# ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. · A. NAGARAJA & ORS - **Citation:** [2014] 6 S.C.R. 646 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2014-05-07 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014 - **Bench:** K.S. Radhakrishnan, Pinaki Chandra Ghose - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/animal-welfare-board-of-india-v-a-nagaraja-ors-30079 - **Pages:** 92 ## Headnote Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: ss.3 and 11of PCA Act read with Art. 51-A of the Constitution - Conducting of Jal/ikattu and Bullock cart races in States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra - Held: s. 3 casts a duty on the person in-charge or care of animal to prevent 0 infliction upon an animal of unnecessary pain or suffering - Primary duty on persons-in-charge or care of animal is to ensure the well-being of the animal -'Well-being' means state of being comfortable, healthy or happy - s.3 gives a corresponding right to the animal to ensure its we/I-being - Bulls cannot be performing animals, anatomically not E designed for that, but are forced to perform, inflicting pain and suffering, in total violation of ss. 3 and 11 (1) of PCA Act - Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu, Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of bulls - Jal/ikattu or Bullock-cart race, from the point of the F animals, is not an event ensuring their well-being or an event meant to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, on the contrary, it is an event against their well-being and causes unnecessary pain and suffering on them - Therefore, Jal/ikattu and Bullock-cart race, as an event, being G avoidable non-essential activities violate not only ss., 3, 11 (1 }(a} and (m) and· s. 22 of PCA Act, read with Art.51 A(g) of the Constitution but also the notification dated 11. 7. 2011 issued by the Central Government uls 22(ii) of the PCA Act - Rights guaranteed to the bulls ulss 3 and 11 of PCA Act . H 646 ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. ,• 647 NA GA RAJA ~ead with Articles 51A(g) and (h) cannot be taken away or A ~ urtailed, except u/ss 11 (3) and 28 of PCA Act - TNRJ Act s declared unconstitutional and void -"" Government of India Notification dated 11.7. 2011 upheld - Directions given to implement provisions of PCA Act and safeguard freedom and right of animals as enumerated in the judgment - Prevention B of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals on Foot)- Rules, 2001 - r. 11 - Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 - r. 8 - Government of India Notification dated 11. 7. 2011. c s. 11 - Treating animals cruelly - Held: s. 11 confers no right on the organizers to conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race - s. 11 is a beneficial provision enacted for the welfare and protection. of animals and it is penal ·in nature - It confers ,rights on the animals and obligations on all persons, including D thos~ who are in-charge or care of the animals, to look after their well-being and welfare. s. 11 (3) read with s. 11 (1) - Cruelty to animals - Exceptions - Penalty - Held: PCA Act does not speak of E 'taming of animals' (over-powering animals) - Taming of animal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition or entertainment are entirely different - s.2(c) of TNRJ Act speaks of 'taming of bulls' which is inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of PCA Act - Sub-s. (3) of s. 11 carves out exceptions in five categories of cases mentioned F in s. 11 (3)(a) to (e) - Exceptions are incorporated based on the "doctrine of necessity" - Entertainment, exhibition or amusement do not fall under these exempted categories and cannot be claimed as a matter of right under the doctrine of necessity - Penalty for violation of rights of animals are G insignificant, Punishment prescribed in s. 11 (1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, thus, being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act, therefore, there is necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 6 S.C.R. A to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.51A(g) - Doctrines - Doctrine of necessity. Constitution of India, 1950: B Arts. 21 and 51A(g) of the Constitution read with ss.3 and 11 of PCA Act ## Text _Characters 0–39,927 of 166,038. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39927 for what follows._ A B c [2014] 6 S.C.R. 646 ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. · A. NAGARAJA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014) MAY 07, 2014. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: ss.3 and 11of PCA Act read with Art. 51-A of the Constitution - Conducting of Jal/ikattu and Bullock cart races in States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra - Held: s. 3 casts a duty on the person in-charge or care of animal to prevent 0 infliction upon an animal of unnecessary pain or suffering - Primary duty on persons-in-charge or care of animal is to ensure the well-being of the animal -'Well-being' means state of being comfortable, healthy or happy - s.3 gives a corresponding right to the animal to ensure its we/I-being - Bulls cannot be performing animals, anatomically not E designed for that, but are forced to perform, inflicting pain and suffering, in total violation of ss. 3 and 11 (1) of PCA Act - Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu, Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of bulls - Jal/ikattu or Bullock-cart race, from the point of the F animals, is not an event ensuring their well-being or an event meant to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, on the contrary, it is an event against their well-being and causes unnecessary pain and suffering on them - Therefore, Jal/ikattu and Bullock-cart race, as an event, being G avoidable non-essential activities violate not only ss., 3, 11 (1 }(a} and (m) and· s. 22 of PCA Act, read with Art.51 A(g) of the Constitution but also the notification dated 11. 