# THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [2023] 7 S.C.R. 426
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-05-18
- **Bench:** K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, C. T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-animal-welfare-board-of-india-and-ors-v-union-of-india-anr-37483
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 -
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment)
Act, 2017 - Held: The expressions Jallikattu, Kambala and Bull
Cart Race as introduced by the Amendment Acts of the three States
have undergone substantial change in the manner they were used
to be practiced or performed and the factual conditions that
prevailed at the time the A. Nagaraja judgment was delivered cannot
be equated with the present situation - The Supreme Court cannot
come to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances,
absolutely no pain or suffering would be inflicted upon the bulls
while holding these sports - But the Court is satisfied that the large
part of pain inflicting practices, as they prevailed in the manner
these three sports were performed in the pre-amendment period have
been substantially diluted by the introduction of these statutory
instruments.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - 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 - Held: The Tamil Nadu
Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation - It relates,
in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III of Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution of India - It minimises cruelty to animals in the
concerned sports and once the Amendment Act, along with their
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
Rules and Notification are implemented, the bovine sports would
not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3,
11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - 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 the
people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection of
Article 29 of the Constitution of India - Held: Jallikattu is a type of
bovine sports - It is going on in the State of Tamil Nadu for at least
last few centuries - But whether this has become integral part of
Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis
in greater detail, which is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by
the Judiciary - The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu
Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular
State is a debateable issue which has to be concluded in the House
of the People - This ought not be a part of judicial inquiry - This
question cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings
- Since legislative exercise has already been undertaken and
Jallikattu has been found to be part of cultural heritage of Tamil
Nadu, the Court would not disrupt this view of the legislature.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - 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 - Held:
The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, to
ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls - The
said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of
India - Incidental impact of the said Amendment Act may fall upon
the breed of a particular type of bulls and affect agricultural
activities, but in pith and substance the Act is relatable to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,869 of 101,498. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39869 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 426
426
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016)
MAY 18, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE,
HRISHIKESH ROY AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 -
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment)
Act, 2017 - Held: The expressions Jallikattu, Kambala and Bull
Cart Race as introduced by the Amendment Acts of the three States
have undergone substantial change in the manner they were used
to be practiced or performed and the factual conditions that
prevailed at the time the A. Nagaraja judgment was delivered cannot
be equated with the present situation - The Supreme Court cannot
come to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances,
absolutely no pain or suffering would be inflicted upon the bulls
while holding these sports - But the Court is satisfied that the large
part of pain inflicting practices, as they prevailed in the manner
these three sports were performed in the pre-amendment period have
been substantially diluted by the introduction of these statutory
instruments.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - 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 - Held: The Tamil Nadu
Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation - It relates,
in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III of Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution of India - It minimises cruelty to animals in the
concerned sports and once the Amendment Act, along with their
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
Rules and Notification are implemented, the bovine sports would
not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3,
11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - 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 the
people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection of
Article 29 of the Constitution of India - Held: Jallikattu is a type of
bovine sports - It is going on in the State of Tamil Nadu for at least
last few centuries - But whether this has become integral part of
Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis
in greater detail, which is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by
the Judiciary - The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu
Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular
State is a debateable issue which has to be concluded in the House
of the People - This ought not be a part of judicial inquiry - This
question cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings
- Since legislative exercise has already been undertaken and
Jallikattu has been found to be part of cultural heritage of Tamil
Nadu, the Court would not disrupt this view of the legislature.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - 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 - Held:
The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, to
ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls - The
said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of
India - Incidental impact of the said Amendment Act may fall upon
the breed of a particular type of bulls and affect agricultural
activities, but in pith and substance the Act is relatable to Entry 17
of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - 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
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - Held:
The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to the Articles
51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 - Is the
impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary to the
judgment in A. Nagaraja, and the review judgment dated 16.11.2016
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 - Held: The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act read along
with the Rules framed in that behalf is not directly contrary to the
ratio of the judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja and judgment of
this Court delivered on 16.11.2016 dismissing the plea for Review
of the A. Nagaraja judgment as the defects pointed out in the
aforesaid two judgments have been overcome by the State Amendment
Act read with the Rules made in that behalf.
