advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Apex court held 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.= Animal Welfare Board of India …. Appellant Versus A. Nagaraja & Ors. …. Respondents = 2014 ( May. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41513

     Apex court held thatJallikattu, 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.=

Rights of Animals under our Constitution, laws,  culture,
tradition, religion and ethology, which we have to  examine,  in  connection
with the conduct of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races etc.  in  the  States  of
Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with particular reference to the  provisions  of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short  ‘the  PCA  Act’),
the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009  (for  short  “TNRJ  Act”)
and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government  under
Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act.=
ABWI, a statutory Board, established under Section 4 of  the  PCA  Act
for the promotion of animal welfare and for the purpose  of  protecting  the
animals from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering has  taken  up
a specific stand that Jallikattu, Bull/Bullock-cart  races  etc.,  as  such,
conducted  in  the  States  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  Maharashtra  respectively,
inherently violate the provisions of the PCA Act, particularly,  Section  3,
Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) and Section 22 of the PCA Act. =

Chapter  7.1.2  of   the   guidelines   of   OIE,   recognizes   five
internationally recognized freedoms for animals, such as:

     i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;

    ii) freedom from fear and distress;

   iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;

    iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and

     v)     freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.=

DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY:
31.   Section 11(3) carves  out  exceptions  in  five  categories  of  cases
mentioned in Section 11(3)(a) to (e), which are as follows:
      “11(3)  Nothing in this section shall apply to-


         (a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-
             roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner; or


         (b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers  or  by  such
             other methods as may be prescribed; or


         (c) the extermination or  destruction  of  any  animal  under  the
             authority of any law for the time being in force; or


         (d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or


         (e) the commission or omission of any act in  the  course  of  the
             destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as
             food for mankind unless such  destruction  or  preparation  was
             accompanied  by  the  infliction   of   unnecessary   pain   or
             suffering.”


Exceptions are incorporated based on the “doctrine  of  necessity”. =

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.



78.   Appeals, transferred cases and the Writ Petition  are disposed of  as
above, setting aside the judgment of the Madras High Court,  but  upholding
the judgment of Bombay High Court  and  the  notification  dated  11.7.2011
issued by the Central Government.  In the facts and  circumstances  of  the
case, there will be no order as to costs.
2014 ( May. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41513
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE



                                                              REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5387   OF 2014
             (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007)

Animal Welfare Board of India                      …. Appellant


                             Versus


A. Nagaraja & Ors.                                    …. Respondents

                                    WITH

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5388  OF 2014
             (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10281 of 2009)

                   CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  5389-5390   OF 2014
         (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18804-18805 of 2009)

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5391   OF 2014
             (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13199 of 2012)

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5392   OF 2014
             (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13200 of 2012)

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5393  OF 2014
             (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4598 of 2013)

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5394   OF 2014
           (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12789   of 2014)
                                         (@ SLP(C) CC…4268 of 2013)

                      WRIT PETITION (C) NO.145 OF 2011

                                     AND

               T.C. (C) Nos.84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 127 of 2013


K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.


1.    Leave granted.


2.    We are, in these cases, concerned with an issue of seminal  importance
with regard to the Rights of Animals under our Constitution, laws,  culture,
tradition, religion and ethology, which we have to  examine,  in  connection
with the conduct of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races etc.  in  the  States  of
Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with particular reference to the  provisions  of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short  ‘the  PCA  Act’),
the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009  (for  short  “TNRJ  Act”)
and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government  under
Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act.

3.    We have two sets of cases here, one set challenges the Division  Bench
Judgment of the Madras High Court at Madurai dated 09.03.2007, filed by  the
Animal Welfare Board of India (for short “AWBI”), Writ Petition No.  145  of
2011 filed by an organisation called PETA, challenging the validity of  TNRJ
Act and few other writ petitions transferred from the Madras High  Court  at
Madurai challenging/enforcing the validity of the  MoEF  Notification  dated
11.07.2011  and  another  set  of  cases,  like  SLP  No.  13199  of   2012,
challenging the Division Bench judgment  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  dated
12.03.2012  upholding  the  MoEF  Notification  dated  11.07.2011  and   the
corrigendum issued  by  the  Government  of  Maharashtra  dated   24.08.2011
prohibiting  all  Bullock-cart  races,  games,  training,  exhibition   etc.
Review Petition No. 57 of 2012 was filed against the judgment of the  Bombay
High Court, which was dismissed by the High  Court  on  26.11.2012,  against
which SLP No. 4598 of 2013 has been filed.

4.    ABWI, a statutory Board, established under Section 4 of  the  PCA  Act
for the promotion of animal welfare and for the purpose  of  protecting  the
animals from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering has  taken  up
a specific stand that Jallikattu, Bull/Bullock-cart  races  etc.,  as  such,
conducted  in  the  States  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  Maharashtra  respectively,
inherently violate the provisions of the PCA Act, particularly,  Section  3,
Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) and Section 22 of the PCA Act.   ABWI,  through  its
reports, affidavits  and  photographs,  high-lighted  the  manner  in  which
Jallikattu is being conducted, especially in the Southern Part of the  State
of Tamil Nadu, and how  the  bulls  involved  are  physically  and  mentally
tortured  for  human  pleasure  and  enjoyment.   Details  have  also   been
furnished by the 2nd respondent, in  SLP  No.  13199  of  2012,  along  with
photographs explaining how the  Bullock-cart  race  is  being  conducted  in
various parts of the State of Maharashtra and the torture and cruelty  meted
out to the bullocks.  ABWI has taken up the stand that,  by  no  stretch  of
imagination, it  can  be  gainsaid  that  Jallikattu  or  Bullock-cart  race
conducted, as such, has any historical, cultural or religious  significance,
either in the State of Tamil Nadu or in the State of Maharashtra  and,  even
assuming so, the welfare legislation like PCA Act would supersede the  same,
being a Parliamentary legislation.   ABWI has also  taken  up  the  specific
stand that the bulls involved in Jallikattu, Bullock-cart race etc. are  not
“performing animals” within the meaning of Sections 21 and  22  of  the  PCA
Act  and  that  the  MoEF,  in  any  view,  was  justified  in  issuing  the
notification dated 11.7.2011 banning the exhibition  of  Bulls  or  training
them as performing animals on accepting the stand taken by  it  before  this
Court.  Further, it has also taken  up  the  stand  that  the  TNRJ  Act  is
repugnant to the provisions of the PCA Act and  the  rules  made  thereunder
and State cannot give effect to it in the  absence  of  the  assent  of  the
President under Article 254 of the Constitution  of  India.   Further,  ABWI
also submits that the Bulls which are forced to participate in the race  are
subjected  to  considerable  pain  and  suffering,  which  clearly  violates
Section 3 and Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) of  the  PCA  Act  read  with  Article
51A(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence  exhibition  or
training them as performing animals be completely banned.

5.    Organizers of Jallikattu  and  Bullock-cart  races,  individually  and
collectively, took up the stand that these events take place at the  end  of
harvest season (January and February) and sometimes during temple  festivals
which is traditionally and closely associated with village life,  especially
in the Southern Districts  of  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu.   Organizers  of
Bullock-cart races in the State of Maharashtra also took the stand that  the
same is going on for the last more  than  three  hundred  years  by  way  of
custom and tradition and that extreme care and protection  are  being  taken
not to cause any injury or pain to the bullocks  which  participate  in  the
event.  Organizers also submitted  that  such  sport  events  attract  large
number of  persons  which  generates  revenue  for  the  State  as  well  as
enjoyment to the participants.  Further, it was also stated that no  cruelty
is meted out to the performing bulls in Bullock-cart races so as to  violate
Section  11(1)(a)  of  the  PCA  Act  and  the  District  Collector,  Police
Officials etc. are always on duty to prevent cruelty on animals.    Further,
it is also their stand that the sport events can only be regulated  and  not
completely prohibited and the State of Tamil Nadu has  already  enacted  the
TNRJ Act, which takes care of the apprehensions expressed by the Board.


6.    The State of Tamil Nadu has also taken up the stand that every  effort
shall be made to see that bulls are not subjected to any cruelty  so  as  to
violate the provisions of the PCA Act and the sport event can  be  regulated
as per the provisions of the TNRJ Act.  Further, it  was  also  pointed  out
that the bulls taking part in the Jallikattu,  Bullock-cart  Race  etc.  are
specifically identified, trained, nourished for  the  purpose  of  the  said
sport event and owners of  Bulls  spend  considerable  money  for  training,
maintenance and upkeep of the bulls.  Further, the State has also  taken  up
the stand that the Bulls are “performing animals”, and  since  there  is  no
sale of tickets in the events conducted, Section 22 will not apply, so  also
the notification dated 11.7.2011.   State has also taken up the  stand  that
complete ban on such races would not be in public interest  which  is  being
conducted after harvest season and  sometimes  during  temple  festivals  as
well.   The State of Maharashtra has not  challenged  the  judgment  of  the
Bombay High Court and hence we have to take it that the State is  in  favour
of banning the  exhibition  or  training  of  Bulls,  whether  castrated  or
otherwise as performing animals.


7.    MoEF, as early as on 2.3.1991,  issued a  notification  under  Section
22 of PCA Act banning training and exhibition  of  bears,  monkeys,  tigers,
panthers and dogs, which was challenged by the  Indian  Circus  Organization
before the Delhi High Court but, later, a corrigendum  was  issued,  whereby
dogs were excluded from the notification.  On the direction  issued  by  the
Delhi High Court, a Committee was constituted and, based on  its  report,  a
notification dated 14.10.1998 was issued excluding dogs  from  its  purview,
the legality of the notification was challenged before this Court in  N.  R.
Nair Others v. Union of India and Others (2001) 6 SCC 84, which  upheld  the
notification.  Later, MoEF issued  a  fresh  notification  dated  11.7.2011,
specifically including “Bulls” also,  so  as  to  ban  their  exhibition  or
training as performing animals, while this Court was seized of the matter.


8.    MoEF has now abruptly taken up the stand that though “Bull”  has  been
included in the  list  of  animals,  not  to  be  exhibited  or  trained  as
“performing animal” vide Notification dated 11.07.2011, it has been  pointed
out that, in order to strike a balance and to safeguard the interest of  all
stakeholders,  including  animals,  and  keeping  in  mind  the  historical,
cultural and religious significance of the event, and with a view to  ensure
that  no  unnecessary  pain  or  suffering  is  caused   to   the   animals,
participants as well as spectators, the Government proposes to exempt  bulls
participating in Jallikattu in the State of Tamil Nadu from the  purview  of
the Notification dated 11.07.2011, subject to the guidelines, copy of  which
has been provided along with the affidavit filed by  the  Deputy  Secretary,
MoEF.

9.    Shri Raj Panjwani, learned senior counsel appearing for AWBI  as  well
as for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011, submitted  that  the
event Jallikattu, even if conducted following  the  TNJR  Act,  would  still
violate the provisions of PCA Act,  especially  Section  11(1)(a).   Learned
senior counsel submitted that Jallikattu, as an event, involves causing  the
Bull pain and suffering and cannot be free  from  cruelty  and  hence  falls
within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a).  Further, it was pointed  out  that,
during Jallikattu, the Bulls, it is observed, carry out a  flight  response,
indicating  both  fear  and  pain  and  suffering.    Shri   Panjwani   made
considerable stress on the words “or  otherwise”  in  Section  11(1)(a)  and
submitted that any act which inflicts unnecessary pain or  suffering  on  an
animal is prohibited unless it is specifically permitted under  any  of  the
provisions of PCA Act or the rules made  thereunder.    Shri  Panjwani  also
submitted that since the event Jallikattu, as  such,  is  an  offence  under
Section 11(1)(a), through a State Act,  it  can  neither  be  permitted  nor
regulated and hence the State Act  is  void  under  Article  245(1)  of  the
Constitution, in the absence of any Presidential Assent.

10.   Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel  appearing  for  State  of
Tamil Nadu, referring to Section 11(3) of PCA Act, submitted  that  the  Act
does not prohibit the infliction of  all  forms  of  pain  or  suffering  on
animals and hence Section 11(1)(a) has to be read  and  understood  in  that
context.  Referring to Sections  11(1)(a),  (g),  (h),  (j),  (m)  and  (n),
learned senior counsel submitted that the expression  “unnecessary  pain  or
suffering”  is  not  used  in  those  clauses  and  hence  the  events  like
Jallikattu, which do not cause  that  much  of  pain  or  suffering  on  the
animal, cannot be completely prohibited, but could only by regulated.

11.   Shri Bali,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  organizers,
highlighted the historical and cultural importance of Jallikattu  event  and
submitted that, taking into consideration the nature of the event, the  same
would not cause any  unnecessary  pain  or  suffering  to  the  Bulls  which
participate in that event, so as to violate Section 3  or  Section  11(1)(a)
of PCA Act.  Learned senior counsel submitted  that  such  events  could  be
regulated under the regulations  framed  under  TNRJ  Act  as  well  as  the
additional safeguards  taken  by  the  State  Government  and  the  proposed
guidelines framed by MoEF.  Learned senior counsel also submitted  that  the
mere fact that there has been some violation of the  regulations  would  not
mean that the entire event be banned in  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  which,
according to the learned senior counsel, will not  be  in  public  interest.
Learned senior counsel also referred to the manner in which such events  are
being conducted world-over, after taking proper precaution  for  the  safety
of the animals used in those events.

12.   We  have  to  examine  the  various  issues  raised  in  these  cases,
primarily keeping in mind the welfare and the well-being of the animals  and
not from the stand point  of  the  Organizers,  Bull  tamers,  Bull  Racers,
spectators,  participants  or  the  respective   States   or   the   Central
Government, since we are dealing with a welfare legislation of  a  sentient-
being, over which human-beings have domination and the standard we  have  to
apply in deciding the issue on hand is the “Species Best Interest”,  subject
to just exceptions, out of human necessity.
Bulls –Behavioral ethology
13.   Bulls (Bos Indicus) are herbivores, prey by nature adopted to  protest
themselves when threatened engaging in a  ‘flight  response’,  that  is  run
away stimulus, which they find when threatening.  Bulls,  in  that  process,
use their horns, legs, or brute force to protect themselves from  threat  or
harm.  Bulls are often considered to be  herd  animals.   Bulls  move  in  a
relaxed manner if  they  are  within  a  herd  or  even  with  other  Bulls.
Individual Bull exhibits immense anxiety if  it  is  sorted  away  from  the
herd.  Bulls vocalize when they are forced away from the rest  of  the  herd
and vocalization is an indicator  of  stress.   Bulls  exhibit  a  fight  or
flight response when exposed to a perceived threat.  Bulls are  more  likely
to flee than fight, and in most cases they fight, when agitated.