7. 2011 issued by the Central Government uls 22(ii) of the PCA Act - Rights guaranteed to the bulls ulss 3 and 11 of PCA Act . H 646 ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. ,• 647 NA GA RAJA ~ead with Articles 51A(g) and (h) cannot be taken away or A ~ urtailed, except u/ss 11 (3) and 28 of PCA Act - TNRJ Act s declared unconstitutional and void -"" Government of India Notification dated 11.7. 2011 upheld - Directions given to implement provisions of PCA Act and safeguard freedom and right of animals as enumerated in the judgment - Prevention B of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals on Foot)- Rules, 2001 - r. 11 - Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 - r. 8 - Government of India Notification dated 11. 7. 2011. c s. 11 - Treating animals cruelly - Held: s. 11 confers no right on the organizers to conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race - s. 11 is a beneficial provision enacted for the welfare and protection. of animals and it is penal ·in nature - It confers ,rights on the animals and obligations on all persons, including D thos~ who are in-charge or care of the animals, to look after their well-being and welfare. s. 11 (3) read with s. 11 (1) - Cruelty to animals - Exceptions - Penalty - Held: PCA Act does not speak of E 'taming of animals' (over-powering animals) - Taming of animal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition or entertainment are entirely different - s.2(c) of TNRJ Act speaks of 'taming of bulls' which is inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of PCA Act - Sub-s. (3) of s. 11 carves out exceptions in five categories of cases mentioned F in s. 11 (3)(a) to (e) - Exceptions are incorporated based on the "doctrine of necessity" - Entertainment, exhibition or amusement do not fall under these exempted categories and cannot be claimed as a matter of right under the doctrine of necessity - Penalty for violation of rights of animals are G insignificant, Punishment prescribed in s. 11 (1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, thus, being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act, therefore, there is necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 6 S.C.R. A to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.51A(g) - Doctrines - Doctrine of necessity. Constitution of India, 1950: B Arts. 21 and 51A(g) of the Constitution read with ss.3 and 11 of PCA Act - Protection of 'life' - Rights of animals - Held: Art. 21 while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word "life" has been given an expanded definition; and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes C all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Art. 21 - So far as animals are concerned, "life" means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for humanbeings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and D dignity - Right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to animc;ils as well - Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-driving, over-loading is also a right recognized by s. 11 read with s. 3 of PCA Act. E F Art. 51-A of the Constitution read with ss. 3 and 11 of PCA Act - Held: Rights and freedoms guaranteed to animals u/ ss. 3 and 11 have to be read along with Art. 51A(g)&(h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal rights - Parliament, by incorporating Art.51A(g}, has reiterated and reemphasised the fundamental duties on human beings towards every living creature, which evidently takes in bulls as well - All living creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live peacefully and right to protect their well-being which encompasses protection from beating, kicking, over-driving, over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering etc. - Rights G guaranteed to animals ulss. 3 and 11, etc. are only statutory rights - Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of animals to that of constitutional rights, as done by many of the countries around the world, so as to protect their dignity and honour - Legisfation - International Environmental Law H - World Health Organization of Animal Health (OIE) - ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 649 NA GA RAJA Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) - German A Animal Welfare Law - Animals Welfare Act of 2006 (U.K.); Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act - Animal Welfare Act, 2010. Art. 254(1) rlw Art. 246(1) - Rule of repugnancy - Held: 8 PCA Act has been passed to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering and for well-being and welfare of animals and to preserve their natural instinct - PCA Act, therefore, casts not only duties on human beings, but also confer corresponding rights on animals, which is being taken away C by the State Act (TNRJ Act) by conferring rights on the organizers and bull tamers, to conduct Jallikattu, which is inconsistent and in direct collision with s. 3, s. 11 (1 )(a), s.11(1)(m)(ii) and s.22 of PCA Act read with Art. 