Constitution of India - Art. 48 - Recognising rights of animals
- By virtue of Article 48 of the Constitution of India which essentially
operates as a national guideline for law makers, a two-way path
has been devised - The first is imposing duty on the State to organise
agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines -
The second is emphasising the duty of the State to take steps for
preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting slaughter of
cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
Answering the referred questions, the Court
HELD: 1. On the question of conferring fundamental right
on animals there is no precedent. The Division Bench in the case
of A. Nagaraja also does not lay down that animals have
Fundamental Rights. The only tool available for testing this
proposition is interpreting the three Amendment Acts on the
anvil of reasonableness in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
While the protection under Article 21 has been conferred on
person as opposed to a citizen, which is the case in Article 19 of
the Constitution, it will not be prudent to venture into a judicial
adventurism to bring bulls within the said protected mechanism.
We have our doubt as to whether detaining a stray bull from the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
street against its wish could give rise to the constitutional writ of
habeas corpus or not. In the judgment of A. Nagaraja, the question
of elevation of the statutory rights of animals to the realm of
fundamental rights has been left at the advisory level or has been
framed as a judicial suggestion. This Court does not want to
venture beyond that and leave this exercise to be considered by
the appropriate legislative body. This Court does not think Article
14 of the Constitution can also be invoked by any animal as a
person. While we can test the provisions of an animal welfare
legislation, that would be at the instance of a human being or a
juridical person who may espouse the cause of animal welfare.
[Para 24][464-B-F]
2. In order to come to a definitive conclusion on this
question, some kind of trial on evidence would have been
necessary. It is also not Court's jurisdiction to decide if a particular
event or activity or ritual forms culture or tradition of a community
or region. But if a long lasting tradition goes against the law, the
law Courts obviously would have to enforce the law. Learned
counsel appearing for the parties, however, have cited different
ancient texts and modern literature to justify their respective
stands. In Public Interest Litigations, this Court has developed
the practice of arriving at a conclusion on subjects of this nature
without insisting on proper trial to appreciate certain social or
economic conditions going by available reliable literature. In
paragraphs 53 and 73 in the case of Nagaraja, there is judicial
determination about the practice being offensive to the provisions
of the Central Statute. It would be trite to repeat that provisions
of a Statute cannot be overridden by a traditional or cultural event.
Thus, this Court accepts the argument of the petitioners that at
the relevant point of time when the decision in the case of A.
Nagaraja was delivered, the manner in which Jallikattu was
performed did breach the aforesaid provisions of the 1960 Act
and hence conducting such sports was impermissible. [Para
27][465-A-D]
3. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act contains stipulation to
the effect that conduct of Jallikattu subject to such Rules and
regulations as may be framed by the State Government shall be
permitted. Section 38-B of the Maharashtra Act provides Rule
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
making power of the State consistent with the Rules made by the
Central Government. Both these Statutes have become part of
the 1960 Act in their respective States and specifically confer
Rule making power to the States and Rules have been framed. In
such circumstances, as held by this Court in the case of Peerless
General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., our opinion is that these
Rules have to be read along with the Amendment Acts for their
proper interpretation. So far as the Karnataka Amendment Act
is concerned, two fresh restrictions have been imposed in
conducting Kambala by virtue of introduction of Section 3(2) in
the main Act after Amendment. These conditions ban unnecessary
pain or suffering that would be caused to the animals by the person
in charge of the animals conducting Kambala and make such
practice subject to the conditions as may be specified by the State
Government by notification. Following the same analogy which
we have expressed earlier while reading the Amendment Acts of
Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, in our opinion the Notification
issued by the State of Karnataka ought to be accorded same status
as Rule and has also to be read as integral part of the Statute, as
amended. These Rules and the Notification ought not to be
segregated from the Amendment Acts for appreciating their true
scope while examining the petitioners' claim that the Amendment
Acts, analysed in isolation from the said Rules and the Notification
would be contrary to the findings of this Court in the case of A.
Nagaraja. [Para 29][466-F-H; 467-A-C]
4. The expressions Jallikattu, Kambala and Bull Cart Race
as introduced by the Amendment Acts of the three States have
undergone substantial change in the manner they were used to
be practiced or performed and the factual conditions that
prevailed at the time the A. Nagaraja judgment was delivered
cannot be equated with the present situation. This Court cannot
come to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances,
absolutely no pain or suffering would be inflicted upon the bulls
while holding these sports. But this Court is satisfied that the
large part of pain inflicting practices, as they prevailed in the
manner these three sports were performed in the pre-amendment
period have been substantially diluted by the introduction of these
statutory instruments. Argument was advanced that in reality
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
431
these welfare measures may not be practiced and the system as
it prevailed could continue. This Court, however, cannot proceed
in exercise of judicial power on the assumption that a law ought
to be struck down on apprehension of its abuse or disobedience.
