The Supreme Court referred to a Constitution Bench to decide whether the people of Tamil Nadu can preserve jallikattu as their cultural heritage under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution and demand its protection.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India referred to a five-judge Bench a batch of petitions filed by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals and activists to strike down the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017.
They contended that the amended laws had opened the gates for the conduct of the popular bull-taming sport in the name of culture and tradition despite a 2014 ban by the Supreme Court.
Importance
It is for the first time the Supreme Court is considering the question of granting constitutional protection to jallikattu as a collective cultural right
The Bench will look into whether the 2017 jallikattu races laws will actually sub-serve the objective of “prevention” of cruelty to animals
Finally, the Bench will examine whether the new Jallikattu laws are “relatable” to Article 48 of the Constitution
What Court will observe?
It is for the first time the Supreme Court is considering the question of granting constitutional protection to jallikattu as a collective cultural right under Article 29 (1), Article 29(1) is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution to protect the educational and cultural rights of citizens.
Though commonly used to protect the interests of minorities, Article 29(1) mandates that “any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same”.
“It has never been looked into whether a State can claim constitutional protection under Article 29 (1) for what it thinks is a cultural right,” Court observed.
The Constitution Bench would also look into whether the 2017 jallikattu and bullock-cart races laws would actually sub-serve the objective of “prevention” of cruelty to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960.
On the other hand, the apex court frames the question, “does it perpetuate cruelty to animals and therefore, can it be said to be a means of cruelty to animals?
The Bench would also consider whether the amended laws — in pith and substance — would ensure “the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls”.
Finally, the Bench would examine whether the new Jallikattu laws are “relatable” to Article 48 of the Constitution, which says it is an endeavour of the State to organise agricultire and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.
In 2014, in the A. Nagaraja judgment, the Supreme Court had held jallikattu as cruelty to bulls.
The PETA petition contends that the 2017 Jallikattu Act and Rules violate the five internationally recognised freedoms — the freedom from hunger, malnutrition and thirst; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.
Login With Google