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution and, as such, is repugnant to PCA Act, 0 which is a welfare legislation and, therefore, declared unconstitutional and void, being violative of Art.254(1) - Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jal/ikattu Act, 2009 - ss.2(c), 5. Interpretation of Statutes: Welfare legislation - Interpretation of - Held: PCA Act is a welfare legislation which has to be construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of the Act and the Directive Principles E of State Policy - In the matters of welfare legislation, provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of the F · weak and infirm - Court also should be vigilant to see that benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle devices - Regulations or guidelines, whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport to dilute or defeat the welfare legislation and the constitutional principles, court G should not hesitate to strike them down so as to achieve the ultimate object and purpose of the welfare /egislationPrevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960-Doctrine of parens patriae-Tami/ Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009. H" 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A In the instant appeals, writ petition and transferred cases, the issues for consideration before the Court were as to the legality of the conducting of Jallikattu tn the State of Tamil Nadu and Bullock cart races in the State , of Maharasthra in view of the rights of the animals under 9 the Constitution of India, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) and the Notification dated 11. 7 .2011 issued by the Central Government u/s 22 (ii) of the PCA Act, and the rights of the organizers under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jalikattu Act, 2009 (TNRJ Act). c Disposing of the matters, the Court HELD: 1.1. The affidavit filed by the Secretary, AWBI, MoEF, Chnnai giving details of the manner in which Jallikattu is conducted, indicates the torture and cruelty meted out to the bulls, which is unimaginable. The D situation is the same in the State of Maharashtra also. The details furnished depict the state of affairs, which is cruel, barbaric, inhuman and savage. In spite of the various directions issued by this Court, in the conduct of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race etc., the regulatory E provisions of TNRJ Act and the restrictions in the State of Maharashtra, the situation is the same and no action is being taken by the District Collectors, Police Officials and others, who are in-charge to control the same, to see that those directions are properly and effectively F complied with and the animals are not being subjected to torture and cruelty. Being dumb and helpless, they suffer in silence. [para 18,19 and 21] [697-E-H; 698-D-F] 1.2. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (the PCA Act) is a welfare legislation which has to be G construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of the A~t and the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is trite law that, in the matters of welfare legislation, the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm. Court also should be vigilant to H see that benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 651 NA GA RAJA legislation are not defeated by· subtle devices. Court has A got the duty that, in every case, where ingenuity is expanded to avoid welfare legislations, to go behind the form and see the substance of the devise for which it has to pierce the veil and examine whether the guidelines or the regulations are framed so as to achieve some other s purpose than the welfare of the animals. Regulations or guidelines, whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport to dilute or defeat the welfare legislation and the constitutional principles, court should not hesitate to strike them down so as to achieve the ultimate object and c purpose of the welfare legislation. Court has also a duty under the doctrine of parens patriae to take care of the rights of animals, since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings. [para 26) [702-G, H; 703-A-D] D 1.3. The PCA Act has been enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or cruelty on animals. Section 3 of the Act deals with duties of persons having charg~ of animals, which is mandatory in nature and thus confers corresponding rights on animals. Rights E so conferred on animals are thus the antithesis of a duty and if those rights are violated, law will enforce those rights with legal sanction. Primary duty on the personsin-charge or care of the animal is to ensure the well-being of the animal. 