2014 (5) TMI 1121 - SC - Indian Laws

Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act - whether Bulls cannot be used as performing animals, either for the Jallikattu events or Bullock - cart Races in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country - Held that - 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 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 under Section 11 of the Act. Taming of bulls in arena during Jallikattu, as per 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. PCA Act, especially Section 3, coupled with Section 11(1)(m)(ii), as already stated, 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. 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 under Section 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act read with Section 3 of the Act. Hence, there is inconsistency between Section 5 of TNRJ Act and Section 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act. TNRJ Act, in its Objects and Reasons, speaks of ancient culture and tradition and also safety of animals, participants and spectators. PCA Act was enacted at a time when it was noticed that in order to reap maximum gains, the animals were being exploited by human beings, by using coercive methods and by inflicting unnecessary pain. PCA Act was, therefore, passed to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering and for the well-being and welfare of the animals and to preserve the natural instinct of the animal. Over-powering the performing animal was never in the contemplation of the PCA Act and, in fact, under Section 3 of the PCA Act, a statutory duty has been cast on the person who is in-charge or care of the animal to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent infliction on the animal of unnecessary pain or suffering. PCA Act, therefore, cast not only duties on human beings, but also confer corresponding rights on animals, 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 Section 3, Section 11(1)(a), 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 22 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution and hence repugnant to the PCA Act, which is a welfare legislation and hence declared unconstitutional and void, being violative of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, hold that AWBI is right in its stand that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act and hence we uphold the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government, consequently, Bulls cannot be used as performing animals, either for the Jallikattu events or Bullock- cart Races in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country. We, therefore, make the following declarations and directions 1) We declare that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or curtailed, except under Sections 11(3) and 28 of PCA Act. 2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act, be protected and safeguarded by the States, Central Government, Union Territories (in short Governments ), MoEF and AWBI. 3) AWBI and Governments are directed to take appropriate steps to see that the persons-in-charge or care of animals, take reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of animals. 4) AWBI and Governments are directed to take steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals, since their rights have been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act. 5) AWBI is also directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii) scrupulously followed, meaning thereby, that the person-in-charge or care of the animal shall not incite any animal to fight against a human being or another animal. 6) AWBI and the Governments would also see that even in cases where Section 11(3) is involved, the animals be not put to unnecessary pain and suffering and adequate and scientific methods be adopted to achieve the same. 7) AWBI and the Governments should take steps to impart education in relation to human treatment of animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating the spirit of Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution. 8) Parliament is expected to make proper amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the Act and for violation of Section 11, adequate penalties and punishments should be imposed. 9) 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. 10) The Governments would see that if the provisions of the PCA Act and the declarations and the directions issued by this Court are not properly and effectively complied with, disciplinary action be taken against the erring officials so that the purpose and object of PCA Act could be achieved. 11) TNRJ Act is found repugnant to PCA Act, which is a welfare legislation, hence held constitutionally void, being violative or Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. 12) AWBI is directed to take effective and speedy steps to implement the provisions of PCA Act in consultation with SPCA and make periodical reports to the Governments and if any violation is noticed, the Governments should take steps to remedy the same, including appropriate follow-up action.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rights of Animals under the Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion, and ethology.
2. Conduct of Jallikattu and Bullock-cart races in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
3. Provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act).
4. Validity of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (TNRJ Act).
5. MoEF Notification dated 11.07.2011.
6. Repugnancy between TNRJ Act and PCA Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Rights of Animals:
The judgment emphasizes that the welfare and well-being of animals should be the primary consideration, not the interests of organizers, spectators, or participants. The court highlights that animals have inherent dignity and rights, which include protection from unnecessary pain and suffering. The PCA Act, particularly Sections 3 and 11, confers duties on persons in charge of animals to ensure their well-being and prevent unnecessary suffering.

Conduct of Jallikattu and Bullock-cart Races:
The court reviewed extensive evidence and reports detailing the cruelty inflicted on bulls during Jallikattu and Bullock-cart races. The evidence showed that bulls are subjected to extreme pain and suffering, including mutilation, tail twisting, and being forced to perform under distressing conditions. The court concluded that these events inherently involve cruelty and violate the provisions of the PCA Act.

Provisions of the PCA Act:
The PCA Act is a welfare legislation aimed at preventing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. Section 3 mandates that persons in charge of animals must ensure their well-being and prevent unnecessary suffering. Section 11 penalizes various forms of cruelty to animals, including beating, overloading, and inciting animals to fight. The court held that Jallikattu and Bullock-cart races violate these provisions.

Validity of the TNRJ Act:
The TNRJ Act, which regulates Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, was found to be inconsistent with the PCA Act. The court noted that the TNRJ Act prioritizes the interests of organizers and spectators over the welfare of animals. The Act's provisions allowing bull taming and fighting were found to be in direct conflict with the PCA Act's mandate to prevent cruelty to animals. Consequently, the TNRJ Act was declared unconstitutional and void.

MoEF Notification dated 11.07.2011:
The MoEF notification banned the training and exhibition of bulls as performing animals. The court upheld this notification, emphasizing that it was issued to prevent cruelty and ensure the welfare of bulls. The court rejected the argument that Jallikattu and Bullock-cart races have cultural or traditional significance that could override the welfare provisions of the PCA Act.

Repugnancy between TNRJ Act and PCA Act:
The court examined the repugnancy between the TNRJ Act (a State Act) and the PCA Act (a Central Act). It concluded that the PCA Act is a comprehensive welfare legislation intended to cover the entire field of animal welfare, leaving no room for conflicting state laws. The TNRJ Act was found to be repugnant to the PCA Act and was thus declared unconstitutional under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.

Declarations and Directions:
1. Rights guaranteed to bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) cannot be curtailed except under Sections 11(3) and 28 of the PCA Act.
2. The five freedoms (freedom from hunger, thirst, fear, discomfort, pain, and to express normal behavior) should be read into Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act.
3. AWBI and governments must ensure the well-being of animals and prevent unnecessary suffering.
4. AWBI must ensure compliance with Section 11(1)(m)(ii) of the PCA Act, prohibiting incitement of animals to fight.
5. Governments should take disciplinary action against officials who fail to enforce the PCA Act.
6. Parliament is expected to amend the PCA Act to provide effective deterrents and elevate animal rights to constitutional status.
7. The TNRJ Act is declared repugnant to the PCA Act and void.
8. AWBI is directed to implement the PCA Act in consultation with SPCA and report to the governments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the MoEF notification banning the use of bulls as performing animals and declared the TNRJ Act unconstitutional. The judgment reinforces the importance of animal welfare and the need to prevent cruelty, aligning with both national and international perspectives on animal rights.