ABSTRACT Thus Madras High Court in 2006 banned

ABSTRACT”Wheneverthere is a conflict between the customs and the law, there are two outcomes ofthe conflict. One is where the law changes the custom and society and the otheris when the customs and society changes the law”. The purpose of making a casecommentary on this particular case is due to the after effects of thepostponement of the judgement on the public of south India and to study therelevancy and compatibility of the judgement. The paper also aims in providingan alternative Even though I stand by and support several view points of thecourts, I still consider it would be better for the court to have gone througha harmonious approach. The judgement was solely based on the exhibits submittedby the councils and the pervious. I have briefly explained the obnoxiousreactions from the public towards the judgement and the order of the governmentin this paper. According to my analysis the view point of the government hasn’tbeen noted enough rather the validation of the Acts and Orders were widely concentrated.The court was being too much stringent on the previous judgement such a waythat it fails to consider the sentimental feelings of the society and the benefitsto them thereof.

Hence there were certain curable flows on part of the courtthough the judgement cannot be said has completely irrelevant.   INTRODUCTIONIndia is a country with vast divergence, culture, customs andpractices which has a direct influences on the eco-system. Though these customsare sources of law many of the customs cannot be in conformity with statute. Thelegislature and judiciary take steps in eradicating such practices from thesociety. The judgement has proved to be a milestone in perseverance of cultureand the safety of the animals. The issues in consideration of the case includesone, challenging the Madras High Court judgement on validating the Tamil NaduRegulation of Jallikattu Act (hereafter TNRJ Act) and challenging thenotification passed by the government and other, challenging the Bombay HighCourt Judgement validating the 2011 notification whereby bulls were added inthe prohibitory list of performing animals.Jallikattu and Rekla race are represented as a sport for braverywhich uses trained bulls and participants. These bulls are subjected to immensecruelty before sending them through the entrance which leads to their violentbehaviour on playground.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The deaths and injuries during the game shows itsunhealthy nature. Thus Madras High Court in 2006 banned the practiceof Jallikattu and rekla racing, which was upheld by the Supreme Courtbench headed by Justice K.S. Radakrishnan in this case.

An interim orders werepassed by the court since till 2014 permitting both the sports, until the judgementwhich strictly banned the sports and held that the rights guaranteed underSections 3 and 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (hereafter PCA Act) andArticles 51A (g) & (h) cannot be curtailed, except for procedures laid downunder Sections 22 of PCA Act, and instructed the government to protect andsafeguard the freedoms of animals. After the TNRJ Act came into force, the Actwas challenged under Art 32 of constitution. Where the Supreme Court set asidethe judgment of the Madras High Court which validated the Amended TNRJ Act,2009 and held the Act as unconstitutional and violative to PCA Act and upheldthe judgment of Bombay High Court which validated the Ministry of Environmentand Forest (hereafter MoEF) notification of 2011 including bulls in the list ofanimals prohibited from being trained.

 PARTIES:In the initial petition i.e., in the writ of Mandamus filed underArt.

226 of Indian Constitution, against Deputy Superintendent of Police of2006, the parties were1.     Petitioner:   K. Muniasamy Thevar, then vice-president ofKarisalkulam panchayat for whom L. Shaji Chellan appeared before the court2.     Respondent:    Deputy Superintend of Police for whomGovernment Advocate J. Viswanathan appearedThe judgementwas held by Madras High court bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi and PinkiChandra Ghose.

Later on, in2014 in the SLP of Animal welfare board vs. A Nagaraja & other (2014) 7 SCC547 the parties were1.    Petitioner or Appallants:    AnimalWelfare Board of India (hereafter AWBI) and People for Ethical Treatment forAnimals (hereafter PETA). Sunil Kr. Jain, Aneesh Mittal, Sachin Sharma, A.K. Soni, G.

Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohd, L.K. Pandey. Dr. Adish Agarwala appeared.2.   Respondents:   A.

Nagaraja and other 11 petitions from 2011to 2014 clubbed together for whom AdditionalGeneral, A. Mariarputham, Raj Panjwani were the counsel. PROCEDURALFACTS:The 2006 and2014 petition was initally filed in Madras High Court as a writ of Mandamus2under Art 226 and in 2007 the division bench consisting of Justices ElipeDharma Rao and P.

P.S. Janarthana Raja reversed the previous judgement againstwhich several SLPs were filed in Supreme Court under Art.

