Jallikattu

Context: 

Recently, 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, allowing bull-taming sports like jallikattu, kambala, and bullock-cart races.

About 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. 
• In this sport, men compete against each other to hold on to the humps of agitated bulls that are released into an open arena. 
• However, 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.

Related constitutional articles:

• Article 29(1) of the Constitution states 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.
• Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A (h) impose duties on Indian citizens to protect the environment and develop a scientific temper, humanism, spirit of inquiry, and reform, respectively.
• Article 48 urges the state to endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja case 2014

• A two-judge Bench of the Supreme 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.
• It held that bovine sports were contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 which relate to the duties of persons having charge of animals and define animal cruelty respectively.
• It ruled that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 over-shadows or overrides the so-called tradition and culture, and advised Parliament to “elevate rights of animals to that of constitutional rights so as to protect their dignity and honour”.

Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in 2016

• It prohibited the exhibition or training of bulls as performing animals. 
• However, an exception was carved in the notification, which 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. 
• It was also specified that this exception is subject to conditions such as reducing the pain and suffering of bulls utilised in such sports.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2017 

• Tamil Nadu amended the PCA Act to allow jallikattu in the state. 
• The amending Act sought to preserve the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, and to ensure the survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls.

Arguments supporting Jallikattu:

• In Tamil Nadu, jallikattu is both a religious and cultural event celebrated by the people of the State and its influence extends beyond the confines of caste and creed. 
• A practice which is centuries-old and symbolic of a community’s identity can be regulated and reformed as the human race evolves rather than being completely obliterated.
• Jallikattu is described as a tool for conserving this precious indigenous breed of livestock.
• The traditional and cultural significance of the event and its intertwining with the sociocultural milieu was being taught in high school curriculum so that the significance is maintained beyond generations.

Arguments against Jallikattu:

• Extreme cruelty was inflicted on the animals. Liberty was inherent in every living being, whether it be in any form of life, an aspect that had been recognized by the Constitution.
• Also, there was no material to justify jallikattu as a part of culture. 
• Deaths and injuries caused to humans as well as bulls which had taken place in several districts while conducting jallikattu.
• The critics had equated the event with practices such as sati and dowry, which were also once recognised as part of culture and stopped through legislation.

Verdict of the Constitutional Bench:

• The Bench was tasked with deciding whether Tamil Nadu could preserve jallikattu as its cultural right.
• The five-judge Bench overruled the view taken by a two-judge Bench of the court in its 2014.
• The court held that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is “not a piece of colourable legislation” and that it relates to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which relates to the prevention of cruelty to animals. 
• The 2017 amendment “minimises cruelty to animals in the concerned sports”, the court held that once it’s implemented and read with the rules, the sports will not come under the definition of cruelty defined in the 1960 Act.
• Jallikattu as bovine sports have to be isolated from the manner in which they were earlier practised and organising the sports itself would be permissible, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules.
• Highlighting that Jallikattu has been going on in Tamil Nadu for the last few centuries and forms a part of its cultural heritage, as found by the “legislative exercise” conducted by the legislature, the court clarified that it did not want to disrupt the legislature’s view.
• The court also said that the 2017 amendment does not violate Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A (h).                                                                                                                               

News Source: The Hindu,  Indian Express