'Well-being' means state of being F comfortable, healthy or happy. Forcing the bull and keeping the same in the waiting area for a number of hours and subjecting it to scorching sun, is not for the well-being of the animal. By forcing the bull into the vadi vassal and then into the arena, subjecting it to all forms G. of torture, fear, pain and suffering by no stretch ·of imagination, can be said to be "for the well-being of such animal". [para 27) [703-D-F; 704-B-E] 1.4. Organizers of Jallikattu are depriving the rights guaranteed to the bulls u/s 3 of PCA Act. Sadism and H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R .. A perversity is writ large in the actions of the organizers of Jallikattu and the event is meant not for the well-being o1 the animal, but for the pleasure and enjoyment of human beings, particularly the organizers and spectators. First limb of s.3 gives a corresponding right to the animal to S ensure its well-being. AWBI, a body established to look after the welfare of the animals has to see that the personin-charge or care of the animals lo'oks after their wellbeing. [para 27) [704-E-G] 1.5. The second limb of s.3 casts a duty on the person b in-charge or care of animal to prevent the infliction upon an animal of unnecessary pain or suffering. Considerations, which are relevant to determine whether the suffering is unnecessary, include whether the suffering could have reasonably been avoided or b reduced, whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment. Duty is to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, meaning thereby, no right is conferred to inflict necessary/unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals. i: [para 28) [704-H; 705-A-C] 1.6. Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race, from the point of the animals, is not an event ensuring their well-being or an event meant to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering., on the contrary, it is an event against F their well-being and causes unnecessary pain and suffering on them. Thus, the two limbs of s.3 of PCA Act are violated by the organizers while conducting Jallikattu and Bullock-cart race. [para 28) [705-E-F] 2.1. Section 11 confers no right on the organizers to. G conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race. Section 11 is a H • beneficial provision enacted for the welfare and protection of the animals and it is penal in nature. It confers rights on the animals and obligations on all persons, including those who are in-charge or care of the ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 653 NAGARAJA anima!,s, AWBI etc. to look after their well-being a·nd >, welfare. [para 29) [705-G, H; 706-A] 2.2. Section 11 (1 )(a) uses the expressions "or otherwise", "unnecessary pain or suffering" etc. Beating, kicking etc. go with the event so also torture. The B expression "or otherwise" is not used as words of limitation and the legislature has intended to cover all situations, where the animals are subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering. Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races and the events like that, fall in that expression u/s g 11 (1 )(a). The words "or otherwise" when used, apparently intended to cover other cases which may not come within the meaning of the preceding clause. Over and above, clauses (b) to (o) of sub-s. (1) of s.11 also confer various duties and obligations, generally and specifically, on the D. persons in charge of or care of animals which, in turn, confer corresponding rights on animals, which, if violated, are punishable under the proviso to s.11 (1) of the PCA Act. [para 29-30) [707-E-H; 708-F] . Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay 1957 SCR 721 - relied i; on DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY: 3. Section 11 (3) carves out exceptions in five categories of cases mentioned in s.11(3)(a) to (e). F Exceptions are incorporated based on the "doctrine of necessity". Entertainment, exhibition or amusement do not fall under these exempted categories and cannot be claimed as a matter of right under the doctrine of necessity. Sections 3, 11 (1 )(a) and (o) of the PCA Act and ~ other related provisions have to be understood and read alor;ig with Art. 51A(g) of the Constitution which cast fundamental duties on every citizen to have "compassion for living creatures". Parliament, by incorporating Art.51A(g), has reiterated and re-emphasised the H 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A fundamental duties on human beings towards every living creature, which evidently takes in bulls as well. All living creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live peacefully and right to protect their well-being which encompasses protection from beating, kicking, overs driving, over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering etc. Animals also have intrinsic worth and value. Section 3 of the PCA Act has acknowledged those rights and the said section along with s.11 cast a duty on persons having charge or care of animals to take reasonable measures c to ensure well-being of the animals and to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering. [para 31-32) '[708-G-H; 709-D; 710-A,B-F] PERFORMING ANIMALS 0 4.1. Bulls have been recognized as draught and pack animals in the Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965. Draught means an animal used for . pulling heavy loads. