REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23 OF 2016

The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors.  … Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors.   … Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 24 OF 2016

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 25 OF 2016

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 26 OF 2016

1

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 27 OF 2016

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 88 OF 2016

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1059 OF 2017

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1011 OF 2017

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.  3528 OF 2018                                                           (Diary No. 37267/17)

WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.3526-3527 OF 2018

                                                         (Diary No. 39253/17)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1188 OF 2017

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1193 OF 2017

2

J U D G M E N T

R.F. NARIMAN, J.

1. The  present  batch  of  writ  petitions  was  originally

filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the

Union  of  India  on  7th January,  2016,  and  to  direct  the

Respondents  to  ensure  compliance  with  this  Court’s

judgment reported as Animal Welfare Board of India v.

A. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547.

2. However, while  these writ  petitions were pending,

The  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals  (Tamil  Nadu

Amendment)  Act,  2017, which received the Presidential

assent  on  31st January,  2017,  was  passed.    The  writ

petitions were then amended so as to include prayers to

set  aside the aforesaid Tamil  Nadu Amendment  Act  on

several grounds.

3. After hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents

for some time, we are of the view that these writ petitions

3

need  to  be  authoritatively  decided  by  a  Constitution

Bench of 5 learned Judges, as the writ petitions involve

substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the

Constitution  of  India.  The  questions,  which  require

reference to a Bench of 5 learned Judges, apart from the

other  questions raised in  the writ  petitions,  are  set  out

hereinbelow:

i. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith

and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh

Schedule  to  the  Constitution  of  India,  or  does  it

further and perpetuate cruelty to animals; and can it,

therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention of

cruelty  to  animals?    Is  it  colourable  legislation

which does not relate to any Entry in the State List

or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List?

ii. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to

preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil

Nadu.  Can the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment

Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of

4

the  people  of  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  so  as  to

receive  the  protection  of  Article  29  of  the

Constitution of India?

iii. Is  the  Tamil  Nadu  Amendment  Act,  in  pith  and

substance, to ensure the survival and well-being of

the native breed of bulls?  Is the Act,  in pith and

substance, relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution

of India?

iv. Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to

Articles  51A(g)  and 51A(h),  and could  it  be  said,

therefore,  to  be  unreasonable  and  violative  of

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?

v. Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly

contrary  to  the  judgment  in  A. Nagaraja (supra),

and  the  review  judgment  dated  16th November,

2016 in the aforesaid case, and whether the defects

pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be

said  to  have  been  overcome  by  the  Tamil  Nadu

5

Legislature by enacting the impugned Tamil  Nadu

Amendment Act?

4. Let the papers be placed before the learned Chief

Justice to constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges.   

………………………. CJI         (Dipak Misra)

                                                      .….…………………….J. (R.F. Nariman)

New Delhi; February 2, 2018.  

6