All the three bovine sports, after Amendment, assume different
character in their performance and practice and for these reasons
this Court does not accept the petitioners' argument that the
Amendment Acts were merely a piece of colourable legislation
with cosmetic change to override judicial pronouncement. Once
the amended Statutes are read with the respective Rules or
Notification, this Court does not find them to encroach upon the
Central legislation. Respondents have cited a large body of
authorities to defend their stand that these are not cases of
colourable legislation but this Court does not consider it
necessary to refer to all these judgments individually as this Court
has come to this conclusion after analysing various statutory
instruments covering the field. [Para 30][467-D-H; 468-A]
5. Can the Amendment Acts be struck down for being
arbitrary? There is a body of cases in which legislations have
been invalidated on this ground. So far as the subject of the present
controversy is concerned, the bulls form a distinct species
referred to as draught or pack animals as opposed to horses,
which are adapted to run. But this Court declines to hold that
just because bulls lack the natural ability to run like a horse, the
subject-sports which are seasonally held shall be held to be
contrary to the provisions of the 1960 Act. In fact, on behalf of
the respondents it was argued that these genre of bulls are
specially bred and have natural ability to run. There are contrary
views on this point. But in opinion of this Court, no irrational
classification as regards these bull sports have been made by the
legislature so as to attract the mischief which Article 14 of the
Constitution of India seeks to prevent. The validity of a legislative
Act can also be negated on the ground of it being unreasonable.
The element of unreasonableness here is that the bovine species
involved herein are being subjected to unnecessary pain and
suffering mainly for entertainment purpose. But the 1960 Act
itself categorizes several activities which cause pain and suffering,
even to a sentient animal. [Para 31][468-A-E]
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
6. In the case of I.N Saksena -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh
this Court had laid down that legislative lists in the Constitution
ought to be interpreted in a wide amplitude. The 1960 Act in
whole and the subjects of the three Amendments directly deal
with the question of prevention of cruelty to animals. There is no
other entry in any of the lists to which this subject could be
connected with. In such circumstances, this Court rejects the
contention of the petitioners that the State Legislatures inherently
lacked jurisdiction to bring these Amendments, which
subsequently received Presidential assent. [Para 34][470-E-F]
7. Next comes the question as to whether even after the
said Amendments, Jallikattu and the other two activities could
be held to be beyond legislative competence of the three
legislative bodies. This Court has already held that the three
Amendment Acts have to be read together with the consequential
Rules or Notifications. In view of this Court, these Rules, once
treated as part of the Acts, alter the manner of conducting these
sports and once these provisions are implemented, the mischief
sought to be remedied by the aforesaid two provisions of 1960
Act (i.e. Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m)) would not be attracted
anymore. Thus, the argument that the Amendment Acts are void
because they seek to override the judgment of A. Nagaraja
cannot be sustained as the basis of that judgment having regard
to the nature and manner in which the offending activities were
carried on has been altered. [Para 35][470-G-H; 471-A-B]
8. In the light of what had already discussed, this Court
answered the five questions referred to them in the following
terms:-
(i) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of
colourable legislation. It relates, in pith and substance, to Entry
17 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It
minimises cruelty to animals in the concerned sports and once
the Amendment Act, along with their Rules and Notification are
implemented, the aforesaid sports would not come within the
mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m)
of the 1960 Act.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
(ii) Jallikattu is a type of bovine sports and this Court is
satisfied on the basis of materials disclosed before, that it is going
on in the State of Tamil Nadu for at least last few centuries. This
event essentially involves a bull which is set free in an arena and
human participants are meant to grab the hump to score in the
"game". But whether this has become integral part of Tamil
culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis in
greater detail, which is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by
the Judiciary. The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu
Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular
State is a debateable issue which has to be concluded in the House
of the People. This ought not be a part of judicial inquiry and
particularly having regard to the activity in question and the
materials in the form of texts cited by both the petitioners and
the respondents, this question cannot be conclusively determined
in the writ proceedings. Since legislative exercise has already
been undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be part of
cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, this Court would not disrupt this
view of the legislature. This Court does not accept the view
reflected in the case of A. Nagaraja that performance of Jallikattu
is not a part of the cultural heritage of the people of the State of
Tamil Nadu. This Court does not think there was sufficient
material before the Court for coming to this conclusion. In the
Preamble to the Amendment Act, Jallikattu has been described
to be part of culture and tradition of Tamil Nadu. In the case of A.