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001, E especially r.11 says that no person shall use a whip or a stick in order to force the animal to walk or to hasten the pace of their walk. Bulls, therefore, oannot be used as a performing animal, anatomically not designed for that, but are forced to perform, inflicting pain and suffering, in total F violation of ss. 3 and 11 (1) of PCA Act. When bull is specifically prohibited to be exhibited or trained for performance, the question whether such performance, exhibition or entertainment is conducted with sale of tickets or not, is irrelevant from the point of application G of ss.3 and 11 (1) of the PCA Act. [para 33,34 and 36) [710G; 711-B, D, E; 712-E-F] 4.2. Rule S(vii) of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001, specifically cautions that the owner shall train the animal as a performing animal to H perform an act in accordance with the animals' natural ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 655 .. NA GA RAJA instinct. Bull is trained not in accordance with its natural A instinct for the Jallikattu or Bullock-cart race. Bulls, in those events, are observed to carry out a "flight · response" running away from the crowd as well as from the bull tamers, since they are in fear and distress, this natural instinct is being exploited. Animal Welfare Division B of MoEF, especially taking note of the stand of AWBI, had recommended that all such events be stopped, especially bulls as performing animals u/s 22 of PCA Act, similar to the ban already introduced in the case of Bears, Tigers etc. Stand of the Animal Welfare Division of MoEF ·and c AWBI was accepted by the Central G'Overnment (MoEF) · and a notification dated 11. 7 .2011 was issued, including bull also in the category of banned animals. [para 38, 3940] [713-E-G; 715-A-D] 4.3. Section 11 (1 )(m)(ii) of the PCA says, if any D person, solely with a view to providing enterfainment incites any animal to fight, shall be punishable under the proviso to s.11 (1 ). In Jallikattu, bull is expected to fight -with various bull tamers, for which it is incited solely to provide entertainment for the spectators by sale of tickets E or otherwise. Inciting the bull to fight with another animal or human being matters little, so far as the bull is concerned, it is a fight and, as such, cruelty. Jallikattu and Bullock-cart race, as an event, being avoidable nonessential activities therefore, violate not only ss., 3, 11 (1 )(a) F and (m) and s. 22 of PCA Act, read with Art.51 A(g) of the Constitution but also the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government u/s 22(ii) of the PCA Act. [para 37] [713-C, DJ CULTURE AND TRADITION G. 5.1. MoEF, so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, is not recognising that Bullock-cart race is part and parcel of the tradition of the pttople of Maharashtra and that it has any cultural, historical or H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 6 S.C.R. A religious significance. The State of Maharashtra, in its order dated 20.4.2012, has clearly acknowledged that the organisation of animal sports in the State, mainly in its rural hinterland, like Bull /Ox I Bullock-cart race etc. is nothing but violence to the dumb animals and has to be s prohibited. The State Government evidently did not give its stamp of approval to the so-called cultural, historical importance to the Bullock-cart race and that order has not been challenged. But, so far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, a proposal has been made to exempt bulls, c participating in Jallikattu from the purview of the notification dated 11.07 .2011 stating that it has historic, cultural and religious significance in the State. Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu, Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of bulls. 0 [para 16 and 41) [672-C; 715-H; 716-A-C) 5.2. Jallikattu or the bullock cart race, as is being practised, has never been the tradition or culture of Tamil Nadu. Assuming, it has been in vogue for quite some time, the same should give way to the welfare legislation, E like the PCA Act which has been enacted to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and confer duties and obligations on persons in-charge c;>f animals. PCA Act has been enacted with an object to safeguard the welfare of the animals and evidently to cure F some mischief and age old practices, so as to bring into effect some type of reform, based on eco-centric principles, recognizing the intrinsic value and worth of animals. [para 42-43 and 46) [716-G; 717-A-B; 718-A-B] N. Adithayan v. Thravancore Dewaswom Board and G Others 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR76 = (2002) 8 SCC 106 - referred to. INTERNATIONAL APPROACH TO ANIMALS WELFARE H 6.1. There js no international agreement that ensures ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 657 NA GA RAJA the welfare and protection of animals. Of course, there A has been a slow but observable shift from the anthropocentric approach to a more nature's right centric approach in International Environmental Law, Animal Welfare Laws etc. Based on eco-centric principles, rights of animals have been recognized in various countries. As B regards the rights of animals from the national and international