14.   Bulls usually stand to graze and pattern of grazing behavior  of  each
herd member is relatively similar, which moves  slowly  across  the  pasture
with the muzzle close to the ground and  they  ruminate  resting.   Bull  is
known to be having resting behavior and  will  avoid  source  of  noise  and
disturbance and choose non-habitual resting sites if the preferred ones  are
close to the noise or disturbance, which is  the  natural  instinct  of  the
Bull.   Study conducted  also  disclosed  that  Bulls  have  long  memories.
Factors mentioned above are the natural instincts of Bulls.


15.   Bulls, as  already  indicated,  accordingly  to  the  animal  behavior
studies, adopt flight  or  fight  response,  when  they  are  frightened  or
threatened and this instinctual response to a perceived threat  is  what  is
being exploited in Jallikattu or  Bullock-cart  races.   During  Jallikattu,
many animals are observed to engage in a flight response as they try to  run
away from arena when they experience fear  or  pain,  but  cannot  do  this,
since the area is completely  enclosed.    Jallikattu  demonstrates  a  link
between actions of humans and the fear, distress  and  pain  experienced  by
bulls.   Studies  indicate  that  rough  or  abusive   handling   of   Bulls
compromises welfare and for increasing Bulls fear, often, they  are  pushed,
hit, prodded, abused, causing mental as well as physical harm.

JALLIKATTU
16.   Jallikattu is a Tamil word, which comes from  the  term  “Callikattu”,
where “Calli” means coins and “Kattu” means a package.    Jallikattu  refers
to silver or gold coins tied on the bulls’ horns.  People,  in  the  earlier
time, used to fight to get at the  money  placed  around  the  bulls’  horns
which depicted as an act of bravery.   Later, it became  a  sport  conducted
for entertainment and was called “Yeruthu Kattu”, in  which  a  fast  moving
bull was corralled with ropes around its neck.  Started as a simple  act  of
bravery, later, assumed different forms and shapes like Jallikattu  (in  the
present form), Bull Race etc., which is based on the concept  of  flight  or
fight.    Jallikattu  includes  Manjuvirattu,  Oormaadu,  Vadamadu,  Erudhu,
Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of bulls.


17.   AWBI gives a first hand information of the manner in which  the  event
of Jallikattu is being conducted in Southern parts of  Tamil  Nadu,  through
three reports submitted along with the additional  affidavit  filed  by  the
Secretary of  the  Animal  Welfare  Board,  MoEF,  Government  of  India  on
7.9.2013, flouting the various directions issued by this Court,  High  Court
and the regulatory provisions of TNRJ Act.  Dr.  Manilal  Vallyate  and  Mr.
Abhishek Raje, the Observors  of  AWBI,  have  submitted  the  first  report
regarding Jallikattu events that took  place  at  Avnlapuram  on  14.1.2013,
Palamedu on 15.1.2013 and Alanganallur on 16.1.2013.   Relevant portions  of
the reports read as under:


      “I. Executive Summary


      In a comprehensive investigation  authorized  by  the  Animal  Welfare
      Board of India, investigators observed jallikattu events at venues  in
      Avaniapuram, Palamedu and Alanganallur on the 14th, 15th and  16th  of
      January 2013, respectively.   During the course of the  investigation,
      one bull died and many more were injured.  Investigators observed that
      bulls were  forced  to  participate  and  were  deliberately  taunted,
      tormented, mutilated, stabbed, beaten, chased and  denied  even  their
      most basic needs, including food, water and sanitation.  The  findings
      of this  investigation  clearly  show  that  bulls  who  are  used  in
      jallikattu are subjected to extreme cruelty and unmitigated suffering.


      All the acts of cruelty to animals detailed in the below  observations
      contravene the orders of the Supreme Court of India and  Madurai  High
      Court, which mandate that bulls should not be harmed  or  tortured  in
      any way.  Such animal abuse is also in violation of  numerous  clauses
      of section 11(1) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.


      II. Welfare Implications and Violations of the Law
     1. Ear Cutting/Mutilation
      At least 80 per cent of the bulls observed had their  ears  cut,  with
      three-fourths of the external ear pinna absent.  When asked about  the
      reason for the mutilation, many bull owners explained that by  cutting
      the ear, the animal would be able to hear sounds even from  the  back,
      which they deemed to be very important while the animals  are  in  the
      jallikattu arena.
      Welfare Concerns
      Cutting the external ear in no way helps to improve a bull’s  hearing.
      Instead, the bull loses his natural ability to receive sounds  signals
      with appropriate positioning and movement of the ear  pinna.   Cutting
      the ear causes intense pain and distress as  the  external  ear  pinna
      consists of cartilage and is highly vascular with a rich nerve supply.
       The procedure leads to physiological, neuroendocrine and  behavioural
      changes in the animal.  Bulls strongly resist  being  touched  on  the
      head or around the ear because of  painful  past  experiences.    Many
      animals get agitated if someone tries to do so.
      Violation
      This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention  of  Cruelty
      to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any  animal  in  a  way
      that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(l), which
      prohibits the mutilation of an animal’s body.


     2. Fracture and Dislocation of Tail Bones
      Many bulls suffered from dislocated or even amputated tails caused  by
      deliberate pulling and twisting.
      Welfare Concerns
      The tail, which has nearly 20 small bones,  is  an  extension  of  the
      spinal cord and vertebral column.   Dislocation and  fracture  of  the
      tail vertebrae are extremely painful conditions.
      Violation
      This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention  of  Cruelty
      to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any  animal  in  a  way
      that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(l), which
      prohibits the mutilation of an animal’s body.


     3. Frequent Defecation and Urination
      Ninety-five per cent of the bulls were soiled with faeces  from  below
      the base of their tails and across the majority of their hindquarters.
      Welfare Concerns
      Bulls were forced to stand together in accumulated waste for hours  on
      end.  Frequent defecation and urination are  indicators  of  fear  and
      pain in cattle.
      Violation
      Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to  Animals  Act,  1960,
      prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or
      suffering.


     4. Injuries and Death
      Because  of  the  absence  of  a  contained   “collection   area”   in
      Avaniapuram, a bull died after  a  head-on  collision  with  a  moving
      passenger bus.  In Palamedu, a terrified bull  sustained  a  crippling
      leg injury after he jumped more than 10 feet  off  a  narrow  road  to
      escape a mob carrying sticks.  In Alanganallur, two  bulls,  who  were
      terrified after being chased by onlookers, ran amok and fell into open
      wells in an agriculture field.  Both sustained serious injuries.
      Welfare Concerns
      An injury involving muscles, bones, nerves and blood vessels causes an
      animal tremendous pain.   A complete fracture  of  a  lower  joint  in
      large animals takes time to heal and leads to a deformation of the leg
      that leaves the animal unfit for any kind of work.  Bulls also  suffer
      from chronic pain as well as mental trauma brought on  by  the  injury
      and the handlers’ and bull tamers’ cruel treatment.
      Violation
      Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to  Animals  Act,  1960,
      prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or
      suffering.


      III.  Cruel Practices and Violations of the Law
     1. Biting a Bull’s Tail
      On many occasions, bulls’ tails bitten by the organizers and owners of
      the animals in the waiting area and inside the vadi vassal.   The vadi
      vassal is a chamber that is closed off from public view.   Abuse  runs
      rampant in vadi vasals.  Bulls  are  poked,  beaten  and  deliberately
      agitated before they are forced into the jallikattu arena, where  more
      than 30 “bull tamers” are waiting.
      Welfare Concerns
      Considered an extremity of the body, a bull’s tail has many  vertebrae
      but very little muscle or subcutaneous  tissue  to  protect  it.   Any
      direct pressure or injury to the tail bones causes extreme  pain  that
      sends bulls into a frenzy.
      Violation
      Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to  Animals  Act,  1960,
      prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or
      suffering.


     2. Twisting a Bull’s Tail
      Owners routinely beat the bulls and twist  their  tails  in  order  to
      induce fear and pain while they are in the waiting area and  the  vadi
      vassal.   Many bulls had dislocated or even amputated tails.
      Welfare Concerns
      The tails, which has nearly 20 small bones, is  an  extension  of  the
      spinal cord and vertebral column.  Frequent pulling and bending of the
      tail causes extreme pain and may lead to a dislocation and/or fracture
      of  the  tail  vertebrae.   This  causes  severe  chronic   pain   and
      psychological changes that  make  an  animal  easily  frightened  when
      someone goes behind him or tries to catch or hold his tail.
      Violation
      This is violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty  to
      Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any animal in a  way  that
      causes unnecessary pain or  suffering,  and  section  11(1)(l),  which
      prohibits the mutilation of an animal’s body.


     3. Poking Bulls with Knives and Sticks
      Many bulls were poked with sticks  by  owners,  police  officials  and
      organizers inside the  vadi  vassal  and  near  the  collection  yard.
      People inside the vadi vassal often poked bulls on their hindquarters,
      aces and other parts of their bodies with pointed wooden spears,  tiny
      knives, sticks and sickle-shaped knives used for cutting nose ropes.
      Welfare Concerns
      Poking bulls with sticks or  sharp  knives  causes  immense  pain  and
      agitation.   Distressed  bulls  often  adopt  a  flight  response  and
      desperately try to escape through the half-closed gates  of  the  vadi
      vasals.  While attempting to flee from people in the  arena,  agitated
      bulls often injure themselves when they run into barricades,  electric
      polls, water tanks, tractor carriages and police watch  towers  placed
      inside the jallikattu arena.
      Violation
      Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to  Animals  Act,  1960,
      prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or
      suffering.


     4. Using Irritants
      Irritant solutions were rubbed into the eyes and noses of bulls inside
      the vadi vassal in order to agitate them.
      Welfare Concerns
      Eyes and noses are very sensitive, sensory organs, and the use of  any
      irritating chemicals causes pain, distress and an  intense  sensation.
      Bulls who try to escape  from  such  torture  often  end  up  injuring
      themselves  by  hitting  walls,  gates,  fencing  and  other   erected
      structures inside the Vadi Vasal and jallikattu arena
      Violation
      This practice violates section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention  of  Cruelty
      to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any  animal  in  a  way
      that causes unnecessary pain or suffering.  It also  violates  section
      11(1)(c), which prohibits the willful and unreasonable  administration
      of any injurious drug or substance to any animal.


     5. Using Nose Ropes
      Nose ropes were frequently pulled, yanked or  tightened  in  order  to
      control bulls before they were released  into  arenas  and  collection
      yards.  Some animals were even bleeding from the nose as a  result  of
      injuries caused by pulling the rope.
      Welfare Concerns
      Pulling or twisting the nose rope exerts pressure  on  the  nerve-rich
      and extremely sensitive septum,  causing  bulls  pain  and  making  it
      easier for handlers to force them to  move  in  a  desired  direction.
      According to one study, 47  per  cent  of  animals  whose  noses  were
      pierced had lacerations and ulcerations, and 56 per cent  had  pus  in
      their nostrils.  They study also pointed  out  that  57  per  cent  of
      cattle had extensive and severe nose injuries.
      Violation
      Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to  Animals  Act,  1960,
      prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or
      suffering.


     6. Cramped Conditions
      Bulls were packed so tightly into narrow waiting corridors  that  they
      were unable to take a step forwards or backwards.  Forced to stand for
      more than eight hours in  line  at  the  waiting  area  for  a  health
      examination and in the vadi vassal, bulls had no protection  from  the
      blistering sun and the crowds of people, who  shouted  and  hooted  at
      them, harassed them and frightened them.  Bull owners start lining  up
      the night before the jallikattu  event,  and  they  are  given  serial
      numbers. Some were in line until the events ended at  2  pm  the  next
      day.
      Welfare Concerns
      Bulls were denied shade and were not allowed to  lie  down  and  rest.
      This causes exhaustion and extreme distress and discomfort.
      Violation
      This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention  of  Cruelty
      to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any  animal  in  a  way
      that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(f), which
      prohibits  trying  an  animal  for  an  unreasonable  time   with   an
      unreasonably short rope.


     7. Forcing Bulls to Move Sideways
      The animals were forced to move sideways at a slow pace for more  than
      eight hours over a distance of approximately 500 to 1000 metres.
      Welfare Concerns
      Forcing bulls to walk sideways – which is an unnatural  gait  for  any
      animal – for a long duration causes them extreme discomfort.
      Violation
      This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention  of  Cruelty
      to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any  animal  in  a  way
      that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(d), which
      prohibits conveying any animal in such a  manner  or  position  as  to
      cause unnecessary pain or suffering.


     8. Lack of Food and Water
      All the bulls observed were not offered food, water or shelter from  8
      am, when they were forced to line  up,  until  the  jallikattu  events
      ended at 2.30 pm.   Though concrete water troughs  were  available  at
      the registration area and collection yards, none of the  animals  were
      offered water.  Bulls were so terrified and focused  on  surviving  at
      the collection yards in Palamedu and Alanganallur that  they  did  not
      drink water.  Several bulls became recumbent and were unable to  stand
      up because of dehydration and exhaustion.  Many  people  kicked,  beat
      and bit the bulls in order to force them back onto their feet.
      Welfare Concerns
      As ruminants, bulls normally graze for several hours a day in an  open
      field or eat a bulk quantity of  feed  when  kept  in  stalls.    They
      loiter around chewing  their  cud  before  grazing  or  eating  again.
      During jallikattu, the animals are starved and prevented from  chewing
      their cud (they won’t do it  when  they  are  frightened  or  in  pain
      distress).  No intake of food and water and the absence of shade  lead
      to dehydration and exhaustion.  This  often  results  in  injuries  or
      death.
      Violation
      This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention  of  Cruelty
      to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any  animal  in  a  way
      that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(h), which
      states that failing to provide animals with sufficient food, drink  or
      shelter is an act of cruelty.




