ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. · A. NAGARAJA & ORS.

p. 704 Copy page pinpoint

A (ii) Duty to take reasonable measures to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain and suffering.

Both the above limbs have to be cumulatively satisfied. Primar}j duty on the persons-in-charge or care of the animal is to ensurei 8 the well-being of the animal. 'Well-being' means state of bein · comfortable, healthy or happy. Forcing the Bull and keeping th same in the waiting area for a number of hours and subjectin 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". Organiz~rs 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 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 F limb. of Section 3, as already indicated, gives a corresponding right 'fo 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- G 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 H Section 3 which casts a duty on, the person in-charge or care

p. 705 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] of animal to prevent the infliction upon an animal, unnecessary A 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 reduc~d. whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment. B 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 c 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 · D preventive provision casting no right on the organizers, but only duties and obligations. Section 3, as a1ready 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 E or Bullock-cart race, from the point of the animals, is not an event ensuring their well-being or an event meant to 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- F cart race.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS:

29Copy pinpoint29. Section 11 generally deals with the cruelty to animals. G Section 11 confers no right on the organizers to conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race. Section 11 is a beneficial provision 1 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 H

. 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.

A 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- 8 (a) Beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, · tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unneeessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animals to be so treated; or c (b) xxxxxxxxx. (c) willfully and unreasonably- administers any injuries drug or injurious substance to any animal or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any D such drug or substance to be taken by any animal; or

(d) xxxxxxxxx E (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 F 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· G animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or

(i) xxx xxx xxx (j) xxx xxx xxx H

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. . 707. NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] (k) xxxxxxxxx .A .· (I) mutilates any animal or kills ~.animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine· injections in the heart or in any o$er unnecessarily . cruel manner; or; .. ·~ · '· · ., ' · ·. · B

xxxxxxxxx (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1)..~an' owner shalt be· deemed to have committed an offence if he has failett. to · exercise reasonable care and supervision with a . VieWto C the prevention of such offence:

Provided that where an owner is convicted of pmitting cruelty by reason only of having failed to exer:eise such care and supervision, he shall not· be '·fi,ble to . 0 .imprisonment without the option of a fine. (3) )()()( )()()( xxx''

Section 11 (1 )(a) uses the expressions,'.'!"ot ~rwise", · ,"unnecessary pain or suffering" etc. Beating, kicking ·etc. go with the event so also torture, if the report submitted ~y AWBI is accepted. Even otherwise, according to AWBI, the expression "or otherwise" takes in Jallikattu, Bullock~rt race etc. but, according to the State of Tamil Nadu, that expres~ion 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 legis,lature has intended to cover all situations, where the 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 ·-G 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 H

p. 708 Copy page pinpoint

A principles also can be safely applied while interpreting Section 11(1)(a).

30Copy pinpoint30. Pain and suffering are biological traits. Pain, in particular, informs an animal which specific stimuli, it needs to B 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:

C "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".

0 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 moodi?.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 cj:lre 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.

G DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY:

31Copy pinpoint31. Section 11 (3) carves out exceptions in five· categories of cases mentioned in Section 11 (3)(a) to (e), which are as follows: · H

p. 709 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] "11 (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to- A

(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 B 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 c (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 D 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 E , be harmful to human beings. Clause (d) to Section 11 (3) deals with matters dealt with in Chapter IV, 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. H

710 SUP~EME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.

A 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.

32Copy pinpoint32. Sections 3 and 11, as already indicated, therefore, confer no right on the organisers of Jallikattu or bullock-cart race, but only duties, responsibilities and obligations, but confer corresponding rights onfanimals. Sections13, 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 S1A(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. Secjion 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 of. the animals and to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering. · F PERFORMING ANIMALS

33Copy pinpoint33. 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 targe abdomen and thorax

p. 711 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] and the entire body has a resemblance to a barrel shape, which A .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 B use a whip or a stick in 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 c 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. D

34Copy pinpoint34. 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 E ·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 F

(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, G specify as an animal which shall notbe exhibited or trained as a performing animal."

