also stood against the cruelty not
against the culture or any particular community. Cruelty against any animal is highly
condemnable hence the Jallikattu sport is now been successfully organised and conducted by
the organizers with the help of State government with the proper guidelines.

20
The apex court had said on December 12, 2018 that it would refer to a five-judge constitution bench a batch
of pleas challenging Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra laws allowing Jallikattu and bullock cart races. The court,
while reserving its order, had said the larger bench would decide whether states have the "legislative
competence" to make such laws on grounds, including that 'Jallikattu' and bullock cart racing fell under the
cultural rights enshrined under Article 29(1) and can be protected constitutionally.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sc-refers-pleas-against-jallikattu-to-constitution-
bench/articleshow/62752587.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
21
Supra Note 11

© 2020. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [ISSN 2581-9453]

 495 International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [Vol. 3 Iss 2; 490]

VIII. REFERENCE
Laws on Jallikattu

1. Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act 1960

2. The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009
3. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment), Act, 2017

Govt Notifications about Jallikattu Issued by MOEF

1. G.S.R. 528(E) dated 11th July 2011

2. G.S.R.13(E) dated 7th January, 2016

Supreme Court Judgements on Jallikattu

1. Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others (2014) 7 SCC 547
2. Writ Petition (Civil) No.24 of 2016 dated 12.01.2016

Madras High Court Judgement

1. K. Muniasamy thevar vs Dy. Superintendent of Police And others, AIR 2006 Mad
255

*****

© 2020. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [ISSN 2581-9453]