perspective, every species has an inherent right to live and shall be protected by law, subject to the exception provided out of necessity. Animal has also honour and dignity which cannot be arbitrarily deprived c of and its rights and privacy have to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks. [para 47, 49 and 511 [718C, E, F; 720-D; 721-E-F] T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others 2012 (3) SCR 460 = (2012) 3 SCC 277, T. N. D Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others 2012 (1) SCR 923 = (2012) 4 SCC 362 and in Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund - India v. Union of India and Others (2013) 8 SCC 234 - referred to. German Animal Welfare Law; Animals Welfare Act of E 2006 (U. K.); Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act; Animal Welfare Act, 2010 Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) - referred to. F 6.2. Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) has had considerable support from various countries, including India. Five freedoms referred to in UDAW, find support in PCA Act and the rules framed thereunder to a great extent. World Health Organization of Animal Health (OIE), of which India is a member, acts as the international G reference organisation for animal health and animal welfare. OIE has been recognised as a reference organisation by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and, in the year 2013, it had a total of 178 member countries. On animal welfare, OIE says that an animal is in good state of welfare if (as indicated by Scientific evidence) it H 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress. [para 52-53] [721-F-H; 722-A-C] B Freedom: 7 .1. Chapter 7 .1.2 of the guidelines of OIE enumerates five internationally recognized freedoms for animals, namely (i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; (ii) freedom from fear and distress; (iii) freedom from c physical and thermal discomfort; (iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and (v) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour. These five freedoms are considered to be the fundamental principles of animal welfare and these freedoms find a place in ss.3 and 11 0 of PCA Act and they are for animals like the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Part Ill of the · Constitution of India. [para 54] [722-0-G] 7.2. Animals are world-wide legally recognised as 'property' that can be possessed by humans. On deletion E of Art. 19(1)(f) from the Constitution of India, right to hold on to a property which includes animals also, is now only a legal right not a fundamental right and rights of animals are to be seen in that perspective as well. Rights guaranteed to animals u/ss. 3 and 11, etc. are only F statutory rights. The same have to be elevated to the status of fundamental rights, as has been done by few countries around the world, so as to secure their honour and dignity. Rights and freedoms guaranteed to the animals u/ss. 3 and 11 have to be read along with Art. G 51A(g)(h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal rights. [para 55-56] [722-H; 723-A-D] COMPASSION: 8. Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of H citizens to have compassion for living creatures. This ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 659 NAGARAJA Court has held that by enacting Art.51A(g) and giving it A the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Arts. 48 and 48-A are honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. Article 51A(g), therefore, enjoins that it is a fundamental duty of every B citizen "to have compassion for living creatures", which means concern for suffering, sympathy, kindliness etc., which has to be read along withs. 3, 11(1)(a) and (m), 22 etc. of PCA Act [para 57] [723-D-F] c State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582 = (2005) 8 SCC 534 - relied on. HUMANISM: 9. Art. 51A(h) says that it shall be the duty of every D citizen to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Humanism also means, understand benevolence, compassion, mercy etc. Citizens should, therefore, develop a spirit of compassion and humanism which is reflected in the E Preamble of PCA Act as well as in ss. 3 and 11 of the Act. To look after the welfare and well-being of animals and the duty to prevent infliction of pain or suffering on animals highlights the principles of humanism in Arts. 51A(h). Both Art. 51A(g) and (h) have to be read into the F PCA Act, especially into ss. 3 and 11 thereof and be applied and enforced. [para 58] [723-G-H; 724-A-B] SPECIES ISM: 10. The concept of speciesism as reflected in G castism, racism and sexism are biological classification. The inequalities like castism, racism, sexism etc. have been taken care of through Constitutional and statutory amendments, like Arts. 14 to 17, 19, 29 and so on. So far as animals are concerned, s.3 of the PCA Act confers H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R. A right on animals so also rights u/s 11 not to be subjected to cruelty. When such statutory rights have been conferred on animals, it can always be judged as to whether they are being exploited by human-beings. Through PCA Act, Parliament has recognized the rights B of animals, of course, without not sacrificing the interest of human beings under the doctrine of necessity.