Nagaraja, the Division Bench found the cultural approach
unsubstantiated and referring to the manner in which the bulls
are inflicted pain and suffering, the Division Bench concluded
that such activities offended Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of
the 1960 Act. Even if this Court proceeds on the basis that
legislature is best suited branch of the State to determine if
particular animal-sports are part of cultural tradition of a region
or community, or not, if such cultural event or tradition offends
the law, the penal consequence would follow. Such activities cannot
be justified on the ground of being part of cultural tradition of a
State. In A. Nagaraja, the sports were held to attract the restriction
of Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act because of the
manner it was practiced. The Amendment Act read with the Rules
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
seek to substantially minimise the pain and suffering and continue
with the traditional sports. The Amendment having received
Presidential assent, this Court does not think there is any flaw in
the State action. "Jallikattu" as bovine sports have to be isolated
from the manner in which they were earlier practiced and
organising the sports itself would be permissible, in terms of the
Tamil Nadu Rules.
(iii) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and
substance, to ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds
of bulls. The said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the
Constitution of India. Incidental impact of the said Amendment
Act may fall upon the breed of a particular type of bulls and affect
agricultural activities, but in pith and substance the Act is relatable
to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
of India.
(iv) Answer to this question is in the negative. The Tamil
Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A
(g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(v) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act read along with the
Rules framed in that behalf is not directly contrary to the ratio of
the judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja and judgment of this
Court delivered on 16th November 2016 dismissing the plea for
Review of the A. Nagaraja judgment as this Court is of the opinion
that the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments have
been overcome by the State Amendment Act read with the Rules
made in that behalf. [Para 40][473-B-H]
9. Decision of this Court on the Tamil Nadu Amendment
Act would also guide the Maharashtra and the Karnataka
Amendment Acts and this Court finds all the three Amendment
Acts to be valid legislations. [Para 41][475-B-C]
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and
Others (2014) 7 SCC 547 : [2014] 6 SCR 646; Gram
Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and
Others (1985) 3 SCC 661 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 28;
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others v. State of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
Bihar and Others (1983) 4 SCC 45 : [1983] 3 SCR
130; Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Another - vsBroach Borough Municipality and Others (1969) 2 SCC
283 : [1970] 1 SCR 388; Bhubaneshwar Singh and
Another -vs- Union of India and Others (1994) 6 SCC
77 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 639; Indra Sawhney -vsUnion of India and Others (2000) 1 SCC 168 : [1999]
5 Suppl. SCR 229; Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and
Others -vs- State of Orissa and others (2014) 4 SCC
583 : [2014] 2 SCR 1031; State of M.P. -vs- Mahalaxmi
Fabric Mills Ltd. and Others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 642 :
[1995] 1 SCR 756; D.C. Wadhwa DR and Others -vsState of Bihar and Others (1987) 1 SCC 378 : [1987] 1
SCR 798; Sri Sri Sri K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo -vsState of Orissa [1954] SCR 1; S.S. Bola and Others vs
B.D. Sardana and Others (1997) 8 SCC 522 : [1997] 2
Suppl. SCR 507; State of Tamil Nadu vs State of Kerala
and Another (2014) 12 SCC 696 : [2014] 12 SCR 875;
Madan Mohan Pathak and Another vs Union Of India
and Others (1978) 2 SCC 50 : [1978] 3 SCR 334;
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing
Federation of India Ltd. and Another -vs- Union of India
and Others (2003) 5 SCC 23 : [2003] 3 SCR 1; In Re
Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 [(2017) 1
SCC 121 : [2016] 11 SCR 15; Mafatlal Industries Ltd.
