Tamil Nadu has returned to normalcy after a week of turmoil over Jallikattu, and it's now time to analyse the events with an open mind. We need to understand the circumstances that led to the ban on the sport, the reasons cited for the latest State amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, and the actions that may follow.
Many, including celebrities such as actor Kamal Haasan, have been heard arguing that loss of human lives in Jallikattu could not become a reason for imposing a ban on the sport, especially when hundreds die in road, rail and air accidents too.
However, little do the supporters of Jallikattu realise that neither Justice R. Banumathi (now a Supreme Court judge), who banned the sport for the first time on March 29, 2006 during her stint as a judge on the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, nor Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose of the Supreme Court who banned it on May 7, 2014, had cited harm to human lives as the prime reason for imposing the ban.
Justice Banumathi as well as the two- judge Bench of the Supreme Court had premised their decision only on cruelty meted out to bulls during Jallikattu in its present form. The judges consciously avoided an anthropocentric view and adopted eco-centric principles while dealing with the Jallikattu case.
This takes us to the next contention: How fair is it to ban Jallikattu while permitting slaughter of bulls for beef?
Mr. Haasan himself had backed this argument and was recently heard saying: “If Jallikattu is to be banned then Biriyani should also be banned.” This argument might sound attractive at the first blush, but the Supreme Court had a reasoning that counters this. It is a reasoning that draws on human supremacy over all other species of the planet.
The Supreme Court found that there had been no major international agreement so far to ensure the welfare and protection of animals, and said: "The international community should hang its head in shame for not recognizing their (animals') rights all these ages."
The court also said: “United Nations, all these years, safeguarded only the rights of human beings, not the rights of other species like animals ignoring the fact that many of them, including bulls, are sacrificing their lives to alleviate human suffering, combat diseases and serve as food for human consumption.”
Nevertheless, observing that the law on environment was still in its development stages, the apex court pointed out that countries like Germany had now provided Constitutional safeguards to animals while others had safeguarded their rights through statutes.
“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,” the judges added.
The objective of the PCA Act is also to prevent infliction of only 'unnecessary' pain or suffering on animals and even Section 11(3)(e) of the PCA Act which permits killing of animals for food comes with a rider that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering while being killed.
On how to determine what is necessary and what is unnecessary pain, the Supreme Court said it could be done by considering “whether the suffering could have reasonably been avoided or reduced... or whether the conduct causing the suffering was for a legitimate purpose such as the purpose for benefiting the animals.”
It went on to state: “By organising Jallikattu and bullock-cart race, the organisers 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.”
Further, observing that courts had a “a duty under the doctrine of parents patriae to take care of the rights of animals since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings,” the apex court said: "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.”
This leaves us with the third ground, of culture and tradition, on which Jallikattu enthusiasts have rested their claim to conduct the sport.
Rejecting that ground too, the Supreme Court had this to say: “Jallikattu or bullock cart race, as practised now, has never been the tradition or culture of Tamil Nadu. Welfare and well-being of the bull is Tamil culture and tradition... Yeru Thazhuvu , in Tamil tradition, is to embrace bulls and not overpowering them to show human bravery.”
Now, in order to overcome the Supreme Court order, the government of Tamil Nadu has promulgated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Ordinance, 2017. A Bill has also been passed on similar lines in the Legislative Assembly.
The State amendment to the Central legislation exempts the conduct of Jallikattu from the provisions of the Act by ignoring the fact that the apex court had held that Jallikattu was not only in violation of the statute but also the fundamental duties imposed on citizens, under Articles 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution, to have compassion for living creatures and develop humanism.
“Parliament, by incorporating Article 51A(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,” the Supreme Court had said while striking down a similar law known as Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act of 2009.
Attempting to differentiate itself from the 2009 Act, the preamble to the present Ordinance states that it had been promulgated “to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu and to ensure the survival and well being of the native breed of bulls.”
It is pertinent to point out that the first reason of culture and heritage had already been discussed at length by the Supreme Court and rejected as untenable. The only new reason cited in the ordinance for protecting Jallikattu is the one relating to survival of native breed.
It would actually be a daunting task for the State to justify the conduct of Jallikattu on the sole ground of survival of the native bulls if someone happens to challenge either the ordinance or the proposed Act in a court of law. We have to wait and watch whether Jallikattu would stand the test of law in another round of litigation.