35Copy pinpoint35. The words 'exhibit' and 'train' are defined in Se,ction 21 of the PCA Act; which is as follows: H

p. 712 Copy page pinpoint

A "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."

36Copy pinpoint36. Section 23 of the PCA Act deals with the procedure for registration. Section 24 of the PCA Act deals with the powers of th~ 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 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 1 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 E 11.7.2011. We find no substance or logic in that submission. It may be noted lhat 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 F Sections 3 and 11 (1) of the PCA Act.

37Copy pinpoint37. We may, in this respect, refer to Section 11 (1 )(m) which reads as fallows:

"11. Treating animals cruelty.- (1) If any person- G xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx (m) solely with a view to providing entertainment- H

p. 713 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] (i) confines or causes to be confined any animal A (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, D 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.

38Copy pinpoint38. We may, in this connection, also refer to the Performing E 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 fea~ and distress, this natural instinct is being exploited.

39Copy pinpoint39. 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 H

p. 714 Copy page pinpoint

A 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 and barbaric sport, B 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, c 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. D 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 E 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: F (emphasis supplied)

Further, it was also stated in the affidavit that:

"I also affirm on behalf of the Answering Respondent that G 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, H and repugnant to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty

p. 715 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] to Animals Act." A

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 B 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.

40Copy pinpoint40. Stand of the Animal Welfare Division of MoEF and C 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 D 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 animal, which is a conscious decision taken by the E MoEF on relevant materials, while this Court was seized of the matter. AWBl's advice under Sections 9(a) and (I) 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 F already accepted and acted upon.

41Copy pinpoint41. 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 51 A(g) of the Constitution of India. MoEF, in exercise of its powers conferred under G 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 co.ncerned, is not recognising that Bullock- cart H

p. 716 Copy page pinpoint

A race is part and parcel of the tradition of the people of Maharashtra and that it has any cultural, historical or religious 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 B /Ox I 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 c 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 D

42Copy pinpoint42. 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 E cart race, in the form in which· they are being conducted at present. Welfare and the well-being of 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 F as the vehicle oflord 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 G or the bullock cart race, as practised now, has never been tha tradition or culture of Tamil Nadu.

43Copy pinpoint43. PCA Act, a welfare legislation, in our view, over- shadows or overrides the so-called tradition and culture. Jallikattu and Bullock cartraces, the manner in which they are H conducted, have no support of Tamil tradition or culture.

p. 717 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RA[)HAKRISHNAN, J.] Assuming, it has been in vogue for quite some time, in our view, A 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-charge of animals. Of late, there are some attempts at certain quarters, to reap maximum gains and B /the animals are being exploited by the human beings by using · coercive methods and inflicting unnecessa~ 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 c 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 consciepce as t)1e principles of justice and public utility. This Court, in N. Adithayan v. Thravancore Dewaswom Board and Others 0 (2002) 8 sec 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 accept\:d or upheld by courts in the country."

44Copy pinpoint44. As early as 1500-600 BC in lsha-Upanishads, it is professed as follows:

"The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land. G 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."

45Copy pinpoint45. In our view, this is the culture and tradition of the country, H

p. 718 Copy page pinpoint

~ particularly the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.

46Copy pinpoint46. 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 8 intrinsic value and worth of animals. All thesame, 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 c

47Copy pinpoint47. 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 Mthat 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 E 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, F which are as under:

(a) The. First Stage: Human self-interest reason for environmental protection

G 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 H to Agriculture (1875), Convention Designed to Ensure the

p. 719 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] Protection of Various Species of Wild Animals which are A 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. B 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 c 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. D For example, the 1946 Whaling Convention which built upon the 1931 treaty mentioned in 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 E 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 F benefit of present and future generations through careful planning and management". Other documents expressed this shift in terms of sustainability and sustainable . development. G • (c) The Third Stage: Nature's own rights

Recent Multinational instruments have asserted th.e intrinsic value of nature.

