The Supreme Court, in its ruling allowing the bull-taming sport of Jallikattu, emphasized that animals, including bulls, cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution or be granted the protection of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life.
The Court stated that judicial adventurism should not be pursued to include bulls in the protected mechanism under Article 21. Additionally, the Court expressed doubts regarding whether arresting a stray bull could trigger a constitutional habeas corpus writ.
It further clarified that animal welfare laws can only be examined at the request of individuals advocating for animal rights.
The Court explained that it is not within its jurisdiction to strike a balance between the pain and suffering experienced by animals and their endurance levels. Responding to arguments that Jallikattu causes unnecessary pain for entertainment, the Court compared it to other activities involving sentient animals, such as horse racing, highlighting the degree of pain and suffering endured by animals in various contexts.
The Court also highlighted that the legislature should decide societally significant matters like these rather than the judiciary. Laws in Karnataka and Maharashtra permitting Kambala and bull cart racing were upheld, with the Court stating that they do not violate relevant constitutional articles.
The Court directed strict implementation of the amended laws, with district magistrates and competent authorities being responsible for enforcement. The ruling follows a previous Supreme Court decision in 2014 that declared Jallikattu as currently practiced to be violative of animal rights and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The 2009 Tamil Nadu Jallikattu Regulation Act was also deemed unconstitutional. Subsequently, a new notification issued by the central government and the 2017 Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act paved the way for the continuation of bull-taming sports like Jallikattu, leading to the present legal challenge and ruling.