and Others vs Union of India and Others (1997) 5 SCC
29 536 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 585; S. T. Sadiq vs
State of Kerala and Others (2015) 4 SCC 400 : [2015]
3 SCR 287; A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak and Another
(1988) 2 SCC 602 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; Maneka
Gandhi vs Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC
248 : [1978] 2 SCR 621; Chief Secretary to the
Government, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and Others -vsAnimal Welfare Board and Another (2017) 2 SCC 144 :
[2016] 8 SCR 477; Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra
and Another (2002) 4 SCC 388 : [2002] 2 SCR 1006;
State of Bihar and Others vs Indian Aluminium Company
and Others (1997) 8 SCC 360 : [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR
222; M. Karunanidhi -vs- Union of India and Another
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
(1979) 3 SCC 431 : [1979] 3 SCR 254; K.T. Plantation
Private Ltd. and Another -vs- State of Karnataka (2011)
9 SCC 1 : [2011] 13 SCR 636; Director of Education
(Secondary) and Another -vs Pushpendra Kumar and
Others (1998) 5 SCC 192 : [1998] 3 SCR 432; Harbilas
Rai Bansal -vs- State of Punjab and Another (1996) 1
SCC 1 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 178; State of Gujarat
and Another -vs- Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Others
(1983) 2 SCC 33 : [1983] 2 SCR 287; Shayara Bano -
vs- Union of India and Others (2017) 9 SCC 1 : [2017]
9 SCR 797; Narayan Dutt Bhatt -vs- Union of India
(2018) SCC OnLine Utt 645; Saurabh Chaudri and
Others -vs- Union of India and Others (2003) 11 SCC
146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152; Chief Justice of Andhra
Pradesh and Others -vs- L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others
(1979) 2 SCC 34 : [1979] 1 SCR 26; Video Electronics
Pvt. Ltd. and Another -vs- State of Punjab and Another
(1990) 3 SCC 87 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 731; Ashok
Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Others
(1997) 5 SCC 201 : [1997] 3 SCR 269; State of U.P.
and Others -vs- Babu Ram Upadhya (1961) 2 SCR 679;
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and
Another -vs- Reserve Bank of India (1992) 2 SCC 343
: [1992] 1 SCR 406; State of Rajasthan -vs- Shri G.
Chawla and Dr Pohumal (1959) Supp (1) SCR 904;
Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and Others -vsState of U.P. and Others (1980) 4 SCC 136 : [1980] 3
SCR 331; Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association
of India, etc. -vs- Union of India and Others (1989) 3
SCC 634 : [1989] 2 SCR 918; State of A.P. and Others
-vs- McDowell & Co. and Others (1996) 3 SCC 709 :
[1996] 3 SCR 721; State of W.B. -vs- Kesoram Industries
Ltd. and Others (2004) 10 SCC 201 : [2004] 1 SCR
564; I.N Saksena -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh (1976)
4 SCC 750 : [1976] 3 SCR 237; T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad -vs- Union of India and Others (2012) 4
SCC 362 : [2012] 1 SCR 923; Centre for Environmental
Law, World Wide Fund-India -vs- Union of India and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
Others (2013) 8 SCC 234 : [2013] 6 SCR 757; N.R.
Nair and Others -vs- Union of India and Others (2001)
6 SCC 84 : [2001] 3 SCR 353; E.P. Royappa -vs- State
of Tamil Nadu and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3 : [1974] 2
SCR 348; Ajay Hasia and Others -vs- Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi and Others (1981) 1 SCC 722 : [1981] 2
SCR 79; Joseph Shine -vs- Union of India (2018) 2
SCC 189 -referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 6 SCR 646
referred to
Para 2
[1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 28
referred to
Para 9
[1983] 3 SCR 130
referred to
Para 9
[1970] 1 SCR 388
referred to
Para 17
[1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 639
referred to
Para 17
[1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 229
referred to
Para 17
[2014] 2 SCR 1031
referred to
Para 17
[1995] 1 SCR 756
referred to
Para 17
[1987] 1 SCR 798
referred to
Para 17
[1954] SCR 1
referred to
Para 17
[1997] 2 Suppl. SCR 507
referred to
Para 17
[2014] 12 SCR 875
referred to
Para 17
[1978] 3 SCR 334
referred to
Para 17
[2003] 3 SCR 1
referred to
Para 17
[2016] 11 SCR 15