UNEP Biodiversity Convention (1992) "Conscious of >

p. 720 Copy page pinpoint

A 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, 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."

48Copy pinpoint48. 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. D

49Copy pinpoint49. 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 animals incluqing 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.

50Copy pinpoint50. 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

p. 721 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] being of the animals. The Animal Welfare Act, 2010 (Norway) A 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 animal to fight with people, the operative portion of the same B 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: c (a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) )()()( xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx D

(d) are not trained for or used in fights with other animals or people."

51Copy pinpoint51. 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.

52Copy pinpoint52. l,Jniversal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) is a campaign led by World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) in an attempt to secure international 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 H

p. 722 Copy page pinpoint

A in PCA Act and the rules framed thereunder to a great extent.

53Copy pinpoint53. 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 8 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 C to express innate behaviour and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress.

FREEDOM:

54Copy pinpoint54. Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of OIE, recognizes five 0 internationally recognized freedoms for animals, such as:

(i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;

(ii) freedom from fear and distress;

E (iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;

(iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and

(v) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

F 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 G 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 like the rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country under Part Ill of the Constitution of India.

55Copy pinpoint55. Animals ar§! world-wide legally recognised as 'property' H that can be possessed by humans. On deletion of Article

p. 723 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] 19(1 )(f) from the Indian Constitution, right to property is more A 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. B

56Copy pinpoint56. 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 C 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.

COMPASSION: D

57Copy pinpoint57. 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 sec 534, this Court held that by enacting Article 51A(g) and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects E ·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 F ·with Sections 3, 11 (1 )(a) & (m), 22 etc. of PCA Act.

HUMANISM:

58Copy pinpoint58. Article 51A(h) says that it shall be the duty of every G citizen to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit . of inquiry and reform. Particular emphasis has been 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, H

p. 724 Copy page pinpoint

A 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 B 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: c

59Copy pinpoint59. 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 D (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1992) etc. Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "the assumption of human superiority over other creatures, leading to the exploitation of animals". Species ism 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 ten 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.

60Copy pinpoint60. 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 far as animals are concerned, Section 3 of the Act confers right

p. 725 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] 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 c 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 pTunts and also destruction of animals for food under Section 11 (3) of the PCA Act. Legislature through Section 28 also saved the manner of . 0 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 with Section 11(1). Evidently, those restrictions are the direct inevitable consequences or the effects which could be said to have been E 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. F

NON-ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES:

61Copy pinpoint61. We have, however, lot of avoidable non-essential human activities like Bullock-cart race, Jallikattu etc. Bulls, G thinking that they have only instrumental value are intentionally used tpough 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 body has taken up the stand that H

p. 726 Copy page pinpoint

A 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 ir. Translation" say: B "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 ch,oice between intense pain and intense fear, they'd probably pick fear." c 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 ..

o RIGHT TO LIFE:

62Copy pinpoint62. 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 E "life" has been given an expanded definition and ,any 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 Mor existence or instrumental value for human-beings, but to lead a life Mwith 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

p. 727 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] 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 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 purpos·e of the Act, hence the c 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.

63Copy pinpoint63. 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 wan to go to the arena but, as pain is being infliCted in the vadivasal is somuch, 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 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 G - 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. H

p. 728 Copy page pinpoint

64Copy pinpoint64. 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, in our view, Bulls cannot be B 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:

65Copy pinpoint65. 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: D (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 E 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 F Article 246(1), and in the second by reason of Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The law on this point has been elaborately discussed by this Court irI the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (199Q) ' 2 SCC 562.

66Copy pinpoint66. Instances are many, where the State law may be G 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 H

p. 729 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] State law may be inoperative. Repugnancy will also arise A 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. 8

67Copy pinpoint67. 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 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. E

68Copy pinpoint68. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to

Government Higher Education Department,. Thiruv~nathapuram, Kera/~ State and Another (2000) 5 S?C . F 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 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 G after, would be over-borne on the ground of repugnancy . ..

