Supreme Court Validates Tamil Nadu’s Amendments Allowing Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bull Cart Racing. The Court upheld laws in Karnataka and Maharashtra permitting Kambala and bull cart racing.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench has upheld the amendments made by Tamil Nadu to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, thereby granting permission for the bovine sport Jallikattu. The bench, comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, concluded that the amendments were enacted with the intention to reduce the pain and suffering of bovines while preserving the cultural significance of the sport.
The judgment clarifies that the amendments are not in violation of Article 48 of the Constitution and fall under Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule. It also confirmed the validity of laws permitting Kambala and bull cart racing in Karnataka and Maharashtra. Furthermore, the court determined that the amendments do not infringe Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as they do not violate the rights enshrined in Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h).
The court directed strict implementation of the amended laws and assigned responsibility to the District Magistrate and competent authorities. This ruling overturns the court’s previous stance in May 2014, when it deemed Jallikattu to be in violation of animal rights and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Tamil Nadu Jallikattu Regulation Act of 2009 was subsequently struck down.
Following the 2014 ruling, the Central government issued a notification in January 2016, exempting Jallikattu and bullock cart races from the scope of the PCA Act. However, this notification was challenged in court. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu government passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act in 2017, paving the way for bull-taming sports like Jallikattu to continue.
The court deliberated on several legal questions, including whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is aligned with Entry 17, List III of the Constitution, whether it preserves the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, and whether it ensures the well-being of native bull breeds. It also addressed concerns regarding the legislation’s compliance with Articles 14 and 21, as well as its compatibility with the court’s previous judgments.
Opposing arguments asserted that Jallikattu constituted a bloodsport without the consent of the bulls, invoking Article 14 and emphasizing the need for reasonableness in granting cultural rights. It was further contended that the President should not have assented to the legislation, as it violated the dignity of animals, an issue concerning human sentiment.
The court clarified that Jallikattu does not fall under Article 25’s religious rights or qualify as an essential religious practice for any community.