[para 59-60] [725-A-C] RIGHT TO LIFE: 11.1. Art. 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding C the rights of humans, protects life and the word "life" has been given an expanded definition; and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which is necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Art. 21. So far as animals D are concerned, "life" means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for humanbeings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-driving, over-loading is also a right recognized by s.11 read with E s.3 of the PCA Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering i.s a right guaranteed to the animals u/ss 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Art. 51A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get F food, shelter is also a guaranteed right u/ss 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially ·· when they are domesticated. Therefore, ss. 21, 22 of the PCA Act and the relevant provisions have to be understood in the light of-the rights conferred on animals G u/s 3, read with s.11(1)(a) and (o) and Articles 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution. [para 62 and 64] [726-D-H; 727-A; 728-A-B] 11.2. Penalty for violation of rights of animals are insignificant, sinc·e laws. are made· by humans. H Punishment prescribed in s.11(1) is not commensurate ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 661 NAGARAJA with the gravity of the offence, thus, being violated with A impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act,. therefore, there is necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act. [para 62] [727 ·B, C] B REPUGNANCY: 12.1. Repugnancy between Parliamentary Legislation and State Legislation arises in two ways: (i) Where the legislations, though enacted with respect to the matters in their allotted sphere, overlap conflict; c (ii) Where two legislations are with respect to the same matters in the concurrent list and there is a conflict; D and (iii) Repugnancy will also arise between two enactments even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other, if a competent E legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field. In both the situations, the Parliamentary legislation F will predominate in the first by virtue of the non-obstante clause in Art. 246(1 ), and in the second by reason of Article 254(1) of the Constitution. [para 65] [728-D-F; 729A-B] Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka 1990 (1) G SCR 614 = (1990) 2 SCC 562; M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India 1979 (3) SCR 254 =AIR 1979 SC 898; Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, H 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 6 S.C.R. · A Thiruvanathapuram, Kera/a State and Another 2000 (2) SCR 1234 = (2000) 5 sec 231 - relied on. 12.2. The TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentricl legislation enacted not for the welfare of the animals, unlike PCA Act, which is an eco-centric legislation, 8 enacted to ensure the well-being and welfare of the animals and to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering of ·the animals. The State Act basically safeguards the interest of the organizers and spectators while conducting the event of Jallikattu. The PCA Act does not C speak of 'taming of animals' (over-powering animals). Taming of animal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition or entertainment are entirely different. Section 2(c) of TNRJ Act speaks of 'taming of bulls' which is inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of D Chapter V of PCA Act. Sections 4(vii), (viii) and 5 (viii) speak of bull tamers. Bull tamers, therefore, tame the bulls at the arena, thereby causing strain, stress, inflict pain and suffering, which PCA Act wants to prevent u/s 11 of the Act. Taming of bulls in arena during Jallikattu, as per E the State Act, is not for the well-being of the animal and causes the unnecessary pain and suffering, that is exactly what the Central Act (PCA Act) wants to prevent for the well-being and welfare of animals, which is also against the basic natural instinct of the bulls. [para 73-74] F [732-E-F; 734-A-D] 12.3. PCA Act, especially s.3, coupled with s.11(1)(m)(ii), makes an offence, if any person solely with a view to provide entertainment, incites any animal to fight. Fight can be with an animal or a human being. G Section 5 of TNRJ Act envisages a fight between a bull and bull tamers, that is, bull tamer has to fight with the bull and tame it. Such fight is prohibited u/s 11 (1 )(m)(ii) of PCA Act read with s.3 of the Act. Therefore, there is inconsistency between s.5 of TNRJ Act and s.11 (1 )(m)(ii) H of PCA Act. PCA Act cast not only duties on human ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 663 NAGARAJA beings, but _also confer corresponding rights on animals, A which is being taken away by the State Act (TNRJ Act) by conferring rights on the organizers and bull tamers, to conduct Jallikattu, which is inconsistent and in direct collision with s.3, s.11 (1 )(a), 11 (1 )(m)(ii) and s.22 of the PCA Act read with Art. 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution B and, as ~uch, is repugnant to the PCA Act, which is a welfare