The Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India

-

 The Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India

Bench: Justice Kurian M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Chudalayil T. Ravikumar

Authored by: Justice Aniruddha Bose

Legal Questions

  1. Is Tamil Nadu’s amendment permitting Jallikattu contrary to the Supreme Court’s earlier ban in A. Nagaraja?
  2. Is Jallikattu part of Tamil Nadu’s cultural heritage?
  3. Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment violate the right to equality and life of animals?

Case Background

In 2014, the Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja banned Jallikattu and bullock-cart racing, citing cruelty to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). In 2017, Tamil Nadu enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, permitting Jallikattu with regulatory safeguards. Maharashtra and Karnataka passed similar laws for bullock-cart racing and Kambala.

Animal rights groups challenged these amendments, arguing they violated the A. Nagaraja judgment and that only the Union Government could frame rules under the PCA Act.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Amendment, ruling that:

  • The amendments are not contrary to A. Nagaraja, as they significantly reduce cruelty.
  • Jallikattu is part of Tamil Nadu’s cultural heritage, and the legislature’s view on this is respected.
  • Fundamental rights do not extend to animals under Articles 14 and 21.
  • The State Government had constitutional authority to enact the amendment, with Presidential assent under Article 254(2).

Key Takeaways

Reduced Cruelty

The Court found that the amendments introduced safeguards such as designated arenas, spectator barriers, and regulated handling that minimize harm to animals. These changes address the concerns raised in A. Nagaraja.

Cultural Recognition

Jallikattu has been practiced for centuries in Tamil Nadu. The Court held that determining its cultural status involves social and historical analysis, which is best left to the legislature. It declined to override the State’s recognition of Jallikattu as cultural heritage.

No Fundamental Rights for Animals

While animals are protected under statutory law, they do not possess fundamental rights under the Constitution. Challenges to legislation must be based on human rights, not those of animals.

Legislative Competence

Under Entry 17 of List III (Concurrent List), both the Union and States can legislate on animal welfare. Tamil Nadu’s amendment received Presidential assent, making it constitutionally valid even if it diverges from central law.

Conclusion

This judgment clarifies the constitutional boundaries of animal welfare legislation and cultural preservation. It affirms the State’s power to regulate traditional practices while ensuring minimal cruelty. The ruling balances legal protection for animals with respect for regional identity and legislative autonomy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Understanding Transfer Petitions Before the Supreme Court: Section 25 CPC and Article 139A of the Constitution

-
Understanding Transfer Petitions Before the Supreme Court: Section 25 CPC and Article 139A of the Constitution   In the complex landscape of Indian litigation, transfer petitions serve as a vital procedural tool to ensure justice, convenience, and judicial efficiency. Whether it’s a matrimonial dispute, a constitutional challenge, or a multi-jurisdictional commercial suit, the Supreme Court of India has the power to transfer cases across courts under various provisions. This blog unpacks the three principal legal routes for transfer petitions before the Supreme Court: Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Article 139A (1) of the Constitution of India Article 139A (2) of the Constitution of India We also clarify the court fee structure , which varies depending on whether the matter is matrimonial or not.     1. Transfer Petition Under Section 25 CPC Statutory Basis: Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Indi...
Read more

Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 486)

-
  Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 486) Date of Judgment: 15 April 2025 Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Krishnan V. Chandran Legal Question Does the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 prohibit the use of Urdu as an additional language on a Municipal Council building’s signboard? Case Background The Municipal Council of Patur , Akola district , displayed its name in both Marathi and Urdu. The appellant objected, arguing that only Marathi, being the official language of Maharashtra, could be used. The Collector initially upheld the objection, but the Divisional Commissioner reversed it. The appellant then approached the Bombay High Court , which declined to interfere. During the appeal, the 2022 Act came into force. The High Court re-heard the matter and ruled that the Act did not prohibit the use of Urdu. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court . Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court...
Read more

St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr Versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors.

-
St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr Versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. Number of judges: 2 Name of the judges: Aniruddha Bose and J.B.Pardiwala 1.        BRIEF FACTS: Sh. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava was the principal in a minority school whose services was terminated by the school management on ground of indiscipline. Sh. Rajendra Prasad preferred a writ petition before Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the termination order under Article 226 of Constitution. Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the petition with the contention that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 against a private institution. Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 485/2017 held a contrary view that writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matter reached to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where Hon’ble SCI held that as the school is not an ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Consti...
Read more