     9. Forcing Bulls to Drink Liquids
      On many occasions, bulls were forced to drink fluids that were  likely
      liquor.  Animals’ heads were raised by pulling on the nose ropes,  and
      the fluids were forced into their mouths using a plastic bottle.
      Welfare Concerns
      Forcing bulls to drink  causes  them  physical  discomfort  and  fear.
      They often become excited and frenzied as the  alcohol  affects  their
      central nervous system.  Forcing them to  drink  can  also  cause  the
      aspiration of fluid in the upper and lower respiratory tracts (lungs).
       This can cause pneumonia, a serious respiratory disease that can lead
      to death.  Normally, bulls drink  water  at  their  own  pace  from  a
      bucket, but no such  allowances  were  witnessed  during  any  of  the
      jallikattu events.
      Violation
      This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention  of  Cruelty
      to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any  animal  in  a  way
      that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(c), which
      states that giving any injurious drug or substance to  any  animal  is
      prohibited.






    10. Forcing Bulls to Stand in their Own Waste
      In the waiting areas, bulls were forced to wait for  more  than  eight
      hours while standing in their own faeces and urine.
      Welfare Concerns
      No sanitation facilities were made available, and bulls were forced to
      stand together in the accumulated faeces and urine  for  hours.    The
      accumulated waste attracts flies that bother  the  animals  and  cause
      them discomfort.  The eggs laid  by  the  flies  may  lead  to  maggot
      infestation of any wounds the bulls may have.
      Violation
      This is a violation of Supreme Court and Madurai  High  Court  orders,
      which mandate that sanitation  facilities  should  be  made  available
      during jallikattu events and that  bulls  should  not  be  allowed  to
      suffer in any.   Section 11(1)(a) of  The  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to
      Animals Act, 1960 prohibits treating any animal in a way  that  causes
      unnecessary pain or suffering.


    11. Spectators Beating and Agitating Bulls
      When collection yards were not present or not used, injured, exhausted
      bulls  were  tormented  by  spectators  as  they  exited.    “Parallel
      jallikattu” events happened at each venue  as  the  aggressive  crowds
      agitated the bulls exiting the arena by shouting at them, beating them
      and jumping on them.  Many people, including  police  officials,  beat
      exhausted bulls with sticks and jumped in front of  the  bulls  in  an
      effort to frighten them.  Running for their lives, terrified bulls ran
      amok, stumbling into shops and houses and slamming into barricades and
      vehicles parked nearby.   Both the  bull  who  died  after  a  head-on
      collision with a  passenger  bus  in  Avaniapuram  and  the  bull  who
      fractured his leg after jumping off a road in  Palamedu  were  running
      loose when their injuries occurred   “Parallel  jallikattu”  is  often
      considered to be the “real jallikattu”, as the most risky action takes
      place during the deliberate harassment by spectators.
      Welfare Concerns
      When bulls are not afraid, they  stand  still  and  engage  in  normal
      behaviour to the species, such as grazing, chewing cud, lying down  or
      grooming.  None of these types of behavior  were  seen  at  any  point
      during any of the jallikattu events.  Jallikattu causes  bulls  severe
      mental and physical anguish.  When bulls are frightened  or  in  pain,
      they adopt a flight response that can often lead to  serious  physical
      injuries and even death.  Near the  collection  area,  the  spectators
      didn’t allow the bulls to calm down and relax – they  instead  induced
      further fear, distress, discomfort and pain.
      Violation
      This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention  of  Cruelty
      to Animals Act, 1960, which states that beating, kicking, torturing or
      otherwise  treating  any  animal  so  as  to  subject  the  animal  to
      unnecessary pain or suffering is an act of cruelty.


    12. Restraining and Roping
      When bulls entered the collection yard, they were caught using  looped
      rope that was attached  to  a  long  stick.   At  no  point  were  the
      frightened bulls allowed to calm down.  After a long  struggle,  bulls
      were captured by handlers who inserted two fingers  into  their  noses
      and pulled them to the nearest tree while three to four men held their
      horns and necks using multiple ropes.  Once an animal was  tied  to  a
      tree, a new thick  nose  rope  was  forcefully  inserted  through  the
      existing hole in the nasal septum.  Often the rope was very thick, and
      pulling it vigorously caused injuries to the nasal septum,  which  led
      to profuse bleeding in many animals.
      Welfare Concerns
      As a prey  animal,  bulls  are  better  controlled  using  behavioural
      techniques instead of crude and painful  restraining  techniques  that
      cause intense mental suffering and physical injuries.  Such a  painful
      experience  will  cause  long-lasting  psychological  and  behavioural
      changes in bulls.
      Violation
      Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to  Animals  Act,  1960,
      prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or
      suffering.


      IV.  xxx    xxx  xxx


      V. Injuries and Deaths
      Jallikattu is dangerous not only to bulls but also to  humans.    Many
      participants and spectators sustained serious injuries  at  all  three
      jallikattu events.   A total of 58 participants and 56 spectators were
      injured in the three jallikattu events.  One police constable was also
      injured in Avaniapuram.
     1. In Avaniapuram, a total of  55  persons  were  injured  during  the
        jallikattu event.  Of the 26 people who were injured  while  trying
        to tame the charging bulls by clinging to their  backs,  five  were
        seriously injured.   Twenty-four  spectators,  including  a  police
        constable, were injured following a melee after some bulls ran into
        the crowd.  Five people were injured when a section of the  gallery
        erected for spectators collapsed because of severe crowing.
     2. In Palamedu, 21 people, including 11 tamers,  were  injured  during
        the jallikattu event.  Ten spectators were  injured  by  bulls  who
        escaped the fighting arena.  The 21 people  who  suffered  injuries
        were admitted to the Palamedu Primary Health Centre.  One onlooker,
        who was hit in the abdomen,  was  later  moved  to  the  Government
        Rajaji  Hospital  in  Madurai  while   others   were   treated   as
        outpatients.
     3. In Alanganallur, 38  people  were  injured  during  the  jallikattu
        event.   Twenty-one  were  tamers,  and  others  injured   included
        onlookers and owners.  Two people who were seriously  wounded  were
        admitted to the government hospital in Madurai.


      VI.  xxx    xxx  xxx

      VII. xxx    xxx  xxx


      VIII. Conclusion
      Bulls are prey animals.   According  to  animal  behavioural  studies,
      bulls adopt a flight or fight response when they  feel  frightened  or
      threatened.  This  instinctual  response  to  a  perceived  threat  is
      deliberately exploited by jallikattu  organizers.   During  jallikatt,
      many animals are observed to engage in a flight response as  they  run
      away from people when they  experience  pain  or  fear.   This  flight
      response is not surprising, given the amount of pain and terror  bulls
      are subjected to before, during  and  after  jallikattu.    Bulls  are
      beaten, poked, prodded, harassed and jumped  on  by  numerous  people.
      They have their tails bitten and twisted  and  their  eyes  and  noses
      filled  with  irritating  chemicals.     Many   peer-reviewed   papers
      demonstrate a link  between  the  actions  of  humans  and  the  fear,
      distress and pain experienced by animals.   Research  has  shown  that
      rough or abusive handling of animals compromises welfare by increasing
      an animal’s fear of humans.  Bulls – who are pushed, hit, prodded  and
      abused in jallikattu – suffer mentally as well as physically.


         Detailed Reports on Jallikattu in Avaniapuram, Palamedu and
                                Alanganallur




      The cruelty and animal abuse detailed below in sections  A,  B  and  C
      also  violate  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals  Act,   1960.
      Observations of three jallikattu locations have been  grouped  broadly
      under four categories:
      .     Waiting area
      .     Vadi vasal
      .     Arena
      .     Collection yard


      Avaniapuram – 14 January 2013


      Waiting Area
      .  Bulls were forced to stand in long lines for more than eight  hours
        without shade, food and water or room to move.
      .     Many animals were forced to drink  fluids,  likely  alcohol,  to
        disorient them.
      .     Bulls were continuously pulled and yanked by nose ropes.
      .     Handlers forced bulls to move in the lines sideways by painfully
        pulling and yanking their tails.
      .     Some reluctant bulls jumped out of the line and  attacked  their
        owners out of fear.
      .     None of the animals had the JK  number  given  to  them  by  the
        Animal  Welfare  Board  of  India  on  their  horns,  which  is   a
        registration requirement.


      Vadi Vasal
      .     Bulls  were  pulled  by  nose  ropes  into  the  narrow,  closed
        enclosure.  Participants also pushed on the  bulls’  backs  as  the
        animals resisted.
      .     Inside the vadi vasal, nose ropes were cut with a sharp  sickle.
        At times, bulls were poked with these sickles  in  order  to  force
        them to enter the arena.   Much  of  the  cruelty  the  bulls  were
        subjected to during jallikattu happened inside the vadi vasal.
      .     Closed off from the public, the  high-walled  vadi  vasal  is  a
        torture chamber.   Here,  organizers  hit  the  bulls  with  wooden
        sticks and owners bit and brutally twisted bulls’ tails. Organisers
        and owners of bulls also beat bulls with their bare hands,  whipped
        them with snapped nose ropes  and  poked  them  with  small,  sharp
        knives.
      .     Some animals returned to the vadi vasal after being terrified by
        the jallikattu participants.


      Arena
      .     The Supreme Court’s guideline for  arena  barricades  calls  for
        them to be no less than 8 feet high.  This guideline was flagrantly
        ignored, and the barricade in the main area was  as  low  as  5-1/2
        feet.   The  non-compliance  of  a  guideline  as  basic   as   the
        barricade’s height endangers the lives of spectators.
      .     The Supreme Court’s guideline  of  double  barricading  was  not
        implemented anywhere around the arena or along the  path  from  the
        main arena to the town’s street.
      .     As many as six to eight matadors jumped onto bulls to take them.
         Unable to carry the weight, the bulls often feel to the ground.


      Collection Yard
      .     There was no collection yard.
      .     Because of the absence of a collection yard, the bulls ran  amok
        in the streets, which were lined with unruly crowds  eager  to  hit
        the scared animals.
      .     Many spectators pounded on the  petrified  bulls  and  tried  to
        perform jallikattu on the streets.
      .     Bulls entered bylanes and trampled both men and parked vehicles.
      .     Because of the lack of a collection area, one bull lost his life
        after a head-on collision with a moving passenger bus.


      2. Palamedu – 15 January 2013


      Waiting Area
      .     The bulls were forced to move sideways for hours as they  inched
        closer to the vadi vasal.  This  sideways  gait  is  unnatural  and
        uncomfortable to them.
      .      Even  though  there  were  water  troughs  near   the   medical
        examination area, bulls were not allowed to drink water because the
        owners did not want to lose their place in line.
      .     There was no food or fodder for the bulls  who  were  forced  to
        stand in line the night before the event.
      .     The bulls in line defecated constantly, which is a sign of fear.
      .     The ears of almost all the bulls were cut and mutilated.
      .     Several bulls in line were dragged by their tails.
      .     Owners dragged bulls around  by  inserting  their  fingers  into
        bulls’ noses and pulling them.
      .     Bulls were forcibly beaten, pushed  and  pulled  into  the  vadi
        vasal.  The reluctant bulls  had  their  tails  painfully  twisted,
        broken and bitten.   These abusive practices, though  common,  were
        particularly rampant in Palamedu.
      .     Bulls were hit  and  poked  with  wooden  sticks.   One  of  the
        organiser’s sole duty was to force bulls into  the  vadi  vasal  by
        striking and prodding them with a wooden stick.
      .     Shockingly, police in uniform blatantly hit and poked the  bulls
        with their wooden lathis instead of stopping the abuse.
      .     On the sly, owners forced suspicious  liquids,  likely  alcohol,
        down the throats of bulls in order to disorient them.


      Vadi Vasal
      .     The vadi vasal is hidden from the view of the public  and  media
         and  can  be  accessed  and  viewed  only  by  select   jallikattu
         personnel.
      .     The vadi vasal was a permanent cement structure. Its  walls  hid
         some of the cruelty from spectators and TV cameras.
      .     The practice of inflicting pain by poking and hitting the  bulls
         is common.  Almost every bull that stayed in the  vadi  vasal  for
         more than a couple of seconds after his  nose  rope  was  cut  was
         subjected to physical torture.  This rampant cruelty  proves  that
         the  court’s  guidelines  regarding  jallikattu   are   completely
         disregarded.
      .     Bulls’ tails were brazenly twisted and broken in order to  force
         bulls to run out of the vadi vasal into the arena.
      .     A bull’s anus was deliberately injured  to  cause  pain  to  the
         animal.
      .     Inside the vadi vasal,  bulls’  eyes  and  noses  were  forcibly
         rubbed with irritant liquids to disorient and agitate them.
      .     Feeling immense fear, some bulls jumped against the exit door of
         the vadi vasal to try to flee the enclosure.


      Arena
      .     The path from the arena to the collection area was  dotted  with
         dangerous obstructions, such as tractor  carriages,  water  tanks,
         and a small truck.  These obstructions posed  serious  threats  to
         speeding bulls who were being chased away by participants.
      .     The Supreme Court’s  guidelines  were  not  implemented  as  the
         barricades were not 8 feet high.
      .     An electric pole  posed  grave  danger  to  speeding  bulls  who
         charged out of the vadi vasal.


      Collection yard
      .     The Collection yard was nowhere close to half an acre in size as
          instructed by the court guidelines.
      .     The collection area was also impractical by design as bulls sped
          right through its narrow enclosure, which was erected in the  path
          from the main arena to the town’s streets.
      .     Because of the insufficient collection  yard,  bulls  ran  along
          streets and into moving traffic.
      .     Bull were brutally beaten by unruly spectators who drew sadistic
          pleasure in landing blows with their fists  and  sticks.   As  the
          loud crowd hooted, bulls ran for cover.
      .     Some bulls injured themselves when they jumped  off  the  narrow
          roads into fields that were 10 feet below.  Others jumped into dry
          river beds.
      .     One bull who was being chased and beaten by a mob jumped into  a
          field and fractured his font leg.  It  took  90  minutes  for  the
          suffering animal to receive medical attention proving that  having
          ambulances on standby is of no use.
      .     Several  bulls  trampled  the  metal  barricades  and  ran  into
          residential homes and bylanes.
      .     One bull entered a house.
      .     Another bull plunged into a sewage drain that was more  than  10
          feet below the road.
      .     Several young people were injured when bulls  trampled  them  on
          the streets.