1363,Art 1334,Art 1425and Art. 326and the bench headed by Justice K.S. Radakrishnan granted the leave. HISTORICAL FACTS:Jallikattu of Tamil Nadu and Bullock cart racing of Maharashtrawere being practiced for over 2500 and 450 years respectively. The term Jallikatturefers to silver or gold coins tied on the bulls’ horns. In Tamil Nadu, it is asports played on the third day of Pongal.

On this day a running bull isreleased into a crowd, where participants either, grab and ride on the bull tostop it, or take the flag attached in the bull’s horn7. Thebulls which perform well in this game are used for breeding and they fetch highprice in the market. Similarly rekla race of Maharashtra is organised afterMakara Sankaranthi, on chaitra astami. On this day various cart ownersorganises bullock cart race where bullock carts run miles and the winning teamare rewarded. The roller coaster of the bull games controversy started in theyear 2004 with the petition filed by the South Indian Humanitarian League andBlue Cross of India to the Petitions’ Committee of the TN state legislature toban Jallikattu and other sports using bulls. Though the judgement of the saidpetitions held by Justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla permitted the “sport” with arider, that the bulls used in the game should be unharmed.  In 2006 judgement held by Madras High Court byJustice R. Banumathi and Pinki Chandra Ghose, by expanding the scope on a writof mandamus8filed against a police officer for wilful omission in granting permission forthe condonations filed by villagers seeking permission for conducting the gameby Ramanathapuram Police the court along with dismissing the writ withreference to the 1996 judgement of Panaji Bench, Bombay High Court, bannedconducting all games involving harsh training of animals like rekla race, oxenrace and jallikattu.

This strengthened the then PCA Act, 1960. Whereas in 2007the division bench9consisting of Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja took a harmoniousconstruction and enabled regulatory measures to ensure safety of the animalsinstead of previous complete restriction, this order was later on overruled by threejudges’ bench of Supreme Court.The apex court in 2008 granted permission for conducting rekla raceby limiting the race field distance to 15m radius. The Tamil Nadu governmentthen passed TNRJ Act to do away with this judgement, against which AWBI andPETA filed writ petition challenged in the Division Bench Judgment on the basisof PCA Act, MoEF Notification 2011.

Another set of SLPs were filed again theBombay High Court upholding the MoEF Notification 2011 and the corrigendumissued by the Government prohibiting exhibition and training of animal, ofwhich A. Nagaraja father of a participant who died in the course of game andothers, and AWBI and other animal welfare organisation working for theprotection of the animals were parties, the court held the final judgement toban both the games stating that these games as violation to S. 5 to S.11 of thePCA Act and fundamental duties, under Art 51A (g) and (h)10of the Constitution. RELIEF:The relief claimed by the parties were to clarify whether 1.

     the TNRJAct was in repugnancy and in violation to PCA Act 1960, 2.     Jallikattand rekla race promotes cruelty in the name of culture 3.     The BombayHigh Court judgement was justified in upholding the 2011 notification of thecentral government.ARGUMENTS:From the judgement, the appellants argued on the basis of physicaland mental cruelty faced by the bulls, repugnancy of the Act to PCA Act and manyreports, affidavits and photographs from certified authorities, which talksabout the animal behaviour prior and after the game highlighting the crueltyover bulls during the games. It was also argued that TNRJ Act doesn’t have theeffect of a law since the President has not assented it.

Furthermore forcing ananimal to take part in such game was against Art.51A (g) and Art. 2111in addition to being in violation to S.3 and 11 of PCA Act.

Organizers ofJallikattu and rekla race took a stand by stating that the game was conductedduring the days of festival which is being practised for years and proper carehas been taken by the committee members and the bull owners ensuring its safetyand no cruelty as mentioned under S.11(1)(a) is meted out. It was furtherargued that the presence of collectors, doctors and police officials etc onduty ensures such cruelty doesn’t take place and also requested to regulate theevent rather than stopping it. These apprehensions were meet by TNRJ Act. Inaddition to this it was argued by the state that non applicability of ticketsfor the event excludes them from being a part of S.

22 of PCA Act. The matter ofprevious notifications of MoEF was also discussed with reference to N.R. Nair& Others Vs U.