referred to
Para 17
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 585
referred to
Para 17
[2015] 3 SCR 287
referred to
Para 17
[1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 17
[1978] 2 SCR 621
referred to
Para 17
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
[2016] 8 SCR 477
referred to
Para 18
[2002] 2 SCR 1006
referred to
Para 18
[1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 222
referred to
Para 19
[1979] 3 SCR 254
referred to
Para 19
[2011] 13 SCR 636
referred to
Para 19
[1998] 3 SCR 432
referred to
Para 20
[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 178
referred to
Para 20
[1983] 2 SCR 287
referred to
Para 20
[2017] 9 SCR 797
referred to
Para 20
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152
referred to
Para 22
[1979] 1 SCR 26
referred to
Para 22
[1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 731
referred to
Para 22
[1997] 3 SCR 269
referred to
Para 22
[1961] 2 SCR 679
referred to
Para 28
[1992] 1 SCR 406
referred to
Para 28
[1959] Supp (1) SCR 904
referred to
Para 33
[1980] 3 SCR 331
referred to
Para 33
[1989] 2 SCR 918
referred to
Para 33
[1996] 3 SCR 721
referred to
Para 33
[2004] 1 SCR 564
referred to
Para 33
[1976] 3 SCR 237
referred to
Para 34
[2012] 1 SCR 923
referred to
Para 36
[2013] 6 SCR 757
referred to
Para 36
[2001] 3 SCR 353
referred to
Para 36
[1974] 2 SCR 348
referred to
Para 37
[1981] 2 SCR 79
referred to
Para 37
(2018) 2 SCC 189
referred to
Para 37
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONL: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
23 of 2016.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
With
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 6, 10 of 2018, Civil Appeal No. 3849 of
2023, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1193 of 2017, 1152 of 2018, 24, 25, 26,
27, 88 of 2016, 1011, 1059, 1188 of 2017, Transferred Case No. 60 of
2021.
Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M. Nataraj, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASGs,
Nikhil Goel, AAG, S. Nagamuthu, V. Giri, Mukul Rohatgi, Krishnan
Venugopal, Sidharth Luthra, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Anand
Grover, N. R. Elango, V. K. Khanna, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Kapil
Sibal, Rakesh Dwivedi, Komal Mehta, Jayanth Muth Raj, Nagamuthu,
Sr. Advs., C. Paramasivam, Y. Arunagiri, M. P. Paramasivam, Rakesh
K. Sharma, A. S. Vairawan Shiva, R. Sudhakaran, G. R. Vikash, Ms.
Shalini Mishra, D. Subrahmanya Bhanu, P. R. Kovilan Poongkuntran,
Ms. Geetha Kovilan, Ms. Jubli Momalia, Sumit Attri, Ritu Anand
Vishwakarma, Ms. Esha Dutta, Vivek Kumar, M/s. Cyril Amarchand
Mangaldas, D. Kumanan, Sheikh F. Kalia, Ms. Anusha Nagarajan Iyer,
Ms. Rupali Samul, Ms. Rishabh Devan Parikh, Subodh S. Patil, Ajay
Singh, Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, Ram Kumar, Ms. Supriya Deshpande,
Ms. Supriya Juneja, Krishnan Agarwal, Ms. Deepanshi Ishar, Ms. Pallavi
Srivastava, Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Asif Ahmed, Akshat Kumar, Ms.
Mansvini Jain, Abhyudaya Shishodia, Karanvir Gogia, Kushagra
Raghuvanshi, Ayush Kaushik, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Aparna Bhat,
Ms. Karishma Maria, Balendu Shekhar, Kanu Agrawal, Devashish
Bharuka, Shamik Sananwala, Balaji Srinivasan, Manvendra Singh
Rathore, Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Samiksha
Anjanwala, Padmesh Mishra, Amrish Kumar, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Manish Sharma, Neeraj Sharma, Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, D.K. Devesh, Arpit Parkash, Vikalp Sharma, Sachin
Patil, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Durgesh Gupta, Ms. Pritha Srikumar,
Sudipto Sarkar, Ms. Ria Singh Sawhney, Saurabh Chaudhary, Ms.
Arunima Kedia, Ms. Anne Mathew, P. V. Yogeswaran, Ashish Kumar
Upadhyay, Y. Lokesh, V. Sibi Kargil, V. Kandha Prabhu, L. R.
Venkatesan, Ms. Maitri Goal, Ms. Priyanka Chowdhary, Hemant Kumar
Niranjan, Sachin Kumar Verma, Ms. Yakeen Bishoyi, Satyam Thareja,
Ms. Varnika Singh, Ms. Deeksha Aggarwal, Prateek Kundu, Rohin Bhatt,
Rahul Kumar, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ms. Manisha T. Karia,
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Adarsh Kumar, Aditya Kesar, Ms. Nidhi Nagpal, Vikram Chandravanshi,
Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ms.