     4. Alanganallur – 16th January 2013
      Waiting Area
      .     The waiting area had long lines.
      .     No shade or fodder was supplied to the bulls.
      .     The breaking, twisting and biting of bulls’ tails was rampant in
          the line.
      .     One person’s sole job was to force bulls into the vadi vasal  by
          beating them with sticks.
      .     Bull owners were seen rubbing suspicious liquids into  the  eyes
          of bulls moments before the  bulls  were  taken  inside  the  vadi
          vasal.


      Vadi Vasal


      .     The vadi vasal at Alanganallur was no different  from  those  in
          previous jallikattu locations.  Bulls were subjected  to  barbaric
          cruelty inside the enclosure, which was shielded from public view.
      .     Organisers armed with sticks perched inside the vadi  vasal  and
          repeatedly hit bulls who were reluctant.
      .     The practice of biting tails  was  most  rampant  in  this  vadi
          vasal, as every other bull had his tail bitten by  people  sitting
          inside.
      .      Bulls had their tails pulled, twisted  and  broken  inside  the
          vadi vasal.
      .     Some bulls were brutally hit on the bridge  of  the  nose  right
          before their nose ropes were cut open.
      .     Bulls were kicked in their hindquarters.
      .     People guarding and sitting on top  of  the  vadi  vasal  smoked
          beedis, completely disregarding the safety of the bulls.
      .     Cruelty was most rampant and brazen in this vadi vasal.


      Collection Yard
      .     In Alangannlur, the collection area did not prevent  bulls  from
          running amok and injuring spectators and villages standing outside
          the barricades.
      .     Many bulls ran straight out of the collection area and into  the
          nearby fields.  Two bulls fell into wells filled  with  water  and
          injured themselves.
      .     The fact that bulls fell into wells in  spite  of  a  collection
          yard that was erected as per the Supreme Court’s guidelines proves
          that the lives of bulls are at stake even if  the  guidelines  are
          followed.  The scope for mishaps is immense.
      .     Several bulls who ran into the collection yard  were  frightened
          by the bull catchers and ran back into the  barricaded  passageway
          to the main arena.
      .     Cops standing on a tractor carriage in  the  passageway  between
          the main arena and collection yard often hit the bulls  with  long
          wooden sticks.
      .     Bulls who escaped from the collection yard ran amok  and  stayed
          into  nearby  fields.   The  bulls  also  trampled   and   injured
          spectators around the collection yard.


Manoj Oswal, Animal Welfare Officer  to  the  Board,  submitted  the  second
interim report on 25.1.2012 with regard to the events witnessed  at  various
places like Avanlapuram and Palamedu.   The operative portion of the  report
reads as under:
      “Primary observation:
      While it is not possible  to  conduct  animal  sport  like  Jallikattu
      without causing trauma and cruelty to animals, it was anticipated that
      the guidelines and rules would ensure that the cruelty is minimum.


      The events at the  surface  looked  very  organized  and  orderly  but
      scratching a little below  the  surface  showed  that  the  abuse  and
      violations now have been hidden away from the main arena.  The  unruly
      people have been found their own place away from media glare and  eyes
      of Animal Welfare Officers.


      The fundamental issue remains that a large section of people  come  to
      the events with a hope-expectation that they are also a  part  of  the
      action, which indeed has been a way of Jallikattu always.  Such people
      continue to handle bulls in crude fashion, continue to risk their  own
      lives and create hazard  for  themselves  and  others  and  they  undo
      whatever the system has built as check and balance.


      Queuing of bulls
      The most stressful time for the animals is the long wait, particularly
      when events are back to back.  The same animals  participate  in  many
      events and travel  to  new  events  every  day.   No  animal  has  the
      possibility of basic shelter from sun and wind, food or water while it
      awaits its turn.


      The situation in all districts remain the same as it  was  last  year.
      Between 200 to 400 bulls come to the venue but the  facility  of  pens
      and shelter are symbolic, holding at the most  10-12  animals.   These
      poster boys are shown as how well bulls  were  treated.   However,  in
      reality they are not even a fraction of the bulls that participate.


      The bull are held tightly by their ropes.  There is no possibility  to
      move even an inch. The bull that cannot even lower hold itself to  its
      natural position, it is held up tightly that is how it remains in that
      single position for hour at a stretch.    If the bull stands naturally
      the holder will have bend himself in an awkward position.


      In such a situation there is  no  possibility  of  either  feeding  or
      watering the animal.  The bull start queuing from 1 am  and  they  are
      held that way till 4pm till then the program usually ends.   The  bull
      coming first may get released about 2 hours earlier.


      Cruelty before release
      The bull does not want to go into the arena.  It does not like  people
      and does not like the crowd.  The only way to get  it  go  before  the
      crowd is to prod it and threaten it.  Cause the animal  so  much  pain
      and fear that it believes that going before the thousands of people is
      a better escape than  being  tortured  here  in  the  small  box  like
      enclosure.


      The methods of torture vary, but the essence remains  the  same.   The
      bull has to run for its life.  The bull is scared  of  both  scenarios
      the large crowd outside and the captive  and  painful  life  with  the
      current owner.  Given an opportunity the bull prefers to stay  in  the
      small enclosure than run into a crowd of strangers, the way  the  bull
      is  made  to  run  is  to  give  it  immediate  pain  or  restrain  it
      unnaturally.


      Despite ban, people were seen giving alcohol to the animal in the sly.
       The tail of the animal is one of the sensitive part of the  body,  so
      is the nose and the eyes.  Torture to these parts is one quick way  to
      get the bull run.


      Cruelty within arena:


      Mental Torture
      Physical abuse is not the only kind of  injury  that  is  illegal  and
      hurtful.  Mental abuse is also amongst the worst kind of abuse  as  it
      leaves a lifelong mark on the mind.


      It is a known fact that victims of accident, crime or
      disasters recover from their physical injuries  in  certain  time  but
      mental injuries remain etched for decades, play havoc in  day  to  day
      life.  Animals, irrespective of the fact whether they can  express  it
      or not, in this particular case were seen going through the same shock
      and terror as a person goes into in a hostage situation. Constant fear
      of death and continuous torture.


      Physical torture
      With the entire world watching at the events, it was not expected that
      the animals will be harassed in the arena.  The animals got a  respite
      from physical abuse in the arena  that  was  well  covered  by  media,
      however, as soon as they left the main  arena,  the  tale  of  torture
      remained the same what it has been for long.


      Outside the Arena:
      What has changed
      - Registered bulls marked in five  out  of  six  venues  (not  so  in
        Previyasuriyal).
      -  Symbolic  testing  done  for  alcohol  (actual  testing  done   in
        Previyasuriya, rest of the places the test was just a cover up).
      - Obvious and visible forms of cruelty disallowed in public view.
      - The double barricades were less porous and so it was not  easy  for
        unruly people to enter arena.  (not so in Siravayal)


      Everything else, the issues highlighted in the report in  2011  remain
      active


     1. Queuing of animals and holding them in unnatural position for hours
        without food and water.
     2. In the secluded and enclosed area, all forms of animal abuse.
     3. The animals are invariably not going into the  yard  but  onto  the
        street, groves, cluttered vegetation, dry canals and other free-for-
        all areas, all misnamed as yards.
     4. Animals running out the yard to escape brutality straying into  the
        streets of the village.
     5. Jallikattu barricades punctured at  certain  points  or  that  they
        being open at one end leading to non participants indulging in  the
        same kind of cruelty that were seen last year.
     6. A complete parallel set of jallikattus happening with the crowd  as
        people release the unregistered bulls into the crowd, this is  more
        particular and obvious in Sivagangai.
     7. A less obvious but with same effect, parallel Jallikattu  happening
        in areas designated as bulls yards.  So instead of rest,  the  bull
        yards are the areas designated as bull yards. So instead  of  rest,
        the bull yards are the areas where the bulls get tortured the most.

18.   We have also perused the recent affidavit filed by Smt. Uma Rani,  the
Secretary, AWBI, MoEF, Chennai  on  7.4.2014,  giving  the  details  of  the
manner in which Jallikattu was conducted in various  parts  of  Tamil  Nadu,
like Avaniapuram, Palamedu etc., and the torture and cruelty  meted  out  to
the Bulls, which is unimaginable.

19.   We notice that the situation is the same in the State  of  Maharashtra
also.  The details furnished by the 2nd respondent in  I.A.  No.  5/2014  on
20.1.2014 along with the photographs, depict the state of affairs, which  is
also cruel, barbaric, inhuman and savage.   Report highlights the manner  in
which it is being conducted.

BULLOCK-CART RACE IN MAHARASHTRA:
20.   We notice, in various parts of Maharashtra, varied types  of  Bullock-
cart races are being organized.  Bailgada Sharyat is a race where no  person
rides the cart.  In such a race, at  times,  Bullocks  are  brought  to  the
venue blind folded through trucks and let free, through a ghat  either  side
of which spectators, large in number, assemble. Due to  sudden  exposure  to
the light, after unfolding, and the huge noise source  made  by  spectators,
Bullock get terrified and run  in  straight  on  the  slope.   Many  of  the
Bullocks are tortured and whipped to make them run and the price is  decided
on the basis  of  time  taken  to  cover  gap  of  approximately  300  meter
distance. Races are also there where Bullocks have to  cover  10  kilometres
and more. Before and during the course of the  race,  cruel  practices  like
beating, twisting of  tail,  biting  tail,  poke  with  spiked  instruments,
electric shock etc. is given.  Races, such  as,  Ghoda  Bail  Sharyat  which
involves a  horse  and  a  bull  on  the  same  cart  is  also  being  held.
Sometimes, a bigger Bullock is paired with a smaller one.  Various forms  of
torture are adopted in all these races.

21.   We are sorry to note, in spite of the  various  directions  issued  by
this Court, in the  conduct  of  Jallikattu,  Bullock-cart  Race  etc.,  the
regulatory provisions of TNRJ Act and  the  restrictions  in  the  State  of
Maharashtra, the situation is the same and no action is being taken  by  the
District Collectors, Police Officials  and  others,  who  are  in-charge  to
control the same, to see that those directions are properly and  effectively
complied with and the  animals  are  not  being  subjected  to  torture  and
cruelty.  Being dumb and helpless, they suffer in silence.


22.    We  notice,  following  the  Central  Government  notification  dated
11.7.2011, the Committee constituted in the State of Maharashtra to  monitor
animal welfare laws in the State, submitted a letter dated 1.8.2011  to  the
then Chief Minister, with  specific  reference  to  the  notification  dated
11.7.2011, stating as follows:
      “Now that the exhibition and training as performing animals  of  bulls
      also  is  prohibited,  bullocks  cart  races  which  are  very  widely
      organized in the State become illegal.  During the month  of  Shravan,
      many such races are organized in the rural  parts  of  the  State  and
      these must be stopped in compliance with the above notification.


      We,  therefore,  request  you  to  issue  instructions   through   the
      Collectors all over the State, prohibiting  such  bullock  cart  races
      with immediate effect.


      This issue has been agitated in the  State  of  years  now  by  animal
      welfare activists and the Central Government’s move should put an  end
      to it.  As the notification may not have come to the notice of  people
      and even administration  at  large,  we  hope  you  will  kindly  take
      necessary action as requested above at the earliest.


      Thanking you,


      Yours sincerely,
      For Committee to Monitor Animal
      Welfare Laws in Maharashtra
      Sd/-
      C.S. Dharmadhikari
      Chairman”


The State of Maharashtra, based on the notification dated 11.7.2011 and  the
letter  dated  1.8.2011  of  the  Committee,  issued  a  notification  dated
24.8.2011, the operative portion of the same reads as follows:
      “Reference Item No. 1 above, as per the Notification of Environment  &
      Forest Department of Central  Government  dated  11.7.2011,  has  been
      brought on training, exhibition and as such the performance of animals
      like  bears,  monkeys,  tigers,  leopards,  lions  and  bullocks  etc.
      Accordingly, it was under consideration of  the  State  Government  to
      bring about a ban on the bullock cart races  and  various  exhibitions
      taking place in the State.


           Accordingly, by this notification, a ban  has  been  imposed  on
      bullock cart races / games/ training /  exhibition  in  the  State  in
      accordance with the above reference item No. (1) Notification  of  the
      Central Government.


           As per order of the Government of Maharashtra.


                                                                        Sd/-
                                                           C. N. Suryavanshi
                                     Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra”



The State  of  Maharashtra  later  issued  a  corrigendum  dated  12.9.2011
clarifying that the word “Bull” be read as Valu/Sand, meaning  thereby,  it
would take both Bulls whether castrated or not.  The State  of  Maharashtra
later, through  the  Government  decision  dated  20.4.2012  imposed  total
prohibition in the  State  of  organizing  Bull/Bullock-cart  Races,  Bulls
Fight, Training of Bulls/Bullocks for the sport,  sport  activities.    The
operative portion of the order reads as follows:
      “PREAMBLE
      The organization of animal  sports  in  State,  mainly  in  its  rural
      hinterland  especially  sports  such  as  bull  ox/   bullock   cattle
      exhibition, organizing their race, their cart  race,  fight  etc.,  is
      nothing but violence to these dumb animals  for  which,  to  stop  the
      continuation of the same, to prohibit the same, the  State  Government
      has already taken a decision to prohibit them on 24.8.2011.  Moreover,
      as in the list  in  this  regard  of  prohibited  animals  by  Central
      Government as bulls, bullock has not been included but  not  in  State
      Government, the State Government issued a corrigendum  by  prohibiting
      bulls instead of bullock in State Govt. list too.    In  this  regard,
      the corrigendum of the State Government was issued on 12.9.2011.   But
      by opposing this corrigendum of State Government, above referred No.1,
      and No.2 cases were filed in  the  Hon’ble  High  Court,  Mumbai.   In
      accordance with the judgment given by the Hon’ble High  Court,  Mumbai
      in those cases, to the State Government issued abovementioned circular
      Nos.4 and 5 are superseded now and the  government  decision  in  this
      regard is now being issued as under:-








      GOVERNMENT’S DECISION:


      In compliance of Central Govt.’s Department of Forest and  Environment
      Departmental Notification dated 11.7.2011 and also  in  the  light  of
      relevant judgment pronounced by Hon’ble  High  Court,  Mumbai  Bullock
      Cart Race, Bullock Race/ Bull Fight/ training of bull / Bullock  /  Ox
      for such race, fights / using them for any animal sport activities  is
      being prohibited herewith now.


