A few hours after the President gave his assent on Tuesday to the Tamil Nadu amendments in the Prevention of Cruelty Act of 1960 to allow jallikattu, the Supreme Court refused to stay the new State law.
Allowing the Central government to withdraw its January 7, 2016 notification permitting jallikattu, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Rohinton F. Nariman declined the plea of NGO Compassion Unlimited Plus Action for an interim stay on the operation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017. It asked the organisation and other animal rights activists the ‘basis’ of their challenge to the new State law.
Referring to the amendments made by the Tamil Nadu Assembly to the 1960 Central Act, Justice Misra pointed out that the declared object of the new legislation is the preservation of a particular breed of bulls.
“They say that the new law is for the preservation of a variety of bulls… they call it [jallikattu] a culture. This has to be debated,” he observed. “The basis of our challenge is that the State has violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960,” senior advocate Siddharth Luthra said.
Countering the allegation, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, referred to Article 29 (1) of the Constitution which mandates that citizens have the right to take measures to “conserve their culture.”
“Then we have to decide on whether jallikattu comes within the ambit of ‘culture’ meant in Article 29 (1) and whether this kind of a sport or event or activity is safe… Conservation of a culture should not involve inflicting unnecessary pain [on] or suffering to animals,” Justice Misra responded.
Mr. Rohatgi then referred to Section 11 (3) (e) of the 1960 Act which permits slaughtering of animals for food for mankind.
“If jallikattu is cruelty, what about slaughtering of animals? Slaughtering is done not only for food but also in the name of religion… halaal and sacrifices of goats, etc... The 1960 Act, which is a Special Act, exempts slaughter for food despite the fact that Article 48 prohibits slaughter” the Attorney-General argued.
“Mr. Rohatgi, slaughtering for food comes within the purview of Doctrine of Necessity. Section 11 (3) (e) permits slaughter for food but also mandates that the animal should be killed without inflicting upon it unnecessary pain and suffering,” Justice Misra observed.
“All I am saying is that the court should consider the preservation and conservation of a culture in a holistic manner,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.
The court’s permission for the Centre to withdraw its January 7 notification has now rendered infructuous the batch of writ petitions filed by several NGOs and other animal rights organisations against the notification last year.
The interlocutory applications filed by the NGOs against the new Tamil Nadu law were part of their 2016 writ petitions.
The Bench has given them two weeks to file fresh writ petitions challenging the Tamil Nadu amendments. The State government and others supporting jallikattu in the current litigation were given four weeks to file their counter-affidavits.
