THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

A part of culture and tradition of Tamil Nadu. In the case of A. Nagaraja (supra), the Division Bench found the cultural approach unsubstantiated and referring to the manner in which the bulls are inflicted pain and suffering, the Division Bench concluded that such activities offended Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act. Even if we proceed on the basis that legislature is best suited branch of the State to determine if particular animal-sports are part of cultural tradition of a region or community, or not, if such cultural event or tradition offends the law, the penal consequence would follow. Such activities cannot be justified on the ground of being part of cultural tradition of a State. In A. Nagaraja (supra), the sports were held to attract the restriction of Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act because of the manner it was practiced. The Amendment Act read with the Rules seek to substantially minimise the pain and suffering and continue with the traditional sports. The Amendment having received Presidential assent, we do not think there is any flaw in the State action. “Jallikattu” as bovine sports have to be isolated from the manner in which they were earlier practiced and organising the sports itself would be permissible, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules. (iii) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, to ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls. The said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India. Incidental impact of the said F Amendment Act may fall upon the breed of a particular type of bulls and affect agricultural activities, but in pith and substance the Act is relatable to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. (iv) Our answer to this question is in the negative. In our opinion, G the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (v) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act read along with the Rules H framed in that behalf is not directly contrary to the ratio of

THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. v. 475 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

the judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja (supra) and judgment of this Court delivered on 16th November 2016 dismissing the plea for Review of the A. Nagaraja (supra) judgment as we are of the opinion that the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments have been overcome by the State Amendment Act read with the Rules made in that behalf.

41Copy pinpoint41. Our decision on the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act would also guide the Maharashtra and the Karnataka Amendment Acts and we find all the three Amendment Acts to be valid legislations.

42Copy pinpoint42. However, we direct that the law contained in the Act/Rules/ C Notification shall be strictly enforced by the authorities. In particular, we direct that the District Magistrates/competent authorities shall be responsible for ensuring strict compliance of the law, as amended along with its Rules/Notifications.

43Copy pinpoint43. All the I.As. for Intervention are allowed in the above terms. D As we have answered the referred questions, we do not think any purpose would be served in keeping the writ petitions pending. All the writ petitions shall stand dismissed. The appeal and the Transferred Case shall also stand disposed of in the above terms.

44Copy pinpoint44. Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. E

45Copy pinpoint45. There shall be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan Referred questions answered. (Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA) F