      In accordance with  letter  dated  7.10.2011  of  Central  Government,
      Bamboo Cart / Cart / Ox / Cow / Calf etc., are also increased  in  the
      broader sense of technical definitions  of  ‘Bulls’  prohibited  under
      this act which must be prohibited for usage as sort sporting /  animal
      sporting/ fighting / right sports related training.


      If anybody is  found  guilty  of  the  aforesaid  prohibited  act  and
      activities, then on such offenders, let action  be  taken  stringently
      and effectively against  them  under  the  provisions  of  cruelty  to
      animals  act   and   the   concerned   District   Collectors,   Police
      Superintendents have the entire enforcement responsibility.


      Under the directions of  and  in  the  name  of  Hon’ble  Governor  of
      Maharashtra State.


                                                                        Sd/-
                                                              (S. T. SHENDE)
                                                             Under Secretary
                                                       Govt. of Maharashtra”

23.   We have already indicated that the State of Maharashtra has  accepted
the judgment of the High Court and the Government decision dated  20.4.2012
is also not under challenge.


24.   We have to examine, in the light  of  the  above  facts,  whether  the
events that are being conducted in the States of Tamil Nadu and  Maharashtra
are in violation of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 21 and 22  of  the  PCA  Act
read with Articles 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution and  the  notification
dated 11.7.2011.


PCA ACT:

25.   The PCA Act was enacted even before  the  introduction  of  Part  IV-A
dealing with the fundamental duties, by the  Constitutional  47th  Amendment
Act, 1956.  Earlier, the then British in India  enacted  the  Prevention  of
Cruelty Act, 1890 for the human beings to reap maximum gains  by  exploiting
them with coercive methods with an idea  that  the  very  existence  of  the
animals is for the benefit of  the  human  beings.   During  the  course  of
administering the above mentioned Act, many  deficiencies  were  noticed  by
the Government of India and a Committee was constituted to  investigate  and
suggest measures for prevention of cruelty to animals.   Following  that,  a
Bill was introduced in the Parliament and, ultimately,  the  PCA  Act,  1960
was enacted  so  as  to  prevent  the  infliction  of  unnecessary  pain  or
suffering on animals and to amend the law relating to prevention of  cruelty
to animals.

JUDICIAL EVALUATION
26.   PCA Act is a welfare legislation which has to be construed bearing  in
mind the purpose and object of the  Act  and  the  Directive  Principles  of
State Policy.  It is trite law that, in the matters of welfare  legislation,
the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour  of  the  weak
and infirm.  Court also should be vigilant to see  that  benefits  conferred
by such  remedial  and  welfare  legislation  are  not  defeated  by  subtle
devices.  Court has got the duty that, in every  case,  where  ingenuity  is
expanded to avoid welfare legislations, to get behind the  smoke-screen  and
discover the true state of affairs.  Court can go behind the  form  and  see
the substance of the devise for which it has to pierce the veil and  examine
whether the guidelines or the regulations are framed so as to  achieve  some
other purpose than the welfare of the animals.   Regulations or  guidelines,
whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport  to  dilute  or  defeat  the
welfare legislation and the  constitutional  principles,  Court  should  not
hesitate to strike them down so  as  to  achieve  the  ultimate  object  and
purpose of the welfare  legislation.   Court  has  also  a  duty  under  the
doctrine of parents patriae to take care of the  rights  of  animals,  since
they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings.

27.   The PCA  Act,  as  already  indicated,  was  enacted  to  prevent  the
infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or cruelty on animals.  Section  3
of the Act deals with duties of persons having charge of animals,  which  is
mandatory in nature  and  hence  confer  corresponding  rights  on  animals.
Rights so conferred on animals are thus the antithesis  of  a  duty  and  if
those rights  are  violated,  law  will  enforce  those  rights  with  legal
sanction.   Section 3 is extracted hereunder for an easy reference:
      3. Duties of persons having charge of animals.- It shall be  the  duty
      of every person having the care or charge of any animal  to  take  all
      reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of  such  animal  and  to
      prevent the  infliction  upon  such  animal  of  unnecessary  pain  or
      suffering.”


Section 3 of the Act has got two limbs, which are as follows:
     i) Duty cast on persons-in-charge  or  care  to  take  all  reasonable
        measures to ensure the well-being of the animal;
    ii) Duty to take reasonable measures to  prevent  the  infliction  upon
        such animal of unnecessary pain and suffering.
Both the above limbs have to be cumulatively  satisfied.   Primary  duty  on
the persons-in-charge or care of the animal is to ensure the  well-being  of
the animal.  ‘Well-being’ means  state  of  being  comfortable,  healthy  or
happy.  Forcing the Bull and keeping the same in  the  waiting  area  for  a
number of hours and subjecting it to scorching sun, is  not  for  the  well-
being of the animal.  Forcing and pulling  bulls  by  nose  ropes  into  the
narrow closed enclosure of vadi  vassal,  subjecting  it  to  all  forms  of
torture, fear, pain and suffering by forcing it to go  the  arena  and  also
over-powering it at the arena by the Bull tamers,  are  not  for  the  well-
being of the animal.   The manner in which the Bull tamers are treating  the
bulls in the arena is evident from the reports filed before  this  Court  by
ABWI.   By forcing the bull into the vadi vassal and then  into  the  arena,
by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be “for the well-being of  such
animal”.   Organizers of Jallikattu are depriving the rights  guaranteed  to
the bulls under Section 3 of PCA Act.  Sadism and perversity is  writ  large
in the actions of the organizers of Jallikattu and the event  is  meant  not
for the well-being of the animal, but for  the  pleasure  and  enjoyment  of
human beings, particularly the organizers and  spectators.    Organizers  of
Jallikattu feel that their bulls  have  only  instrumental  value  to  them,
forgetting their intrinsic worth.  First  limb  of  Section  3,  as  already
indicated, gives a corresponding right to the animal  to  ensure  its  well-
being.  AWBI, a body established to look after the welfare  of  the  animals
has to see that the person-in-charge or care  of  the  animals  looks  after
their well-being.  We have no hesitation to say  that  Jallikattu  /Bullock-
cart race, as such, is  not  for  the  well-being  of  the  animal  and,  by
undertaking such events, organizers are clearly violating the first limb  of
Section 3 of the PCA Act.

28.   We will now examine whether the second limb of Section 3  which  casts
a duty on the person in-charge or care of animal to prevent  the  infliction
upon an  animal,  unnecessary  pain  or  suffering,  discharges  that  duty.
Considerations, which are relevant to determine  whether  the  suffering  is
unnecessary, include  whether  the  suffering  could  have  reasonably  been
avoided or reduced, whether the conduct which caused the  suffering  was  in
compliance with any relevant enactment.  Another aspect to  be  examined  is
whether the conduct causing the suffering  was  for  a  legitimate  purpose,
such  as,  the  purpose  for  benefiting  the  animals  or  the  purpose  of
protecting a person, property or another animal etc.   Duty  is  to  prevent
the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, meaning thereby,  no  right
is conferred to inflict  necessary/unnecessary  pain  or  suffering  on  the
animals.   By organizing Jallikattu and Bullock-cart  race,  the  organizers
are not preventing the infliction of  unnecessary  pain  or  suffering,  but
they are inflicting pain and suffering on the bulls, which they are  legally
obliged to prevent.  Section 3 is a preventive provision  casting  no  right
on the organizers, but only duties and obligations. Section  3,  as  already
indicated, confers corresponding  rights  on  the  animals  as  against  the
persons in-charge or care, as well as AWBI, to ensure their  well-being  and
be not inflicted with any unnecessary  pain  or  suffering.   Jallikattu  or
Bullock-cart race, from the point of the animals, is not an  event  ensuring
their well-being or an event meant to prevent the infliction of  unnecessary
pain or suffering, on the contrary, it is an event against their  well-being
and causes unnecessary pain and suffering on them.  Hence, the two limbs  of
Section 3 of PCA Act have been  violated  while  conducting  Jallikattu  and
Bullock-cart race.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS:
29.   Section 11 generally deals with the cruelty to  animals.   Section  11
confers no right on the organizers to conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart  race.
  Section  11  is  a  beneficial  provision  enacted  for  the  welfare  and
protection of the animals and it  is  penal  in  nature.    Being  penal  in
nature, it confers rights on the animals and  obligations  on  all  persons,
including those who are in-charge or care of the animals, AWBI etc. to  look
after their well-being and welfare.  The  relevant  portion  of  Section  11
reads as follows:
           “11.  Treating animals cruelty.- (1) If any person-


           a) Beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives,  over-loads,  tortures
              or otherwise treats  any  animal  so  as  to  subject  it  to
              unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being  the  owner
              permits, any animals to be so treated; or


           b) xxx      xxx        xxx


           c) willfully and unreasonably administers any injuries  drug  or
              injurious  substance  to   any   animal   or   wilfully   and
              unreasonably causes or attempts to cause  any  such  drug  or
              substance to be taken by any animal; or


           d) xxx      xxx        xxx


           e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other  receptacle
              which does not measure  sufficiently  in  height,  length  or
              breadth to permit the animal  a  reasonable  opportunity  for
              movement; or


           f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered
              upon an unreasonably short or  unreasonable  heavy  chain  or
              cord; or


           g) xxx      xxx        xxx


           h) being the owner of any animal, fails to provide  such  animal
              with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or


           i) xxx      xxx        xxx


           j) xxx      xxx        xxx


           k) xxx      xxx        xxx


           l) mutilates any animal or kills  any  animal  (including  stray
              dogs) by using the method of  strychnine  injections  in  the
              heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; or;



              xxx      xxx        xxx


           (2)   For the purposes of sub-section (1),  an  owner  shall  be
      deemed to have committed an offence  if  he  has  failed  to  exercise
      reasonable care and supervision with a view to the prevention of  such
      offence:


           Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting  cruelty
      by reason only of having failed to exercise such care and supervision,
      he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.


           (3)   xxx   xxx  xxx”

Section 11(1)(a) uses the expressions “or otherwise”,  “unnecessary pain  or
suffering” etc.  Beating, kicking etc. go with the event  so  also  torture,
if the report submitted by AWBI is accepted.  Even otherwise,  according  to
AWBI, the expression “or otherwise” takes in Jallikattu,  Bullock-cart  race
etc. but, according to the State of Tamil Nadu, that expression  has  to  be
understood applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis  .   In  our  view,  the
expression “or otherwise” is  not  used  as  words  of  limitation  and  the
legislature has intended to cover all  situations,  where  the  animals  are
subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering.  Jallikattu, Bullock-cart  races
and the events like that, fall in that expression  under  Section  11(1)(a).
 The meaning of the expression “or otherwise” came up for  consideration  in
Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay 1957 SCR 721 and the  Court  held  that  the
words “or otherwise” when used, apparently intended  to  cover  other  cases
which may not come within the meaning  of  the  preceding  clause.   In  our
view, the said principles also can  be  safely  applied  while  interpreting
Section 11(1)(a).

30.   Pain and  suffering  are  biological  traits.   Pain,  in  particular,
informs an animal which specific stimuli, it needs to avoid  and  an  animal
has pain receptors and a memory that allows it to remember what  caused  the
pain.  Professor of Animal Welfare, D.M.Broom of University of Cambridge  in
his articles appearing in Chapter fourteen of the Book “Animal  Welfare  and
the Law” Cambridge University Press (1989) says:
           “Behavioural responses to pain vary greatly from one species  to
      another, but it is reasonable to suppose that the pain felt by all  of
      these animals is similar to that felt by man”.


Suffering has the same function, but instead of informing the  animal  about
stimuli to avoid, which informs it about a situation to  avoid.   An  animal
might be regarded as suffering, if is in pain, distress, or acute or  unduly
prolonged discomfort.    Consequently,  to  experience  the  suffering,  the
animal needs an awareness of its environment, the ability to  develop  moods
that coordinate a behavioral response, and the capacity  to  change  adverse
situation or avoid them.  Reports submitted by AWBI  clearly  indicate  that
Bulls are being treated with extreme cruelty and  suffering,  violating  the
provisions of Section 11(1) of  the  PCA  Act.    Over  and  above,  Section
11(1), clauses (b) to  (o)  also  confer  various  duties  and  obligations,
generally and specifically, on the persons in charge of or care  of  animals
which, in turn, confer corresponding rights on animals, which, if  violated,
are punishable under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the PCA Act.

DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY:
31.   Section 11(3) carves  out  exceptions  in  five  categories  of  cases
mentioned in Section 11(3)(a) to (e), which are as follows:
      “11(3)  Nothing in this section shall apply to-


         (a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-
             roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner; or


         (b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers  or  by  such
             other methods as may be prescribed; or


         (c) the extermination or  destruction  of  any  animal  under  the
             authority of any law for the time being in force; or


         (d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or


         (e) the commission or omission of any act in  the  course  of  the
             destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as
             food for mankind unless such  destruction  or  preparation  was
             accompanied  by  the  infliction   of   unnecessary   pain   or
             suffering.”


Exceptions are incorporated based on the “doctrine  of  necessity”.   Clause
(b) to Section 11(3) deals with  the  destruction  of  stray  dogs,  out  of
necessity, otherwise, it would be harmful to human beings.   Clause  (d)  to
Section 11(3) deals with matters dealt with in Chapter IV, incorporated  out
of necessity, which deals with the experimentation on animals, which is  for
the purpose of advancement by new discovery of  physiological  knowledge  or
of knowledge which would be useful for saving  or  for  prolonging  life  or
alleviating suffering  or  for  combating  any  disease,  whether  of  human
beings, animals or plants, which is not prohibited and  is  lawful.   Clause
(e) to Section 11(3) permits killing of animals  as  food  for  mankind,  of
course, without inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering,  which  clause  is
also incorporated ‘out of necessity’.   Experimenting on animals and  eating
their flesh are stated to be two major forms of speciesism in  our  society.
Over and above, the Legislature, by  virtue  of  Section  28,  has  favoured
killing of animals in a manner required by the religion  of  any  community.
Entertainment, exhibition or amusement do  not  fall  under  these  exempted
categories and cannot be claimed as a matter of right under the doctrine  of
necessity.