Devyani Gupta, Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Ms. Tanvi Anand, Anand Dilip
Landge, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S. K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms.
Niharika Dewivedi, Ms. Shweta Sand, Narendra Pal Sharma, Anubhav
Gupta, C. M. Jha, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Anil Kumar Mishra, M. Yogesh
Kanna, Mayil Samy K., G. Anandaselvam, Dr. Ram Sankar, Dr. Gayathiri
A. S., S. J. Amith, Sanchit Maheshwari, P. Soma Sundaram, K.
Kumaran, K. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Kabilan Manoharan, K. Vijay
Anand, V. Pavel, A. Santhakumaran, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. Puspita
Basak, Ms. Priyanka Chaudhary, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Ravindra
Keshavrao Adsure, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Yash Prashant Sonavane, Ms.
Sakshi Ajit Kale, Rohan Darade, V. N. Raghupathy, Adithya Roy,
Manendra Pal Gupta, Md. Apzal Ansari, C. Ravichandran Iyer, Reegan
S. Bel, C. M. Sundaram Iyer, Keerthi Priyan, N. Rajaraman, Vishnu
Sharma, Rakesh K. Sharma, Tomy Chacko, Neeleswar Pavani, Ms.
Shaurya Mishra, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Narender Kumar Verma, M. Y.
Deshmukh, M. Thanga Durai, Ms. Racheeta Chwla, Eklavya Dwivedi,
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Ms. Monika Dwivedi, Ms. Divya Singh, Kushal
Sarkar, Vinodh Kanna B., Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Mrs.
Naresh Bakshi, Ajay Pal, Mayank Dahiya, Ms. Priyanka C., Kupdeep
Singh Kuchaliya, C. K. Sasi, Abdulla Naseeh V. T., Ms. Meena K.
Poulose, Kabir Hathi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Dharm
Singh, Suraj Kaushik, Nanda Kumar K. B., Shiva Swaroop, M/s. Nuli &
Nuli, Ranjeth Marar, Prabhurama Subramanian, Raghunatha Sethupathy
B, Karuppaiah Meyyappan, Ms. Kanika K., Ms. Pariksha, Bharathi
Mohan, Ms. Priya, S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, Ms.
Miranda Solaman, Sudhakaran, T. Harish Kumar, Goutham Shivshankar,
P. Rajalakshmi, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Rajesh Kumar
Chaurasia, Ganga Sagar Singh, Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya,, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
Applicant-in-person
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No.3528 of 2018.
2. In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India -vs- A.
Nagaraja and Others [(2014) 7 SCC 547], a Division Bench of this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
Court had essentially outlawed two common sports practised in the States
of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra popularly referred to as 'Jallikattu' and
'Bullock Cart Race' respectively. These bovine sports were held to be
contrary to the provisions of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 ("1960 Act") which is a Statute enacted
by the Parliament. The two Judge Bench had construed the said
provisions in the Constitutional backdrop of Article 51-A (g) and (h) as
also Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This judgment was
delivered on 7th May 2014. At that point of time, Jallikattu was regulated
by a State Act in Tamil Nadu, being Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu
Act, 2009. The Bench held that this State Act was repugnant to the
provisions of the 1960 Act and was held to be void, having regard to the
provisions of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India. On 7th January
2016, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change ("MoEF&CC") [bearing number GSR 13 (E)].
This notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 22 of the 1960 Act and prohibited exhibition or training of bulls
as performing animals. However, an exception was carved and it was
specified in this notification that bulls might be continued to be trained as
performing animals at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and Bullock
Cart Races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and
Gujarat in the manner by the customs of common community or practice
traditionally under the customs or as part of culture in any part of the
country. In the State of Karnataka, the race involved male buffaloes,
known in that State as "Kambala". This exception, however, was made
subject to certain conditions seeking to reduce the pain and suffering of
bulls while being used in such sports. A batch of writ petitions i.e. W.P.
