Why in news?

• A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the amendments made by the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka to The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.
• The amendments allowed bull-taming sports like jallikattu, kambala, and bullock-cart races.

What’s in today’s article?

• Jallikattu
• Background of the case
• News Summary

Jallikattu

• Jallikattu, also known as eruthazhuvuthal, is a bull-taming sport traditionally played in Tamil Nadu as part of the Pongal harvest festival.
• The festival is a celebration of nature, and thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest, of which cattle-worship is part.
• It is popular in Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Theni, Pudukkottai and Dindigul districts — known as the Jallikattu belt.
• The practice of jallikattu has long been contested, with animal rights groups and the courts expressing concern over:
  • cruelty to animals and
  • the bloody and dangerous nature of the sport that sometimes causes death and injuries to both the bulls and human participants.

Importance of Jallikattu

• Old cultural tradition
  • A tradition over 2,000 years old, Jallikattu is a competitive sport as well as an event to honour bull owners who rear them for mating.
  • It is a violent sport in which contestants try to tame a bull for a prize; if they fail, the bull owner wins the prize.
• Way to protect these male animals
  • Conservationists and peasants argue that Jallikattu is a way to protect these male animals which are otherwise used only for meat if not for ploughing.
  • This becomes significant at a time when cattle breeding is increasingly becoming an artificial process.

Background of the case:

• 2014 judgement of Supreme Court
  • In 2014, a two-judge Bench of apex court had essentially outlawed two common sports practised in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
    • These were referred to as Jallikattu and Bullock Cart Race
  • The ruling also held that bovine sports were contrary to the provisions of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
    • These sections relate to the duties of persons having charge of animals and define animal cruelty
• Jallikattu protests in Tamil Nadu
• In 2015, the apex court also dismissed the Tamil Nadu government’s plea calling for a recall of its verdict.
  • Dismissing the government's plea, SC brushed aside the state government's argument that the 3,500-year-old tradition was rooted in religion.
• In January 2017, massive protests erupted across Tamil Nadu against the ban, with Chennai city witnessing a 15-day-long Jallikattu uprising.
• 2016 notification by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) allowing Jallikattu
  • In January 2016, a notification was issued by the MoEF&CC prohibiting the exhibition or training of bulls as performing animals.
  • However, an exception was carved in the notification.
    • The exception specified that bulls might still be trained as performing animals at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, according to the customs and culture of different communities.
  • A batch of petitions were filed challenging the exemption notification, relying on the 2014 ruling.
• Tamil Nadu Assembly passes bill in 2017
  • The Tamil Nadu Assembly, in 2017, passed a bill replacing an ordinance for conducting the bull-taming sport.
    • The "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2017" was passed in this regard.
    • The act said the "Government of Tamil Nadu has decided to exempt Jallikattu from the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act”.
• Petitions challenging the bill
• The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and the Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA) filed some petitions.
• These petitions challenged the amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
• SC refused to stay the new Jallikattu law passed by the Assembly but slammed the state government for not following the law and order.
• Matter transferred to larger bench
  • In 2018, a two-judge bench referred the petitions challenging the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 to a larger bench.
  • The bench framed five questions to be adjudicated upon by the larger bench.

News Summary: SC upholds validity of Jallikattu

• While delivering its verdict for a batch of pleas challenging Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra laws allowing the traditional bull-taming sport Jallikattu, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the laws.

What did the court hold?

• Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation
  • The top court held that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation.
    • Doctrine of Colourable Legislation means that if a legislature lacks the jurisdiction to enact laws on a specific subject directly, it cannot make laws on it indirectly. In simple words, the doctrine checks if a law has been enacted on a subject indirectly when it is barred to legislate on that topic directly.
  • It relates to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which relates to the prevention of cruelty to animals.
• Observations regarding 2017 amendment
  • The 2017 amendment “minimises cruelty to animals in the concerned sports”.
  • Once it is implemented and read with the rules, the sports will not come under the definition of cruelty defined in the 1960 Act.
  • The amendment has received Presidential assent; hence, there is no flaw in the state action.
• Jallikattu has historical context
  • As per the legislatures of Tamil Nadu, Jallikattu has been going on in Tamil Nadu for the last few centuries and forms a part of its cultural heritage.
  • In this context, the court clarified that it did not want to disrupt the legislature’s view.
• 2017 amendment does not violate Fundamental duties and Fundamental Rights
  • The court also said that the 2017 amendment does not violate Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A (h).
    • 51-A (g) impose duties on Indian citizens to protect the environment.
    • 51-A (h) deals with developing a scientific temper, humanism, spirit of inquiry, and reform.
  • It also held that the amendment didn’t violate Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.