32.   Sections 3 and 11, as already indicated, therefore,  confer  no  right
on the organisers of Jallikattu  or  bullock-cart  race,  but  only  duties,
responsibilities  and  obligations,  but  confer  corresponding  rights   on
animals.  Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (o) and other related  provisions  have  to
be understood and read along with Article 51A(g) of the  Constitution  which
cast fundamental duties on every citizen  to  have  “compassion  for  living
creatures”.    Parliament,  by  incorporating  Article  51A(g),  has   again
reiterated and re-emphasised the fundamental duties on human beings  towards
every living creature, which evidently takes in bulls as well.   All  living
creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live peacefully and right  to
protect  their  well-being  which  encompasses  protection   from   beating,
kicking, over-driving,  over-loading,  tortures,  pain  and  suffering  etc.
Human life, we often say, is  not  like  animal  existence,  a  view  having
anthropocentric bias,  forgetting  the  fact  that  animals  have  also  got
intrinsic worth and value.  Section 3 of the PCA Act has acknowledged  those
rights and the said section along with Section 11 cast  a  duty  on  persons
having charge or care of animals to take reasonable measures to ensure well-
being of the animals and to  prevent  infliction  of  unnecessary  pain  and
suffering.

PERFORMING ANIMALS
33.   All animals are not anatomically designed to  be  performing  animals.
Bulls are basically Draught and Pack animals. they are live-stock  used  for
farming  and  agriculture  purposes,  like  ploughing,  transportation  etc.
Bulls, it may be noted, have been recognized as Draught and Pack animals  in
the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Draught  and  Pack  Animals  Rules,  1965.
Draught means an animal used for pulling heavy loads.   Rules  define  large
bullock to mean a bullock the weight of which  exceeds  350  Kgs.   Bullocks
have a large abdomen and thorax and the entire body has a resemblance  to  a
barrel shape, which limits ability to run.  Bulls have also  limitations  on
flexing joins and the rigid  heavily  built  body  and  limited  flexion  of
joints do not favour running faster.   Due to that  body  constitution,  the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals on Foot)  Rules,
2001, especially Rule 11 says that no person shall use a whip or a stick  in
order to force the animal to walk or to  hasten  the  pace  of  their  walk.
Bulls, it may be noted, are cloven  footed  (two  digits)  animals  and  two
digits in each leg can comfortably bear weight only when they  are  walking,
not running.   Horse, on the other hand,  is  a  solid  hoofed  plant-eating
quadruped with a flowing mane and tail, domesticated for  riding  and  as  a
draught animal.   Horse power, we call it as  an  imperial  unit  of  power,
equal to 550 foot-pounds per second.   Horse’s anatomy enables  it  to  make
use of speed and can be usefully used for horse racing etc., unlike Bulls.

34.   Bulls,  therefore,  in  our  view,  cannot  be  a  performing  animal,
anatomically not designed for that, but are forced  to  perform,  inflicting
pain and suffering, in total violation of Sections 3 and  Section  11(1)  of
PCA Act.   Chapter V of the PCA  Act  deals  with  the  performing  animals.
Section 22 of the PCA Act places restriction on exhibition and  training  of
performing animals, which reads as under:
      “22. Restriction on exhibition and training of performing animals : No
      person shall exhibit or train


      (i) any performing animal unless he is registered in  accordance  with
      the provisions of this Chapter;


      (ii) as a performing animal, any animal which the  Central  Government
      may, by notification in the official gazette,  specify  as  an  animal
      which shall not be exhibited or trained as a performing animal.”

35.   The words ‘exhibit’ and ‘train’ are defined in Section 21 of the PCA
Act, which is as follows:
      “21. “Exhibit” and “train” defined:  In  this  Chapter,      "exhibit"
      means exhibit or any entertainment to which the  public  are  admitted
      through sale of tickets, and "train" means train for  the  purpose  of
      any such exhibition, and the  expressions  "exhibitor"  and  "trainer"
      have respectively the corresponding meanings.”

36.   Section 23 of the PCA Act deals with the procedure  for  registration.
Section 24 of the PCA Act deals with the powers of the court to prohibit  or
restrict exhibition and training of performing animals.  Section 25  of  the
PCA Act confers powers on any authorised person to enter into  the  premises
to examine as to whether the statutory requirements  are  properly  complied
with.  Section 26 of the PCA Act deals with the offences and Section  27  of
the PCA Act deals with exemptions.  Performing Animals  Rules,  1973  define
‘performing animal’ to mean any animal which is used at, or for the  purpose
of any entertainment to which public are admitted through sale  of  tickets.
Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races, it  was  contended,  are  conducted  without
sale of tickets and hence Section 22 of the PCA  Act  would  not  apply,  so
also the notification dated 11.7.2011.  We find no  substance  or  logic  in
that submission.  It may be noted that when Bull is specifically  prohibited
to be exhibited or  trained  for  performance,  the  question  whether  such
performance, exhibition or entertainment is conducted with sale  of  tickets
or not, is irrelevant from the point of application of Sections 3 and  11(1)
of the PCA Act.

37.   We may, in this respect, refer to  Section  11(1)(m)  which  reads  as
follows:
      “11.  Treating animals cruelty.- (1) If any person-
      xxx   xxx   xxx
      xxx   xxx   xxx
           m) solely with a view to providing entertainment-


                    i)  confines  or  causes  to  be  confined  any   animal
                       (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or
                       other sanctuary) so as to make it an object  of  prey
                       for any other animal; or
                   ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal;
                       or.”

Section 11(1)(m)(ii), therefore, says, if any person, solely with a view  to
providing entertainment incites any animal to  fight,  shall  be  punishable
under the proviso to Section 11(1).  In  Jallikattu,  Bull  is  expected  to
fight with various Bull tamers, for which it is incited  solely  to  provide
entertainment  for  the  spectators  by  sale  of  tickets   or   otherwise.
Inciting the Bull to fight  with  another  animal  or  human  being  matters
little, so far as the Bull is concerned, it  is  a  fight,  hence,  cruelty.
Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race, therefore,  violate  not  only  Sections,  3,
11(1)(a) & (m) and Section 22, but also  the  notification  dated  11.7.2011
issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act.


38.   We may, in this connection,  also  refer  to  the  Performing  Animals
(Registration) Rules, 2001.  Rule 8 deals  with  the  general  condition  of
registration.  Rule 8(v) states that the owner shall ensure that any  animal
is not inflicted unnecessary pain or suffering before  or  during  or  after
its training or exhibition.   Rule  8(vii)  specifically  caution  that  the
owner shall train the animal as a performing animal to  perform  an  act  in
accordance with the animals’  natural instinct.   Bull  is  trained  not  in
accordance with its natural instinct  for  the  Jallikattu  or  Bullock-cart
race.  Bulls,  in  those  events,  are  observed  to  carry  out  a  “flight
response” running away from the crowd as  well  as  from  the  Bull  tamers,
since they are  in  fear  and  distress,  this  natural  instinct  is  being
exploited.

39.    Animal  Welfare  Division  of  MoEF,  represented  by  its  Director,
submitted a note file on 27.1.2011 to the  Minister  specifically  referring
to the affidavit filed by the AWBI before this Court in  Writ  Petition  No.
145 of 2011 and the relevant portion of the affidavit reads as follows:
      “I affirm on  behalf  of  the  Animal  Welfare  Board  of  India  that
      Jallikattu is indeed an extremely cruel and barbaric sport,  in  which
      the Bulls that are forced to participate are brutalized and  subjected
      to unnecessary pain and  suffering.   Surrounded  by  huge  crowds  of
      shouting, screaming people intent upon seeing them cruelly subdued and
      overpowered, regardless of what they endure, the bulls  are  subjected
      to terrible acts of cruelty.  They are  beaten,  kicked,  and  chilly-
      powder rubbed into their eyes.  Their humps and horns are  seized  and
      twisted and turned during  the  course  of  the  ‘sport’,  leading  to
      injuries, tears and bleeding and the animals toppling over.    All  of
      this occurs while they are surrounded by the jeering, frenzied  crowd.
      In fact, the tails of the animals are routinely  pulled,  twisted  and
      turned, leading to painful injuries and often to broken tails.   By no
      stretch of imagination can the bulls be termed as “performing animals”
      or “trained for the sport”.  In fact, what occurs during the event  is
      that the participating bulls are forced to endure unnecessary pain and
      suffering beyond measure.   It is for this reason that  the  answering
      respondent  had  represented  to  the  Central  Government  that  this
      barbaric, pre-historic event masquerading under the guise of sport, be
      banned.
                                                         (emphasis supplied)

Further, it was also stated in the affidavit that:


      “I also affirm on behalf of the Answering Respondent that  seeking  to
      ‘regulate’ a barbaric event involving unnecessary pain  and  suffering
      for the animals forced to participate in the same cannot  legalize  or
      confer legitimacy upon the  event.   Moreover,  that  the  Tamil  Nadu
      Regulation of Jallikattu Act 2009 is ultra vires the  Constitution  of
      India, and repugnant to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to
      Animals Act.”


Note referred to above also made  a  reference  to  the  Madras  High  Court
judgment  pointing  out  that  Jallikattu  and  other  related  events   are
exhibition of performance of trained animals, permitted under Chapter  V  of
PCA Act.  Noticing all those aspects, especially taking note  of  the  stand
of AWBI, it recommended that all such events be  stopped,  especially  Bulls
as performing animals under Section 22  of  PCA  Act,  similar  to  the  ban
already introduced in the case of Bears, Tigers etc.

40.   Stand of the Animal Welfare Division of MoEF and AWBI was accepted  by
the Central  Government  (MoEF)  and  a  notification  dated  11.7.2011  was
issued, which was also gazetted on the same date,  including  Bull  also  in
the  category  of  banned  animals.  Power  is  conferred  on  the   Central
Government under Section 22(ii) to ban the exhibition  or  training  of  any
animal as a performing animal.  Following  its  earlier  notification  dated
14.10.1998, as already stated, the MoEF issued  another  notification  dated
11.7.2011 including “Bull” also as an animal not to be exhibited or  trained
for exhibition as a performing animal, which is a conscious  decision  taken
by the MoEF on relevant materials,  while  this  Court  was  seized  of  the
matter.  AWBI’s advice under Sections 9(a) and (l) as well as  the  note  of
Animal Welfare Division of MoEF was accepted by the Central  Government  and
now it cannot take a contrary stand, that too, without consulting the  AWBI,
whose advice was already accepted and acted upon.

41.   Jallikattu as well as  the  Bullock-cart  races  etc.,  as  an  event,
according to the Board, violate Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) &  (m)  of  the  PCA
Act read with  Article  51A(g)  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  MoEF,  in
exercise of its powers conferred  under  Section  22  of  the  PCA  Act,  as
already  stated,  after  noticing  the  stand  of  the   Board,   issued   a
notification specifying that Bulls shall not  be  exhibited  or  trained  as
performing animals, that position still stands.  MoEF, it is  seen,  so  far
as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, is not recognising  that  Bullock-
cart race is part and parcel of the tradition of the people  of  Maharashtra
and that it has any cultural, historical or  religious  significance.    The
State  of  Maharashtra,  in  its  order   dated   20.4.2012,   has   clearly
acknowledged that the organisation of animal sports in the State, mainly  in
its rural hinterland, like Bull /Ox /  Bullock-cart  race  etc.  is  nothing
but violence to the dumb animals  and  has  to  be  prohibited.   The  State
Government evidently did not give its stamp of  approval  to  the  so-called
cultural, historical importance to the Bullock-cart Race and that order  has
not been challenged.   But, so far as the State of Tamil Nadu is  concerned,
now a proposal has been made to exempt bulls,  participating  in  Jallikattu
from the purview of the notification dated 11.07.2011 stating  that  it  has
historic, cultural and religious significance in the State.

CULTURE AND TRADITION

42.   The Statement of Objects  and  Reasons  of  the  TNRJ  Act  refers  to
ancient culture and tradition and does not state that it has  any  religious
significance.  Even the ancient culture and tradition  do  not  support  the
conduct of Jallikattu or Bullock cart race, in the form in  which  they  are
being conducted at present.  Welfare and the  well-being  of  the  bull   is
Tamil culture and tradition, they do not approve of infliction of  any  pain
or suffering on the bulls, on the other hand, Tamil  tradition  and  culture
are to worship the bull and the bull is always considered as the vehicle  of
Lord Shiva.  Yeru Thazhuvu, in Tamil tradition, is to embrace bulls and  not
over-powering the bull, to show human bravery.  Jallikattu means, silver  or
gold coins tied to the bulls horns and in olden days those who  get  at  the
money to the bulls horns would marry the daughter of the owner.   Jallikattu
or the bullock cart race, as practised now, has never been the tradition  or
culture of Tamil Nadu.
43.    PCA  Act,  a  welfare  legislation,  in  our  view,  over-shadows  or
overrides the so-called tradition and culture.  Jallikattu and Bullock  cart
races, the manner in which they are conducted,  have  no  support  of  Tamil
tradition or culture.  Assuming, it has been in vogue for quite  some  time,
in our view, the same should give way to the welfare legislation,  like  the
PCA Act which has been enacted to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain  or
suffering on animals and confer duties and obligations on persons  in-charge
of animals.  Of late, there are some attempts at certain quarters,  to  reap
maximum gains and the animals are being exploited by  the  human  beings  by
using coercive methods and inflicting unnecessary  pain  for  the  pleasure,
amusement and enjoyment.  We have a history of doing  away  with  such  evil
practices in the society,  assuming  such  practices  have  the  support  of
culture and tradition, as tried to be projected in the TNRJ Act.   Professor
Salmond states that Custom is the embodiment of those principles which  have
commended themselves  to  the  national  conscience  as  the  principles  of
justice and public utility.   This Court, in  N.  Adithayan  v.  Thravancore
Dewaswom Board and Others (2002) 8 SCC 106, while  examining  the  scope  of
Articles 25(1), 2(a), 26(b), 17, 14 and 21, held as follows:
           “18………. Any custom or usage irrespective of even  any  proof  of
      their existence in pre-constitutional days cannot be countenanced as a
      source of law to claim any rights when it is found  to  violate  human
      rights, dignity, social equality  and  the  specific  mandate  of  the
      Constitution and law made by Parliament.  No usage which is  found  to
      be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of  the  law  of  the
      land or opposed to public policy or social decency can be accepted  or
      upheld by courts in the country.”

