Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India (2023) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India (2023)

Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India (2023) is a landmark case of the Supreme Court. The case centres around a traditional bull-taming sport Jallikattu from Tamil Nadu. The sport has been controversial due to concerns about animal cruelty and human safety. The 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice K.M. Joseph lifted the ban on Jallikattu and similar sports on 18th May, 2023 and allowed them to continue under strict regulations. The case also addresses important legal questions about animal rights, cultural rights and state laws.

Download Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India 2023 PDF

Historical Context and Facts of Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India (2023)

The case at hand revolves around ‘Jallikattu’ a traditional bull-taming sport popular in Tamil Nadu which has led to debates about its cultural significance and ethical concerns. The following are the brief facts of the case -

Background of Jallikattu

‘Jallikattu’ which is popularly known as ‘Eruthazhuvuthal’ is a traditional sport in Tamil Nadu with a history spanning over 2,000 years. The sport is considered a significant part of the culture and heritage of the Tamils. It involves releasing a bull into a crowd where participants attempt to control it and grab its hump.

Animal Cruelty and Human Safety Concerns

The sport faced criticism for practices of allegedly harming animals by using chemicals and physical violence to provoke them. The practices have raised concerns about animal cruelty. The sport has proven hazardous to human participants also leading to severe injuries and fatalities.

The Supreme Court’s 2014 Judgment

The Animal Welfare Board of India in 2007 challenged the legality of Jallikattu in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in 2014 banned the sport in the landmark ‘A. Nagaraja case.’ The decision highlighted violations of animal rights under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and prioritized welfare of animals over cultural practices. The Court called for the elevation of animal rights to constitutional status.

Government’s Response in 2016

The Ministry of Environment in 2016 issued a notification restricting the use of bulls in performances but made an exception for Jallikattu. The notification permitted the sport under certain conditions intended to minimize the suffering of the animals involved.

Legislative Developments in 2017

The Government of Tamil Nadu in 2017 passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act and legalised Jallikattu despite the earlier ban imposed by the Supreme Court. Similar amendments were enacted in Maharashtra and Karnataka to allow comparable traditional sports.

Challenge to the 2017 Amendments

The amendments passed by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka were challenged before the Supreme Court in 2018. A writ petition was filed questioning the legality of these legislative changes. 

Referral to 5-Judge Constitution Bench

Following this, the case was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench to determine whether these amendments struck an appropriate balance between cultural traditions and animal welfare.

Issue addressed in Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India (2023)

The main questions which were addressed in this case were- 

• Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017 contradict the legislative intent of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?
• Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act violate Entry 17 of the Concurrent List under the Constitution of India by promoting cruelty to animals?
• Can the practice of Jallikattu be safeguarded as a cultural right under Article 29 of the Constitution of India?

Legal Provisions involved in Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India (2023)

In the case of Jallikattu Article 14, Article 21, Article 29, Article 48 and Article 51A of the Constitution played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Article 14: Equality before Law

Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This provision includes two important expressions:

• Equality Before the Law
• Equal Protection of the Laws

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty

Article 21 ensures that no person can be deprived of their life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 

Article 48: Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry

Article 48 directs the State to modernise and scientifically organise agriculture and animal husbandry. It highlights the importance of preservation and improvisation of the breeds of livestock. The Article also safeguard for the prohibition of slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle.

Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities

Article 29 of the Constitution of India is an important provision for protecting the cultural and educational rights of religious and linguistic minorities. Article 29 comprises two main clauses-

1. grants individuals belonging to distinct communities the right to preserve their language, script and culture.
2. prohibits discrimination in educational institutions based on religion, race, caste or language.

Article 51A(g) and Article 51A(h): Fundamental Duties

Article 51A(g): To protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.

Article 51A(h): To develop the scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform.

Judgment and Impact of Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India (2023)

The Constitution Bench overturned the decision of 2-Judge Bench in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. The Court lifted the ban on bull-based sports such as ‘Jallikattu’ in Tamil Nadu.

The 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice K.M. Joseph upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017. The Court extended this ruling to validate similar amendments passed by Karnataka and Maharashtra to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. These amendments permitted the legal conduct of animal sports like Jallikattu, Kambala and Bailgada Sharyat in their respective states. The Court declared all three Amendment Acts constitutionally valid.

The Supreme Court directed authorities to strictly implement and enforce the provisions of the Act, Rules and Notifications. The Court also ordered District Magistrates and other officials to ensure compliance with the amended laws and associated regulations.

Thus, the Supreme Court held that the act was not arbitrary.

Conclusion

In Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India (2023) the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of state amendments and legalized traditional sports like Jallikattu. The Supreme Court directed strict regulatory enforcement and reinforced the need for democratic and humane solutions.