69Copy pinpoint69. 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 H

p. 730 Copy page pinpoint

A provisions so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field. Both the legislators trace their legislative power\in Entry 17 List Ill. ·

"Prevention of Cruelty to animals.'"

70Copy pinpoint70. 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 i>tatutory provisions, which would indicate that the Parliament wa·nted a C comprehensive act with the object o( promoting message of animal welfare and for preventing cruelty to the animals. The Statemer:t of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows:

"Statement of Objects and Reasons I D 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. E 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 F 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 G (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 H

p. 731 Copy page pinpoint

NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

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 cog·nizable, the Bill also contains provisions for·the establishment of an Animal Welfare Board with the object of promoting measures for animal welfare.

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 !t is necessary to do s.o 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 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. H

p. 732 Copy page pinpoint

A 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 B an offence.

72Copy pinpoint72. 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, C 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 refers to animals' "basic natural instinct" and D cautions that the basic natural instinct of the animals be protected and be not exploited.

73Copy pinpoint73. The TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentric legislation enacted not for the welfare of the animals, unlike PCA Act, E 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 w.,hile conducting the event of Jallikattu. Act has no Preamble and the F 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 G Tamils. The said tradition is in vogue for more than 400 years. At present, there is no legislation to regulate the 'conduct .of JaUikattu, manjuvirattu, Oormadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu vidum vizha or any such activity involving the taming of bulls. The Government have, therefore, decided to bring H out a legislation to regulate the conduct of the Jallikattu in

p. 733 Copy page pinpoint

-- NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

the State of Tamil Nadu by prescribing norms to hold such .A 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. B Section 4(3) provides for double barricade area in order to avoid injuries to the spectators and by-standers, t~e 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. C Section 4(vi) empowers the Animal Husbandry Departmef'lt 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 Eollector to give wider publicity to the provisions of the 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 F 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.

74Copy pinpoint74. Section 2(d) of the PCA Act speaks of domestic G animal and taming the animal for use of men, which is evidJmtly 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' a_nd Section 28 speaks of killing of animal in a manner required by H

p. 734 Copy page pinpoint

A the religion of any community. Section.22 of the Act speaks of performing 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 ahimal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition or B e·ntertainment 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 tafnier6. Bull tamers, therefore, tame the bulls at the arena, thereby causing strain, stress, inflict pain c 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 a~d suffering, that is exactly what the 'Central Act (PCA Act) wants to prevent for the well-being and 0 welfare of animals, which is also against the basic natural instinct of the bulls.

75Copy pinpoint75. 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 any a,nimal 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.

76Copy pinpoint76. 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 anim_als H

p. 735 Copy page pinpoint

. -NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] and to preserve the natural instinct of the animal. Over-powering A the performing animal was never in the contemplation of the PCA Act and, in fact, 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 B - 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 Jallik~ttu, which is inconsistent and in direct collision with Section 3, c Section 11(1)(a),T1(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. D

77Copy pinpoint77. 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 as performing E animals, either for the Jallikattu events or Bullock- cart Races in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maha~ashtra or elsewhere in the country. We, therefore, make the following declarations and directions: F (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. G (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 "Go,vernments"), MoEF an.d AWBI. H

p. 736 Copy page pinpoint

A (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 B to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals, since their rights have been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act.

c (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 pr care of tl1e animal shall not incite any animgl -t6 fight against a human being or another animal. D (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. · E (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. F (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. G (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. H

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 737 : • NAGARAJA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] (10) The Governments would see that if the provisions A of the PCA Act and the decfarations 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. B

(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 lhdia. c (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 D remedy the same, including appropriate follow-up action.

78Copy pinpoint78. Appeals, transferred cases and the Writ Petition are disposed of as above, setting aside the judgment of the Madras E High Court, but upholding the judgment of Bombay 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.

Rajendra Prasad Matter disposed of. F