Case Analysis: Animal Welfare Board Of India V. Union Of India (2023 Insc 548)
Citation:: 2023 INSC 548 - Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench:

• Justices K.M. Joseph, Justices Ajay Rastogi, Justices Aniruddha Bose, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, and Justices C.T. Ravikumar.

Parties:

• Petitioners: Animal Welfare Board of India, PETA, Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, and Animal Equality
• Respondents: Union of India, State of Tamil Nadu, and State of Maharashtra

Brief Facts Of The Case:
The case of Animal Welfare Board v. Union of India (2023 INSC 548) emerged as a significant legal battle concerning the practice of Jallikattu, a traditional bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu. This case was initiated by the Animal Welfare Board, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, and Animal Equality, challenging the constitutionality of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which allowed Jallikattu. Jallikattu involves releasing bulls into a crowd where participants attempt to grab the bull's hump and ride it, showcasing their strength and bravery. The Tamil Nadu government argued that this sport is crucial for preserving the native breed of bulls and promoting cultural heritage.

However, animal rights activists contended that Jallikattu inflicted unnecessary cruelty on animals, contravening the principles laid down in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) and the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja.

Issues:

• Legislative Competence: Did the Tamil Nadu legislature exceed its authority by enacting amendments that conflict with the PCA Act, a central law under Entry 17 of the Concurrent List?
• Cultural Right: Is Jallikattu protected as a cultural right under Article 29(1) of the Constitution of India?
• Breed Preservation: Is Jallikattu essential for the survival and well-being of native bull breeds?
• Constitutional Duties: Do the amendments violate Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution, which mandate the protection of the environment and the development of a scientific temper?
• Reasonableness & Fundamental Rights: Are the amendments arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life)?
• Rule-Making Power: Does the state legislature possess the authority to enact rules under the PCA Act?

Relevant Statutes:

• The Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 21, 29(1), 51A(g), 51A(h), Entry 17 List III (Concurrent List)
• The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960: Section 3(2), Section 11

Petitioner's Arguments:
The petitioners contended that the State Amendments, legalizing Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Race, were fundamentally flawed due to their inherent infliction of pain and suffering upon participating animals. They argued that these amendments contravened the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter 1960 Act), and failed to incorporate any remedial measures to address these legal infirmities.

Furthermore, the petitioners asserted that the subject of Jallikattu did not fall within the legislative purview of the state legislatures, as per Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. They challenged the legislative competence of the State Assemblies to enact such amendments, positing that even presidential assent could not rectify this fundamental incompetency.

Respondent's Arguments:
The respondents countered by asserting that the activities sanctioned by the State Amendments remained intrinsically deleterious and violated Sections 3, 11(1)(a), and 11(1)(m) of the 1960 Act. They contended that the amendments failed to rectify the issues raised in the landmark A. Nagaraja judgment, and argued for an expansive interpretation of the term "person" under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to include sentient beings. The respondents also posited that the amendments were arbitrary and unreasonable, failing to meet the constitutional standard of Article 14.

They sought to intertwine Articles 14, 21, 48, 51-A(h), and 51-A(g) to establish a comprehensive rights framework for animals, advocating that the Fundamental Duty of Indian citizens to demonstrate compassion towards living creatures and foster humanism should translate into corresponding rights for sentient animals against activities causing distress and pain solely for human entertainment.

Court's Reasoning:
The court meticulously examined the 1960 Act and the impact of the Amendment Acts on animal rights in India. It recognized that the 1960 Act was enacted under the legislative competence of Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Act sought to safeguard animal rights by imposing restrictions on human interaction with animals. The court also acknowledged the directive principles enshrined in Article 48 of the Constitution, which mandated the organization of agriculture and animal husbandry along modern and scientific lines. The State's obligation to preserve and improve animal breeds, and prohibit the slaughter of certain animals, was also underscored.

The court delved into the petitioners' assertion that the 1960 Act should effectively translate into tangible animal rights, as the manner in which these bovine sports were conducted directly contravened these provisions. It meticulously evaluated the arguments presented by the Union, three states, and the Animal Welfare Board, contending that these bovine sports were an integral part of their cultural heritage and traditions.

The court concluded that the practices of Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Race had undergone significant transformations, and the factual circumstances at the time of the A. Nagaraja judgment could not be equated with the present scenario. The court rejected the petitioner's claim that the Amendment Acts were mere cosmetic alterations designed to circumvent judicial pronouncements.

The court further scrutinized whether Jallikattu and other bovine sports fell outside the legislative ambit of the three legislative bodies. It concluded that the amendments, when read in conjunction with the consequential Rules or Notifications, effectively modified the conduct of these sports and did not attract the legal issues highlighted in the 1960 Act.

The court addressed the contention that a ban on Bullock Cart Race could lead to the decline of a specific breed of cattle used for agricultural purposes. However, it refuted the argument that the Maharashtra Amendment Act was legislated solely for the preservation, protection, and improvement of stock and the prevention of animal diseases.

The court analyzed whether the provisions of the 1960 Act were violated, as determined in the A. Nagaraja case, which predated the three Amendment Statutes. It held that even if the court were to find these bovine sports in contravention of the 1960 Act, the apprehended deprivation would fall under the purview of the reasonable restrictions clause enshrined in Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.

Judgment:
The court held that the Tamil Nadu Legislature's recognition of Jallikattu as a cultural practice was beyond judicial scrutiny. It emphasized that the Amendment Acts sought to minimize pain and suffering inflicted on animals, creating a distinct scenario from the A. Nagaraja case. The court reiterated that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is predicated upon the necessity of employing animals for load-carrying and entertainment, while mandating the minimization of their pain and suffering. It validated the procedural aspects of obtaining presidential assent. The court clarified that the Constitution does not confer fundamental rights upon animals, leaving the conferral of such rights solely within the purview of the legislature.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India case represents a pivotal juncture in the discourse on animal rights and cultural practices in India. The Supreme Court's verdict underscores the delicate balance between preserving cultural heritage and ensuring animal welfare. The judgment acknowledges the legislative prerogative to regulate such practices, while emphasizing the importance of minimizing animal suffering. This case serves as a precedent for future legal interpretations concerning animal rights and the interplay between cultural traditions and constitutional principles.