O.I12,where the court formed a committee to discuss the corrigendum of exclusion ofdogs from the initial list whereas the same was not done at the presentsituation. OUTCOME OF THE CASE:The Special Leave petition was granted and the case was disposed,setting aside the Madras High Court order of upholding the TNRJ Act, holding theAct unconstitutional and void, upheld the Bombay High Court judgementvalidating 2011 notification whereby bull were included in the list of animalsprohibited from being exhibited and trained.APPLICATION:The judgementin this case strengthened the PCA Act, 1960 and elevated the rights of theanimals to that of Art 21 and imposed Art 51 of constitution as a strictobligation upon the citizens. It also held that spectators would also be hurt,since the requirement of 8 feet high barricades were not emulated andguaranteed rights under S.3 and 11 of PCA Act r/w Art.51A (g) & (h) cannotbe curtailed, unless as per S.

11(3) and 28 of PCA Act. Also recommended thestate and other authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure the protectionof the freedoms. The TNRJ Act 2009 was held violative to Art.

254(1). ANALYSISThe judgement starts with a brief summary of the case followed byarguments and the holding. The decision of Supreme Court was appropriate althoughit cannot be ignored that there were alternative methods available. Thejudgement has strengthened and encouraged the animal protection workers andlaws to protect the rights of animals. But instead of banning the game, thecourt could have included regulations and rules. The logical reasoning wasirrational as the court has granted permission for slaughtering animals forreligious purpose which contradicts the protection of the animals. REGARDING THE REPUGNANCY NATURE OF THE TNRJ ACT WITH RESPECT TO PCAACT, 1960:It has to be noted that Entry 1713 ofList 3 guarantees the right to frame laws on the said subject to both State andUnion government.

The PCA Act was enacted in 1960 for this purpose. In 2009 theTN State government passed TNRJ Act which was argued to be repugnant to the1960 Act. This entry indirectly implies that such laws cannot be made whichcould be hazardous with respect to purpose of the entry. The evidences submittedby the AWBI and PETA where cruelty on animals are shown cannot be left blind.The animal which is being taken care so well and trained require an externalpressure to force them behave in such a manner as in the games, which iscertainly in direct conflict with the Act. The repugnancy arises only whenthere is any conflict between both acts and when there is an overlap betweenthe provisions of the Acts. But here the 2009 Act cannot be repugnant to 1960 becausethe 2009 Act can be viewed as an extension to that of 1960 Act.

Although therecent act permits the exhibition and training of animal, prohibited in the1960 Act. But the Act provides strict regulation over the rules and health ofthe bulls. WITH REGARDS TO PROMOTION OF CRUELTY:The game is a cruelty not only towards the animals but also towardsparticipants and spectators. The increase in the number of deaths and injuredwhile conducting the game cannot be ignored. The responsibility of State ismuch wider. Public health being a matter under State list have equal importanceas ensuring public interest.

Thus the Act which has a direct impact over thehealth and safety of the public cannot be encouraged. Art 19 (1) (g) has giventhe right to practice, profess and carry any occupation trade or business andalso forbids to force any citizen to practice profession hence the State cannotforce the citizen to engage in non-profit trade in the name of Agriculture. Thoughbanning the sports could end the physical and mental torments faced by thebulls it could also affect in slaughtering of them and leads to theirextinction. This is against the Biodiversity Act 2002. CONCLUSIONThe Court laid down the aspects of Article 51-A (g)and (h), Fundamental Duties on the part of the citizens and extended the scopeof Art.

21 to the animals. It is indeed a ‘dangerous sport’. Considering thenumber of people being injured and died and the cruelty and harassment faced.As said by Mahatma Gandhi “The greatness of anation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.Treating an animal with cruelty for it’s existence doesn’t make an idealmethodology. But instead of banishing regulating is better.1Civil appeal no5389 of 2014, (2014) 7 SCC 5472 Shukla VN,2015,Constitution of India EBC, Lucknow , K.

Muniasamy Thevar V/S DeputySuperintendent Of Police3 VN  Shukla,2015,p. 5344 VN Shukla,2015, p.5245 JN Pandey, 2015, p. 5546 Bakshi, 2016,Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon7 Mohamed, n.d,behist, Available from:https://www.

behist.com/history-jallikattu-tamil-nadu/ 8 K. Muniasamy Thevar V/S Deputy Superintendent Of Police 9 MohamedImranullah, n.d, Hindu, Available from:http://www.

thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/A-tussle-between-judges-and-jallikattu-supporters-on-who-cares-more-for-bulls/article17078293.ece10 VN  Shukla,2015,p. 38711 VN  Shukla,2015,p.

22712 SCI, n.d,Khanoon India, Available from:https://www.ecolex.org/details/court-decision/nr-nair-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-1016af55-5956-4cf5-9bb3-00033c3304e3/AIR 2000 Ker 340, (2001) 6 SCC 8413 Schedule 7 List 3


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out