Page 1

1

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)

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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.,

Page 4

4

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,

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

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.  

Page 7

7

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

Page 8

8

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

Page 9

9

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

Page 10

10

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

Page 11

11

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

Page 12

12

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

Page 13

13

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

Page 14

14

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

Page 15

15

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

Page 16

16

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

Page 17

17

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

Page 18

18

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.

Page 19

19

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

Page 20

20

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

Page 21

21

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

Page 22

22

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

Page 23

23

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

Page 24

24

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

Page 25

25

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

Page 26

26

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

Page 27

27

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

Page 28

28

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

Page 29

29

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

Page 30

30

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

Page 31

31

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

Page 32

32

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

Page 33

33

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

Page 34

34

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

Page 35

35

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.

Page 36

36

. 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.

Page 37

37

. 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.

Page 38

38

. 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.

Page 39

39

. 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.

Page 40

40

. 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

Page 41

41

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

Page 42

42

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

Page 43

43

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:

Page 44

44

“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

Page 45

45

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

Page 46

46

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

Page 47

47

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).

Page 48

48

- 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

Page 49

49

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:

Page 50

50

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.

Page 51

51

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.  

Page 52

52

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.

Page 53

53

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

Page 54

54

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.

Page 55

55

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:

Page 56

56

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

Page 57

57

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.    

Page 58

58

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.

Page 59

59

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

Page 60

60

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,

Page 61

61

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

Page 62

62

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

Page 63

63

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

Page 64

64

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

Page 65

65

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”.

Page 66

66

  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:

Page 67

67

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,

Page 68

68

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-

Page 69

69

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

Page 70

70

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

Page 71

71

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

Page 72

72

(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

Page 73

73

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

Page 74

74

(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.  

Page 75

75

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

Page 76

76

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.”

Page 77

77

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

Page 78

78

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

Page 79

79

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

Page 80

80

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-

Page 81

81

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.”

Page 82

82

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

Page 83

83

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

Page 84

84

- 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

Page 85

85

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,

Page 86

86

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

Page 87

87

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

Page 88

88

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) xxxxxx xxx (b) xxxxxx xxx (c) xxxxxx 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

Page 89

89

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.  

Page 90

90

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

Page 91

91

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.  

Page 92

92

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

Page 93

93

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

Page 94

94

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

Page 95

95

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

Page 96

96

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

Page 97

97

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

Page 98

98

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

Page 99

99

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

Page 100

100

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,

Page 101

101

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

Page 102

102

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

Page 103

103

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

Page 104

104

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

Page 105

105

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.

Page 106

106

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

Page 107

107

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

Page 108

108

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,

Page 109

109

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

Page 110

110

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

Page 111

111

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

Page 112

112

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,

Page 113

113

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

Page 114

114

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

Page 115

115

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.

Page 116

116

(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

Page 117

117

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.