44.   As early as 1500-600  BC  in  Isha-Upanishads,  it  is  professed  as
follows:

           “The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land.   No
      creature is superior to any other.  Human beings should not  be  above
      nature.  Let no one species encroach over the rights and privileges of
      other species.”



45.   In our view, this  is  the  culture  and  tradition  of  the  country,
particularly the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.

46.   PCA Act has been enacted with an object to safeguard  the  welfare  of
the animals and evidently to cure some mischief and age  old  practices,  so
as  to  bring  into  effect  some  type  of  reform,  based  on  eco-centric
principles, recognizing the intrinsic value and worth of animals.   All  the
same, the Act has taken care of the religious practices  of  the  community,
while killing an animal vide Section 28 of the Act.



INTERNATIONAL APPROACH TO ANIMALS WELFARE

47.    We  may,  at  the  outset,  indicate  unfortunately,  there   is   no
international agreement that ensures the welfare and protection of  animals.
 United Nations, all these years,  safeguarded  only  the  rights  of  human
beings, not the rights of other species  like  animals,  ignoring  the  fact
that  many  of  them,  including  Bulls,  are  sacrificing  their  lives  to
alleviate  human  suffering,  combating  diseases  and  as  food  for  human
consumption.  International community should hang their head in  shame,  for
not recognizing their rights all these ages,  a  species  which  served  the
humanity from the time of Adam and Eve.  Of course, there has  been  a  slow
but observable shift from the anthropocentric approach to  a  more  nature’s
right centric approach in International Environmental  Law,  Animal  Welfare
Laws etc.  Environmentalist noticed  three  stages  in  the  development  of
international environmental law instrument, which are as under:

      (a)   The First Stage: Human self-interest  reason  for  environmental
      protection

-     The instruments in this stage were fuelled  by  the  recognition  that
      the conservation of nature was in the common interest of all mankind.

-      Some  the  instruments  executed  during  this  time   included   the
      Declaration of the Protection of Birds Useful to  Agriculture  (1875),
      Convention Designed to Ensure the Protection  of  Various  Species  of
      Wild Animals which are Useful to Man or Inoffensive (1900), Convention
      for the Regulation of  Whaling  (1931)  which  had  the  objective  of
      ensuring the health of the whaling industry rather than conserving  or
      protecting the whale species.

-     The attitude behind these treaties was the assertion of  an  unlimited
      right to exploit natural resources – which derived from their right as
      sovereign nations.

(b)   The Second Stage: International Equity

-     This stage saw the extension of treaties beyond  the  requirements  of
      the present generation to also meet the needs to future generations of
      human beings.  This shift signalled a departure from the  pure  tenets
      of anthropocentrism.

-     For example, the 1946 Whaling Convention which  built  upon  the  1931
      treaty mentioned in the preamble that “it is in the  interest  of  the
      nations of the world to safeguard for  future  generations  the  great
      natural resource represented by  the  whale  stocks”.  Similarly,  the
      Stockholm Declaration of the  UN  embodied  this  shift  in  thinking,
      stating that “man ...... bears a solemn responsibility to protect  and
      improve the  environment  for  present  and  future  generations”  and
      subsequently asserts that “the natural resources  of  the  earth  ....
      must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future  generations
      through careful planning and management”.  Other  documents  expressed
      this shift in terms of sustainability and sustainable development.

(c)   The Third Stage: Nature’s own rights

-     Recent Multinational instruments have asserted the intrinsic value  of
      nature.

-     UNEP Biodiversity Convention (1992) “Conscious of the intrinsic  value
      of biological  diversity  and  of  the  ecological,  genetic,  social,
      economic, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values  of
      biological diversity and its  components  ....  [we  have]  agreed  as
      follows:......”.  The World Charter for Nature proclaims  that  “every
      form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth  to
      man.”   The  Charter  uses  the  term  “nature”   in   preference   to
      “environment” with a view to shifting  to  non-anthropocentric  human-
      independent terminology.”

48.   We have accepted and applied  the  eco-centric  principles  in  T.  N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others (2012) 3 SCC 277, T.  N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others (2012) 4 SCC 362 and  in
Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund - India v. Union of  India  and
Others (2013) 8 SCC 234.

49.    Based  on  eco-centric  principles,  rights  of  animals  have   been
recognized in various countries.  Protection of animals has been  guaranteed
by the Constitution of Germany by way of  an  amendment  in  2002  when  the
words “and the animals”  were  added  to  the  constitutional  clauses  that
obliges ‘state’ to respect ‘animal dignity’.  Therefore, the dignity of  the
animals is constitutionally  recognised  in  that  country.   German  Animal
Welfare Law, especially  Article  3  provides  far-reaching  protections  to
animals including inter alia from animals fight and other  activities  which
may result in the pain, suffering and harm for the animals.  Countries  like
Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia have enacted legislations to  include  animal
welfare in their national Constitutions so as to balance the animal  owners’
fundamental rights to property and the animals’  interest  in  freedom  from
unnecessary suffering or pain, damage and fear.

50.    Animals  Welfare  Act  of  2006  (U.K.)  also  confers   considerable
protection to the animals from pain and  suffering.   The  Austrian  Federal
Animal Protection Act also recognises  man’s  responsibilities  towards  his
fellow creatures and the subject “Federal Act” aims  at  the  protection  of
life and well being of the animals.  The Animal Welfare Act,  2010  (Norway)
states “animals have an intrinsic value which is irrespective of the  usable
value they may  have  for  man.   Animals  shall  be  treated  well  and  be
protected from the danger of unnecessary stress and strain.  Section  26  of
the Legislation prohibits training an  animal  to  fight  with  people,  the
operative portion of the same reads as follows :



       “Any person who trains animals and who uses animals  which  are  used
       for showing, entertainment  and  competitions,  including  those  who
       organise such activities, shall ensure that the animals:


          a) xxx  xxx  xxx
          b) xxx  xxx  xxx
          c) xxx  xxx  xxx


       (d)     are not trained for or used in fights with other  animals  or
       people.”


51.   When  we  look  at  the  rights  of  animals  from  the  national  and
international perspective,  what  emerges  is  that  every  species  has  an
inherent right to live and  shall  be  protected  by  law,  subject  to  the
exception provided out of necessity.  Animal has  also  honour  and  dignity
which cannot be arbitrarily deprived of and its rights and privacy  have  to
be respected and protected from unlawful attacks.

52.   Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) is a  campaign  led  by
World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) in an attempt  to  secure
international recognition for the principles of animal  welfare.   UDAW  has
had considerable support from  various  countries,  including  India.   WSPA
believes that the  world  should  look  to  the  success  of  the  Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to set out  what  UDAW  can  achieve  for
animals.   Five freedoms referred to in UDAW, which we  will  deal  with  in
latter part of the judgment, find support in PCA Act and  the  rules  framed
thereunder to a great extent.

53.   World Health Organization of Animal Health (OIE), of which India is  a
member, acts as the international reference organisation for  animal  health
and animal welfare. OIE has been recognised as a reference  organisation  by
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and, in the year 2013, it has a total  of
178 member countries.    On animal welfare, OIE says that an  animal  is  in
good state of welfare  if  (as  indicated  by  Scientific  evidence)  it  is
healthy,  comfortable,  well  nourished,  safe,  able  to   express   innate
behaviour and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states  such  as  pain,
fear and distress.

FREEDOM:

54.    Chapter  7.1.2  of   the   guidelines   of   OIE,   recognizes   five
internationally recognized freedoms for animals, such as:

     i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;

    ii) freedom from fear and distress;

   iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;

    iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and

     v)     freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in its “Legislative and  Regulatory
Options for Animal Welfare” indicated that these five freedoms  found  their
place in Farm Welfare Council 2009 U.K. and is also called  Brambell’s  Five
Freedoms.  These five freedoms, as already indicated, are considered  to  be
the fundamental principles of animal welfare  and  we  can  say  that  these
freedoms find a place in Sections 3 and 11 of  PCA  Act  and  they  are  for
animals like the rights guaranteed to the citizens  of  this  country  under
Part III of the Constitution of India.

55.   Animals are world-wide legally recognised as ‘property’  that  can  be
possessed by humans.  On  deletion  of  Article  19(1)(f)  from  the  Indian
Constitution, right to property is more a fundamental right in  India,  this
gives the Parliament more a leeway to pass laws  protecting  the  rights  of
animals.  Right to hold on to a property which  includes  animals  also,  is
now only a legal right not a fundamental right.   We have also  to  see  the
rights of animals in that perspective as well.

56.   Rights guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3,  11, etc. are  only
statutory  rights.   The  same  have  to  be  elevated  to  the  status   of
fundamental rights, as has been done by few countries around the  world,  so
as to secure their honour and dignity. Rights  and  freedoms  guaranteed  to
the animals under Sections 3 and 11 have  to  be  read  along  with  Article
51A(g)(h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal rights.

COMPASSION:

57.   Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of  citizens  to  have
compassion for living creatures.  In  State  of  Gujarat  v.  Mirzapur  Moti
Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others (2005) 8 SCC 534, this Court  held  that  by
enacting Article 51A(g) and giving it the status of a fundamental duty,  one
of the objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is  to  ensure  that  the
spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48-A are  honoured  as  a  fundamental
duty of every citizen.  Article 51A(g), therefore, enjoins  that  it  was  a
fundamental  duty  of  every  citizen  “to  have   compassion   for   living
creatures”, which means concern for suffering,  sympathy,  kindliness  etc.,
which has to be read along with Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 22 etc.  of  PCA
Act.

HUMANISM:

58.   Article 51A(h) says that it shall be the  duty  of  every  citizen  to
develop the scientific temper,  humanism  and  the  spirit  of  inquiry  and
reform.  Particular emphasis has been  made  to  the  expression  “humanism”
which has a number of meanings, but increasingly designates as an  inclusive
sensibility for our species.   Humanism also means, understand  benevolence,
compassion, mercy etc.   Citizens should, therefore,  develop  a  spirit  of
compassion and humanism which is reflected in the Preamble  of  PCA  Act  as
well as in Sections 3 and 11 of the Act. To look after the welfare and well-
being of the animals and the duty to  prevent  the  infliction  of  pain  or
suffering on animals  highlights  the  principles  of  humanism  in  Article
51A(h).  Both Articles 51A(g) and (h) have to be  read  into  the  PCA  Act,
especially into Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act and be  applied  and
enforced.

SPECIESISM:

59.   Speciesism as a concept coined by Richard Ryder in his  various  works
on the attitude to  animals,  like  Animal  Revolution,  Changing  Attitudes
towards Speciesism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), Animal Welfare  and  the
Environment  (London:  Gerald  Duckworth,   1992)   etc.    Oxford   English
Dictionary defines the term as “the assumption  of  human  superiority  over
other creatures, leading to the exploitation  of  animals”.   Speciesism  is
also described as the widespread discrimination that  is  practised  by  man
against the other species, that is a prejudice or attitude of  bias  towards
the interest of members of one’s own species and against  those  of  members
of other species.  Speciesism as a concept used to be compared  with  Racism
and Sexism on the ground that all those refer to  discrimination  that  tend
to promote or encourage domination and exploitation of members of one  group
by another.   One school of thought is that Castism, Racism and  Sexism  are
biological  classification,  since  they   are   concerned   with   physical
characteristics, such as, discrimination on  the  ground  of  caste,  creed,
religion, colour of the  skin,  reproductive  role  etc.  rather  than  with
physical properties, such as the capacity for  being  harmed  or  benefited.


60.   We have got over those inequalities like Castism, Racism, Sexism  etc.
through Constitutional and Statutory amendments, like  Articles  14  to  17,
19, 29 and so on.    So far as animals are concerned, Section 3 of  the  Act
confers right on  animals  so  also  rights  under  Section  11  not  to  be
subjected to cruelty.  When such statutory rights  have  been  conferred  on
animals, we can always judge as to  whether  they  are  being  exploited  by
human-beings.  As  already  indicated,  an  enlightened  society,  of  late,
condemned slavery,  racism,  castism,  sexism  etc.  through  constitutional
amendments, laws etc. but, though late,  through  PCA  Act,  Parliament  has
recognized the rights of animals, of course,  without  not  sacrificing  the
interest of human beings under the Doctrine of necessity,  like  experiments
on animals for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of  physiological
knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for  prolonging
life or alleviating suffering or  for  combating  any  disease,  whether  of
human beings, animals or plants and also destruction  of  animals  for  food
under Section 11(3) of the PCA Act.  Legislature  through  Section  28  also
saved the  manner  of  killing  of  animals  in  the  manner  prescribed  by
religions, those are, in our view, reasonable  restrictions  on  the  rights
enjoyed by the animals under Section 3 read with Section 11(1).   Evidently,
those restrictions are the direct inevitable  consequences  or  the  effects
which could be said to have been in the  contemplation  of  the  legislature
for human benefit, since  they  are  unavoidable.    Further,  animals  like
Cows, Bulls etc. are all freely used for farming, transporting  loads  etc.,
that too, for the benefit of human beings, thereby subjecting them  to  some
pain and suffering which is also unavoidable, but  permitted  by  the  Rules
framed under the PCA Act.





NON-ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES:

61.   We have, however, lot  of  avoidable  non-essential  human  activities
like Bullock-cart race, Jallikattu etc.   Bulls,  thinking  that  they  have
only instrumental value are intentionally used  though  avoidable,  ignoring
welfare of the Bulls solely  for  human  pleasure.    Such  avoidable  human
activities violate rights guaranteed to them under Sections 3 and 11 of  PCA
Act.  AWBI, the expert statutory body has taken up  the  stand  that  events
like  Jallikattu,  Bullock-cart  race  etc.  inherently  involve  pain   and
suffering, which involves both physical  and  mental  components,  including
fear and distress.  Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson, in their  work  on
“Animals in Translation” say:

            “The single worst thing you can do to an animal emotionally  is
      to make it feel afraid.  Fear is so bad for  animals  I  think  it  is
      worse than pain.  I always get surprised looks when I  say  this.   If
      you gave most people a choice between intense pain and  intense  fear,
      they’d probably pick fear.”



