Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India - Constitution Bench Jallikattu Case

(2023) 9 SCC 322; 2023 INSC 548

Citation
(2023) 9 SCC 322; 2023 INSC 548
Court
Supreme Court of India, Constitution Bench
Date
18 May 2023
Bench
K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy & C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.

Facts

  • After the 2014 decision in A. Nagaraja, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka enacted amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
  • The amendments sought to permit regulated forms of:
  • Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu;
  • bullock-cart racing in Maharashtra;
  • Kambala and bullock-cart racing in Karnataka.
  • The State laws received Presidential assent.
  • They introduced conditions concerning veterinary examination, supervision, safety, treatment and prevention of specified cruel practices.
  • Animal-welfare organisations challenged the amendments before a five-judge Constitution Bench.
  • They argued that the States had attempted to revive substantially the same activities prohibited in A. Nagaraja.
  • The States responded that the new legal regime was materially different because it recognised the events while imposing detailed welfare safeguards.

Issue

  • Whether the State amendments were unconstitutional or repugnant to the central Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
  • Whether the amendments were merely colourable attempts to defeat A. Nagaraja.
  • Whether animals possess fundamental rights under Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.
  • Whether the amended and regulated events could legally continue.

Rule

  • A State amendment receiving Presidential assent may operate within that State despite inconsistency with an earlier central law, subject to constitutional limitations.
  • Legislation is not invalid merely because it changes the legal basis on which an earlier judicial decision rested.
  • The legislature may remove the defect identified in a judgment by creating a genuinely altered statutory regime.
  • Animals are protected by welfare statutes and constitutional duties, but the Constitution does not expressly confer fundamental rights upon animals equivalent to those possessed by human beings.
  • Courts ordinarily defer to the legislature’s assessment of cultural practices where the enacted regulation is constitutionally valid and does not authorise uncontrolled cruelty.

Application

  • The Constitution Bench carefully distinguished between:
  • the unregulated or inadequately regulated events examined in 2014; and
  • the revised statutory framework introduced by the State amendments.
  • It observed that the amendments did not simply declare cruelty lawful.
  • They prohibited particular methods of inflicting pain and prescribed:
  • veterinary certification;
  • authorised locations;
  • official supervision;
  • medical facilities;
  • restrictions on substances and implements;
  • responsibility for organisers.
  • The Court held that the legislatures were entitled to respond to the earlier decision by changing the governing legal conditions.
  • This was not an impermissible judicial overruling by the legislature.
  • The earlier factual and statutory foundation had been altered.
  • The Court rejected the argument that A. Nagaraja had conclusively established fundamental rights for animals under Articles 14 and 21.
  • The 2014 judgment strongly recognised animal dignity and statutory protection, but it did not convert animals into constitutional persons.
  • The Court also examined whether the events formed part of cultural traditions.
  • It considered that the legislature was institutionally better placed to recognise and regulate such cultural activities.
  • However, cultural character did not grant organisers a licence to violate the amended statutes.
  • The validity of the regime depended upon actual enforcement of the protective conditions.
  • The Court therefore did not hold that any form of Jallikattu or animal race was permissible.
  • It upheld only the events conducted within the amended legal framework.
  • If authorities allowed tail twisting, beating, intoxicants, injuries or other prohibited cruelty, such conduct would remain unlawful.
  • The judgment consequently modified the practical effect of A. Nagaraja without rejecting its broader commitment to animal welfare.

Conclusion

  • The Constitution Bench upheld the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka amendments.
  • It held that the laws were:
  • not colourable legislation;
  • not invalid merely because they altered the consequences of A. Nagaraja;
  • protected by Presidential assent;
  • capable of operating consistently with the welfare safeguards introduced.
  • The Court held that animals do not presently possess enforceable fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
  • Nevertheless, statutory duties toward animal welfare and constitutional duties of compassion remain binding.
  • State authorities were directed to ensure strict compliance with the amended laws and rules.
  • The decision therefore permits only regulated events and does not authorise cruelty in the name of tradition.
  • Use this case for: legislative validation of regulated animal sports after A. Nagaraja and the distinction between animal welfare rights and human fundamental rights.