Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.

(2014) 7 SCC 547

Citation
(2014) 7 SCC 547
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
7 May 2014
Bench
K.S. Radhakrishnan & Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.

Facts

  • The case concerned the use of bulls in Jallikattu events in Tamil Nadu and bullock-cart races in Maharashtra.
  • Jallikattu required participants to chase, restrain or hold onto a bull released into a crowd.
  • Evidence collected by the Animal Welfare Board of India showed that bulls were subjected to various forms of cruelty to make them run or behave aggressively.
  • Reported practices included:
  • twisting and breaking tails;
  • biting tails;
  • beating and kicking;
  • using irritants in the eyes;
  • forcing liquids into the animals;
  • confining them in narrow spaces;
  • frightening and exhausting them.
  • The Central Government had issued a notification in 2011 placing bulls in the category of animals that could not be trained or exhibited as performing animals.
  • The organisers and the State of Tamil Nadu argued that Jallikattu was a traditional cultural activity.
  • They also relied upon the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, which purported to regulate rather than completely prohibit the event.

Issue

  • Whether Jallikattu and bullock-cart races caused unnecessary pain and suffering prohibited by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
  • Whether cultural tradition could justify conduct inconsistent with animal-welfare legislation.
  • Whether bulls could legally be used as performing animals in such events.

Rule

  • Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act imposes a duty on persons having charge of animals to ensure their well-being and prevent unnecessary pain.
  • Section 11 prohibits specified forms of cruelty and conduct causing avoidable suffering.
  • Articles 48, 48A and 51A(g) reflect constitutional concern for compassion toward living creatures and protection of the environment.
  • Animal welfare includes the internationally recognised “five freedoms”:
  • freedom from hunger and thirst;
  • freedom from discomfort;
  • freedom from pain, injury and disease;
  • freedom from fear and distress;
  • freedom to express normal behaviour.
  • Human entertainment cannot justify unnecessary animal suffering.

Application

  • The Court examined the natural characteristics of bulls.
  • It found that bulls are not naturally suited to racing or aggressive public performances.
  • They are ordinarily draught animals whose instinct is to avoid threatening situations rather than voluntarily participate in crowded races.
  • The cruelty recorded during inspections was not accidental or isolated.
  • It was used systematically to force the bulls to perform against their natural behaviour.
  • The Court rejected the argument that regulation alone could remove the cruelty.
  • The very structure of the events depended upon:
  • frightening the animal;
  • provoking it into running;
  • exposing it to crowds;
  • physically restraining it;
  • creating distress for entertainment.
  • The Court interpreted the statutory expression “unnecessary pain or suffering” from the animal’s perspective.
  • The question was not whether spectators enjoyed the event or whether organisers considered it traditional.
  • The question was whether the pain served a necessary human purpose recognised by law.
  • Jallikattu and bullock-cart racing were recreational activities and did not satisfy any essential human need.
  • The Court also treated compassion for animals as part of constitutional morality.
  • Traditional practices were not immune from scrutiny merely because they had existed for a long period.
  • A custom inconsistent with welfare legislation and constitutional values could not be preserved solely in the name of culture.
  • The Tamil Nadu legislation did not provide protection equivalent to the central Act.
  • Instead, it permitted an activity whose inherent features produced cruelty.
  • The Court therefore gave priority to the central welfare legislation and the animals’ statutory interests.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court held that Jallikattu and bullock-cart races, in the form examined by the Court, violated Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
  • The 2011 Central Government notification prohibiting bulls from being trained or exhibited as performing animals was upheld.
  • The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, could not protect conduct contrary to the central animal-welfare law.
  • The Court directed governments and the Animal Welfare Board to prevent the infliction of unnecessary suffering.
  • It recognised that animals possess intrinsic worth and statutory entitlements to live with dignity and freedom from avoidable cruelty.
  • The judgment did not formally declare animals to be constitutional persons, but it adopted a strongly ecocentric and animal-centred interpretation of welfare law.
  • Use this case for: animal dignity, the five freedoms and the principle that tradition cannot excuse statutory cruelty.