Both  anxiety  and  fear,  therefore,  play  an  important  role  in  animal
suffering, which is part and parcel of the events like Jallikattu,  Bullock-
cart Race etc..

RIGHT TO LIFE:

62.   Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law  of
the land, which  includes  depriving  its  life,  out  of  human  necessity.
Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding  the  rights  of  humans,
protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition  and
any disturbance from the basic  environment  which  includes  all  forms  of
life, including animal life,  which  are  necessary  for  human  life,  fall
within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.   So  far  as  animals
are concerned, in our view, “life” means something more than  mere  survival
or existence or instrumental value for human-beings,  but  to  lead  a  life
with some intrinsic worth, honour  and  dignity.   Animals’  well-being  and
welfare have been statutorily recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the  Act
and the rights framed under the Act.   Right to live in a healthy and  clean
atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against  inflicting
unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed  to  the  animals  under
Sections 3  and  11  of  the  PCA  Act  read  with  Article  51A(g)  of  the
Constitution.  Right to get food, shelter is also a guaranteed  right  under
Sections 3  and  11  of  the  PCA  Act  and  the  Rules  framed  thereunder,
especially  when  they  are  domesticated.    Right  to  dignity  and   fair
treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to  animals
as well.  Right, not to be  beaten,  kicked,  over-ridder,  over-loading  is
also a right recognized by Section 11 read with Section 3 of  the  PCA  Act.
Animals have also a right against the human beings not to  be  tortured  and
against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.  Penalty for  violation
of  those  rights  are  insignificant,  since  laws  are  made  by   humans.
Punishment prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the  gravity
of the offence, hence  being  violated  with  impunity  defeating  the  very
object and purpose of the Act, hence the necessity  of  taking  disciplinary
action against  those  officers  who  fail  to  discharge  their  duties  to
safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act.

63.   Jallikattu and other forms of  Bulls  race,  as  the  various  reports
indicate, causes considerable pain, stress and strain on the bulls.   Bulls,
in such events, not only do move their  head showing that they do  not  want
to go to the arena but, as pain is being inflicted in the  vadivasal  is  so
much, they have no other go but to flee to a situation which is  adverse  to
them.  Bulls, in  that  situation,  are  stressed,  exhausted,  injured  and
humiliated.  Frustration of the Bulls is noticeable  in  their  vocalization
and, looking at the  facial  expression  of  the  bulls,  ethologist  or  an
ordinary man can easily sense their suffering.  Bulls,  otherwise  are  very
peaceful animals dedicating their life for human use  and  requirement,  but
are subjected to such an ordeal that not only inflicts serious suffering  on
them but also forces them to behave in ways, namely,  they  do  not  behave,
force them into the event which does not like and,  in  that  process,  they
are  being  tortured  to  the  hilt.   Bulls  cannot  carry  the   so-called
performance  without  being  exhausted,  injured,  tortured  or  humiliated.
Bulls are also intentionally subjected to fear, injury – both  mentally  and
physically – and put to unnecessary stress and  strain  for  human  pleasure
and enjoyment, that too, a species totally  dedicated  its  life  for  human
benefit, out of necessity.

64.   We are, therefore, of the view that Sections 21, 22  of  the  PCA  Act
and the relevant provisions have to  be  understood  in  the  light  of  the
rights conferred on animals under Section 3, read with Sections  11(1)(a)  &
(o) and Articles  51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution, and  if  so  read,  in
our view, Bulls cannot be used as a Performing Animals  for  Jallikattu  and
Bullock-cart Race, since they are basically draught and  pack  animals,  not
anatomically designed for such performances.

REPUGNANCY:

65.   We may now examine whether provisions of the  TNRJ  Act,  which  is  a
State Act, is repugnant to the PCA Act, which is a Central Act, since,  both
the Acts fall under  Entry  No.  17  in  the  Concurrent  List.   Repugnancy
between the Parliamentary Legislation and State Legislation  arises  in  two
ways:
        i) Where the legislations,  though  enacted  with  respect  to  the
           matters in their allotted sphere, overlap conflict and
       ii) Where two legislations are with respect to the same  matters  in
           the concurrent list and there is a conflict.
In both the situations, the Parliamentary legislation  will  predominate  in
the first by virtue of the non-obstante clause in  Article  246(1),  and  in
the second by reason of Article 254(1) of the  Constitution.    The  law  on
this point has been elaborately discussed by  this  Court  in  the  case  of
Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 562.

66.   Instances are many, where the State law may be inconsistent  with  the
Central law, where there may be express inconsistency  in  actual  terms  of
the two legislations so that one cannot be  obeyed  without  disobeying  the
other.  Further, if the Parliamentary  legislation,  if  intended  to  be  a
complete and exhaustive code, then though there is no direct  conflict,  the
State law may be  inoperative.   Repugnancy  will  also  arise  between  two
enactments even though  obedience  to  each  of  them  is  possible  without
disobeying the other, if a competent legislature with  a  superior  efficacy
expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover  the
whole field.

67.   In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India  AIR 1979 SC 898, this Court  held
that, in order to decide the question of repugnancy, it must be  shown  that
the two  enactments  contain  inconsistent  and  irreconcilable  provisions,
therefore, they  cannot  stand  together  or  operate  in  the  same  field.
Further,  it  was  also  pointed  out  that  there  can  be  no  repeal   by
implication, unless inconsistency appears on the  face  of  those  statutes.
Further, where two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room  or
possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without  coming
into collision with each other, no repugnancy  results.    Further,  it  was
also noticed that there is no inconsistency, but  a  statute  occupying  the
same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences,  no  question  of
repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue  to  operate  in  the  same
field.

68.   In Jaya  Gokul  Educational  Trust  v.  Commissioner  &  Secretary  to
Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State  and
Another (2000) 5 SCC 231, this Court took the view that the  repugnancy  may
arise between two enactments even  though  obedience  of  each  of  them  is
possible without  disobeying  the  other,  if  a  competent  legislature  of
superior efficacy, expressly or impliedly, evinces by the State  legislation
a clear intention to cover the whole field and the enactment  of  the  other
legislature, passed before or after, would be over-borne on  the  ground  of
repugnancy.

69.   We may, bearing in mind the above principles,  examine  whether  there
is any repugnancy between PCA Act and TNRJ Act so as  to  have  inconsistent
and inconceivable provisions so that they cannot stand together  or  operate
in the same field.  Both the legislators trace their  legislative  power  in
Entry 17 List III.
      “Prevention of Cruelty to animals.”

70.   We have to examine whether while enacting the PCA Act, the  Parliament
has evinced its intention to cover the whole field.  To  examine  the  same,
we have to refer to the Statement of Objects of the Act, Preamble and  other
relevant statutory provisions, which  would  indicate  that  the  Parliament
wanted a comprehensive act with the object of promoting  message  of  animal
welfare and for  preventing  cruelty  to  the  animals.   The  Statement  of
Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows:
                      “Statement of Objects and Reasons


           The Committee for the prevention of cruelty to animals appointed
      by the Government of India drew attention to a number of  deficiencies
      in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 (Central Act No.  11
      of 1980) and suggested a replacement by a more comprehensive Act.  The
      existing Act has restricted scope as:


           1) it applies only to urban areas within municipal limits;
           2) it defines the term  ‘animal’  as  meaning  any  domestic  or
              captured animal and thus contains no provision for prevention
              of cruelty  to  animals  other  than  domestic  and  captured
              animals;
           3) it covers only certain specified types of cruelty to animals;
              and
           4) penalties for certain offences are inadequate.


           The Bill is intended to give effect to those recommendations  of
      the Committee which have been accepted by the Government of India  and
      in respect of  which  Central  Legislation  can  be  undertaken.   The
      existing Act is proposed to be repealed.


           Besides declaring certain type  of  cruelty  to  animals  to  be
      offences and providing  necessary  penalties  for  such  offences  and
      making some of the more serious of  them  cognizable,  the  Bill  also
      contains provisions for the establishment of an Animal  Welfare  Board
      with the object of promoting measures for animal welfare.


           Provisions is  also  being  made  for  the  establishment  of  a
      Committee to control experimentation on animals when  the  Government,
      on the advice of the Animal Welfare Board, is  satisfied  that  it  is
      necessary  to  do  so  for  preventing  cruelty  to   animals   during
      experimentation.  The Bill also contains provisions for licensing  and
      regulating the training and performance of animals for the purpose  of
      any entertainment to which the public are  admitted  through  sale  of
      tickets.




71.   Section 3 has been specifically enacted,  as  already  indicated,  to
confer duties on persons who are in-charge or care of  the  animals,  which
says, it is the duty of such persons  to  ensure  the  well-being  of  such
animals and to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering upon the
animals.   In other words, the well-being and welfare of the animals is the
paramount and dominant intention of the PCA Act and with that intention  it
has conferred duties on the person in-charge or care  of  the  animals  and
correspondent rights on the animals.   Section 11  confers  obligations  on
all persons, including persons-in-charge or care of the animals to see that
Section 3 has been fully  obeyed.   Exemptions  to  Section  11  have  been
provided in sub-section (3) on the doctrine of necessity, which concept  we
have already dealt with in the earlier part of the judgment.  Section 22 of
PCA Act, which deals with “performing animals”, has to be read  along  with
Sections 3, 11(1), 11(3) of the Act and that expects  only  the  animal  to
perform in an exhibition and Bull tamers have  no  role  unlike  TNRJ  Act.
Sections 21 and 22 refer to training of animals  for  performance  and  not
training to withstand the onslaught of Bull tamers.  Sections 3, 11  or  22
do not confer any right on the human beings to over-power the animals while
it is performing, on the other  hand,  under  Section  11(m),  inciting  an
animal to fight is an offence.


72.   Section 38 of the PCA Act confers rule-making powers on  the  Central
Government  and,  in  exercise  of  its  rule-making  powers,  the  Central
Government made the  Performing  Animal  Rules,  1973  and  the  Performing
Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 and thrust of all  the  substantive  and
procedural provisions is the welfare and well-being of the animal  and  the
duties and obligations of the persons who are in-charge of the animals  and
also to safeguard  the  rights  conferred  on  the  animals.   Rule  8(vii)
specifically refers to animals’ “basic natural instinct” and cautions  that
the basic  natural  instinct  of  the  animals  be  protected  and  be  not
exploited.


73.   The TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentric legislation enacted not  for
the welfare of the  animals,  unlike  PCA  Act,  which  is  an  eco-centric
legislation, enacted to ensure the well-being and welfare  of  the  animals
and to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering of the animals.  The State Act
basically safeguards the interest of the organizers  and  spectators  while
conducting the event of Jallikattu.  Act has no Preamble and the  Statement
of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows:




                     “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS.
            “Jallikattu” includes “manjuvirattu”, “Oormadu”,  “Vadamadu”  or
      “Erudhu vidum vizha”. The said function consists of taming  of  bulls
      as a part of ancient culture and tradition of the  Tamils.  The  said
      tradition is in vogue for more than 400 years. At present,  there  is
      no legislation to regulate the conduct of  Jallikattu,  manjuvirattu,
      Oormadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu vidum vizha or any such activity  involving
      the taming of bulls. The Government have, therefore, decided to bring
      out a legislation to regulate the conduct of the  Jallikattu  in  the
      State of Tamil Nadu by prescribing norms to hold such events  and  to
      ensure the safety of animals, participants and the spectators.


            2. The Bill seeks to give effect to the above decisions.”


Section 4 deals with the responsibility of the  organizers.   Section  4(3)
provides for double barricade area  in  order  to  avoid  injuries  to  the
spectators and by-standers, the prime consideration is, therefore, to avoid
injuries to spectators and by-standers and not that of the animal.  Section
4(iv) deals with the fixing the gallery for the spectators to sit and watch
the event.  Section 4(vi) empowers the Animal Husbandry Department to  test
the  bulls  to  ensure  that  performance   enhancement   drugs   are   not
administered.  Duties have also been assigned to  the  District  Collector,
under Section 5 of the Act, to ensure safety of the spectators and  to  see
that bulls are free from diseases and not intoxicated or administered  with
any substance like nicotine, cocaine etc. to make them more aggressive  and
ferocious.  Sections 5(ix) and (x) authorize the District Collector to give
wider publicity to the provisions  of  the  PCA  Act  and  the  rules  made
thereunder and to ensure the presence of animal welfare activists  of  AWBI
during the conduct of the event.  Section 7 deals  with  penalty,  it  says
‘whoever contravenes the provisions of this Act shall,  on  conviction,  be
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one  year  or  with  fine,
which may extend to Rs.10,000/-, or with both’.   Section 11 of PCA Act, it
may be noted, provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend maximum
to three months, to that extent, there is inconsistency between  Section  7
of the TNRJ Act as well as Section 11 of the PCA Act.


74.   Section 2(d) of the PCA Act speaks of domestic animal and taming  the
animal for use of men, which is evidently for domestic use, being  domestic
animal, not for entertainment or  amusement.   Section  11(3),  as  already
stated,  excludes  five  categories  of  cases  from  Section  11  ‘due  to
necessity’ and Section 28 speaks of killing of animal in a manner  required
by the religion of  any  community.   Section  22  of  the  Act  speaks  of
performing animal,  meaning  thereby,  exhibition  and  training  only  for
performance of the animal.   The PCA Act  does  not  speak  of  ‘taming  of
animals’ (over-powering animals).   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.

75.   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.



76.   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.


77.   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.



78.   Appeals, transferred cases and the Writ Petition  are disposed of  as
above, setting aside the judgment of the Madras High Court,  but  upholding
the judgment of Bombay High Court  and  the  notification  dated  11.7.2011
issued by the Central Government.  In the facts and  circumstances  of  the
case, there will be no order as to costs.






                                        ………………..………….J.
                                        (K.S. Radhakrishnan)




                                        ………………...…………J.
                                        (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
New Delhi,
May 07, 2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.