(C) Nos. 23 of 2016, 24 of 2016, 25 of 2016, 26 of 2016, 27 of 2016, 88
of 2016, 1059 of 2017, 1011 of 2017, 1188 of 2017, 1193 of 2017, SLP(C)
No.3528 of 2018 and SLP(C) Nos. 3526-3527 of 2018 were instituted
before a Division Bench of this Court questioning legality of the said
notification. The petitioners in those proceedings also sought compliance
with the directions of this Court contained in the case of A. Nagaraja
(supra).
3. The first of these writ petitions have been brought by Animal
Welfare Board of India and others including one Anjali Sharma, but in
course of hearing, the Animal Welfare Board changed its stance and
sought to support the stand of the State and Union of India mainly on the
ground that the 1960 Act and certain State Amendments which were
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
enacted in the year 2017 were not repugnant and the Board had framed
guidelines to prevent suffering of the bovine species during holding of
the aforesaid events. We shall refer to the three State Amendment Acts
later in this judgment. However, the second writ petitioner- Anjali Sharma,
a practicing advocate of this Court and also a member of the Board
prosecuted the aforesaid writ petition as a single writ petitioner.
4. In connection with W.P.(C) No.1188 of 2017, an Interlocutory
Application (170346 of 2022) has been filed by one Vikramsinh Nivrutti
Bhosale on the strength of his being an agriculturalist in Maharashtra.
He has argued that the challenge to the Maharashtra Amendment Act,
if sustained, could hamper lives of farmers still associated with Bullock
Cart Race. It is also his argument that the Amendment Act of Maharashtra
is also relatable to entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India which stipulates:-
"Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention
of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice".
5. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment)
Act, 2017,("Tamil Nadu Amendment Act"), The Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 ("Maharashtra
Amendment Act") and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka
Second Amendment) Act, 2017 ("Karnataka Amendment Act") were
enacted by the respective State Legislatures and had received Presidential
assent. We shall refer to these Acts in greater details in this judgment.
These Amendment Acts in substance seek to legitimise various types of
bovine sports including Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, Bullock Cart Race in
Maharashtra and Kambala in Karnataka. The term Jallikattu as defined
in the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is as follows:-
"(dd) "Jallikattu" means an event involving bulls conducted
with a view to follow tradition and culture on such days from
the months of January to May of a calendar year and in such
places, as may be notified by the State Government, and includes
"manjuviratu", "vadamadu" and "erudhuvidumvizha"."
In the Karnataka Amendment Act, the term Kambala has been
defined, upon Amendment of the parent Statute as:-
"(aa) "Bulls race or Bullock cart race" means any form of
bulls race including race of Bullock cart as a traditional sports
involving Bulls whether tied to cart with the help of wooden
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
yoke or not (in whatever name called) normally held as a
part of tradition and culture in the state on such days and
places, as may be notified by the State Government."; and
(ii) after clause (d), the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(dd) "Kambala" means the traditional sports event involving
Buffalo's (male) race normally held as a part of tradition and
culture in the state on such days and places, as may be notified
by the State Government."
Bullock Cart Race as held in Maharashtra has been defined under
Section 2 of the Amendment Act as:-
"(bb) "bullock cart race" means an event involving bulls or
bullocks to conduct a race, whether tied to cart with the help
of wooden yoke or not (by whatever name called), with or
without a cartman with a view to follow tradition and culture
on such days and in any District where it is being traditionally
held at such places, as may be previously approved by the
District Collector, and also known as "Bailgada Sharyat",
"Chhakadi" and "Shankarpat" in the State of Maharashtra."
6. A Public Interest Litigation ("PIL") was brought before the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, registered as PIL (stamp) number
23132 of 2017 (Ajay Marathe vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Others) challenging certain proposed Rules brought by the State of
Maharashtra under the heading "The Maharashtra Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals (Conduct of Bullock Cart Race) Rules, 2017" permitting
Bullock Cart Race and on 11th October 2017, the High Court restrained
conducting of Bullock Cart Races within the State of Maharashtra. The
aforesaid Rules sought to regulate organisation of Bullock Cart Races.
7. A farmer from that State, Vikramsinh Nivrutti Bhosale from
the District of Sanghli, has instituted Special Leave Petition (Civil) 3528
of 2018 assailing that order passed by the Bombay High Court and in
this reference, we shall deal with certain points raised in the said special
leave petition as well.
8. A Division Bench of this Court by an order passed on 2nd
February 2018 formulated five questions to be answered by a Constitution
Bench and the papers were directed to be placed before the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of India.