Jallikattu Case: Supreme Court Refers Tamil Nadu Amendment to Constitution Bench

The case of The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark legal battle concerning the Tamil Nadu government’s legislation permitting Jallikattu, the traditional bull-taming sport. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated February 2, 2018, decided to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench to determine the legality of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017, which allowed Jallikattu despite prior judicial rulings banning it.

This case raises important questions regarding the intersection of animal rights, cultural traditions, constitutional interpretation, and legislative powers.

Background of the Case

The controversy began when the Supreme Court, in its 2014 judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547, banned Jallikattu, citing it as a practice that inflicted unnecessary cruelty on bulls and violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The ruling emphasized the fundamental duty to show compassion to living creatures under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.

Despite this, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017, which received Presidential assent on January 31, 2017. The Amendment sought to exempt Jallikattu from the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, arguing that it was an integral part of Tamil Nadu’s cultural heritage.

In response, animal welfare organizations and activists filed multiple writ petitions challenging the Amendment, leading to the present case.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is a legitimate law under Entry 17, List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Whether the Amendment perpetuates cruelty to animals and violates the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in A. Nagaraja.
Whether the Act is colorable legislation—a law that appears constitutional but in substance contradicts legal principles.
Whether Jallikattu is protected under Article 29 as part of Tamil Nadu’s cultural heritage.
Whether the Amendment aligns with Article 48 (Directive Principles for the protection of animals) and Articles 51A(g) and (h) (fundamental duties regarding environmental protection and scientific temperament).

Petitioners’ Arguments (Animal Welfare Board of India & Others)

The petitioners contended that:

“The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is unconstitutional as it contradicts the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and violates fundamental animal welfare principles established by the Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja.”

They further argued:

The Act is a means to bypass the 2014 Supreme Court ruling rather than ensuring genuine animal welfare.
Jallikattu causes extreme cruelty to bulls, including physical harm and psychological trauma.
The legislation is a colorable exercise of power designed to circumvent an existing Supreme Court ruling.

Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India & Tamil Nadu Government)

The Tamil Nadu Government defended its position, asserting:

“The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act was passed to preserve the cultural heritage of the state and ensure the survival of native bull breeds.”

The state contended:

Jallikattu is part of Tamil Nadu’s traditional identity and should be protected under Article 29 of the Constitution.
The Act includes new safeguards to prevent cruelty to bulls while allowing the event.
The Supreme Court’s previous judgment did not consider the cultural and economic aspects of the sport.

Supreme Court’s Decision

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court ruled that the matter should be examined by a Constitution Bench. The Court listed the following constitutional questions:

Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act truly relate to Entry 17, List III (Concurrent List), or is it a law that furthers cruelty to animals?
Is the Act colorable legislation that seeks to bypass the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling?
Can Jallikattu be classified as part of Tamil Nadu’s cultural heritage under Article 29?
Does the Act contradict Article 48 (protection of animals) and fundamental duties under Articles 51A(g) and (h)?
Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act effectively rectify the defects identified in the A. Nagaraja judgment?

Given the far-reaching constitutional implications, the Court directed that the matter be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench for an authoritative ruling.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

Landmark Constitutional Interpretation: The case will determine the extent to which cultural practices can override animal welfare laws.
Potential Impact on Similar Traditions: The ruling could affect other events involving animals, such as bullock cart races and cockfighting.
Legislative Clarity: It will clarify whether states can amend central laws to suit local customs.
Judicial Review of State Laws: The case reinforces the Supreme Court’s role in assessing whether state legislation adheres to constitutional principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the Jallikattu case to a Constitution Bench reflects the complexity of balancing animal welfare, constitutional rights, and cultural heritage. The case will serve as a precedent for how India’s legal system reconciles traditional practices with modern ethical and legal standards.

The upcoming Constitution Bench ruling will provide much-needed clarity on the validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, setting a precedent for future legislation involving cultural and animal rights conflicts.

Petitioner Name: The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors.
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R.F. Nariman
Judgment Date: 02-02-2018

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The Animal Welfare B vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-02-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category