Supreme Court Of India Judgement

Supreme Court Of India Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Animal Welfare Board Of India Vs A. Nagaraja & Ors
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Animal Welfare Board Of India Vs A. Nagaraja & Ors On 07/05/2014 By Supreme Court Of India
CORAM : K.S. Radhakrishnan, Pinaki Chandra Ghose



(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 Of 2007)

Animal Welfare Board Of India …. Appellant


A. Nagaraja & Ors. …. Respondents


(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10281 Of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5389-5390 OF 2014
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18804-18805 Of 2009)

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13199 Of 2012)

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13200 Of 2012)

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4598 Of 2013)

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12789 Of 2014)
(@ SLP(C) CC…4268 Of 2013)



T.C. (C) Nos.84, 85, 86, 97, 98 And 127 Of 2013

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. We Are, In These Cases, Concerned With An Issue Of Seminal Importance
with Regard To The Rights Of Animals Under Our Constitution, Laws, Culture,
tradition, Religion And Ethology, Which We Have To Examine, In Connection
with The Conduct Of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Races Etc. In The States Of
Tamil Nadu And Maharashtra, With Particular Reference To The Provisions Of
the Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960 (for Short ‘the PCA Act’),
the Tamil Nadu Regulation Of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (for Short “TNRJ Act”)
and The Notification Dated 11.7.2011 Issued By The Central Government Under
Section 22(ii) Of The PCA Act.

3. We Have Two Sets Of Cases Here, One Set Challenges The Division Bench
Judgment Of The Madras High Court At Madurai Dated 09.03.2007, Filed By The
Animal Welfare Board Of India (for Short “AWBI”), Writ Petition No. 145 Of
2011 Filed By An Organisation Called PETA, Challenging The Validity Of TNRJ
Act And Few Other Writ Petitions Transferred From The Madras High Court At
Madurai Challenging/enforcing The Validity Of The MoEF Notification Dated
11.07.2011 And Another Set Of Cases, Like SLP No. 13199 Of 2012,
challenging The Division Bench Judgment Of The Bombay High Court Dated
12.03.2012 Upholding The MoEF Notification Dated 11.07.2011 And The
corrigendum Issued By The Government Of Maharashtra Dated 24.08.2011
prohibiting All Bullock-cart Races, Games, Training, Exhibition Etc.
Review Petition No. 57 Of 2012 Was Filed Against The Judgment Of The Bombay
High Court, Which Was Dismissed By The High Court On 26.11.2012, Against
which SLP No. 4598 Of 2013 Has Been Filed.

4. ABWI, A Statutory Board, Established Under Section 4 Of The PCA Act
for The Promotion Of Animal Welfare And For The Purpose Of Protecting The
animals From Being Subjected To Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering Has Taken Up
a Specific Stand That Jallikattu, Bull/Bullock-cart Races Etc., As Such,
conducted In The States Of Tamil Nadu And Maharashtra Respectively,
inherently Violate The Provisions Of The PCA Act, Particularly, Section 3,
Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) And Section 22 Of The PCA Act. ABWI, Through Its
reports, Affidavits And Photographs, High-lighted The Manner In Which
Jallikattu Is Being Conducted, Especially In The Southern Part Of The State
of Tamil Nadu, And How The Bulls Involved Are Physically And Mentally
tortured For Human Pleasure And Enjoyment. Details Have Also Been
furnished By The 2nd Respondent, In SLP No. 13199 Of 2012, Along With
photographs Explaining How The Bullock-cart Race Is Being Conducted In
various Parts Of The State Of Maharashtra And The Torture And Cruelty Meted
out To The Bullocks. ABWI Has Taken Up The Stand That, By No Stretch Of
imagination, It Can Be Gainsaid That Jallikattu Or Bullock-cart Race
conducted, As Such, Has Any Historical, Cultural Or Religious Significance,
either In The State Of Tamil Nadu Or In The State Of Maharashtra And, Even
assuming So, The Welfare Legislation Like PCA Act Would Supersede The Same,
being A Parliamentary Legislation. ABWI Has Also Taken Up The Specific
stand That The Bulls Involved In Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race Etc. Are Not
“performing Animals” Within The Meaning Of Sections 21 And 22 Of The PCA
Act And That The MoEF, In Any View, Was Justified In Issuing The
notification Dated 11.7.2011 Banning The Exhibition Of Bulls Or Training
them As Performing Animals On Accepting The Stand Taken By It Before This
Court. Further, It Has Also Taken Up The Stand That The TNRJ Act Is
repugnant To The Provisions Of The PCA Act And The Rules Made Thereunder
and State Cannot Give Effect To It In The Absence Of The Assent Of The
President Under Article 254 Of The Constitution Of India. Further, ABWI
also Submits That The Bulls Which Are Forced To Participate In The Race Are
subjected To Considerable Pain And Suffering, Which Clearly Violates
Section 3 And Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) Of The PCA Act Read With Article
51A(g) And Article 21 Of The Constitution Of India And Hence Exhibition Or
training Them As Performing Animals Be Completely Banned.

5. Organizers Of Jallikattu And Bullock-cart Races, Individually And
collectively, Took Up The Stand That These Events Take Place At The End Of
harvest Season (January And February) And Sometimes During Temple Festivals
which Is Traditionally And Closely Associated With Village Life, Especially
in The Southern Districts Of The State Of Tamil Nadu. Organizers Of
Bullock-cart Races In The State Of Maharashtra Also Took The Stand That The
same Is Going On For The Last More Than Three Hundred Years By Way Of
custom And Tradition And That Extreme Care And Protection Are Being Taken
not To Cause Any Injury Or Pain To The Bullocks Which Participate In The
event. Organizers Also Submitted That Such Sport Events Attract Large
number Of Persons Which Generates Revenue For The State As Well As
enjoyment To The Participants. Further, It Was Also Stated That No Cruelty
is Meted Out To The Performing Bulls In Bullock-cart Races So As To Violate
Section 11(1)(a) Of The PCA Act And The District Collector, Police
Officials Etc. Are Always On Duty To Prevent Cruelty On Animals. Further,
it Is Also Their Stand That The Sport Events Can Only Be Regulated And Not
completely Prohibited And The State Of Tamil Nadu Has Already Enacted The
TNRJ Act, Which Takes Care Of The Apprehensions Expressed By The Board.

6. The State Of Tamil Nadu Has Also Taken Up The Stand That Every Effort
shall Be Made To See That Bulls Are Not Subjected To Any Cruelty So As To
violate The Provisions Of The PCA Act And The Sport Event Can Be Regulated
as Per The Provisions Of The TNRJ Act. Further, It Was Also Pointed Out
that The Bulls Taking Part In The Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race Etc. Are
specifically Identified, Trained, Nourished For The Purpose Of The Said
sport Event And Owners Of Bulls Spend Considerable Money For Training,
maintenance And Upkeep Of The Bulls. Further, The State Has Also Taken Up
the Stand That The Bulls Are “performing Animals”, And Since There Is No
sale Of Tickets In The Events Conducted, Section 22 Will Not Apply, So Also
the Notification Dated 11.7.2011. State Has Also Taken Up The Stand That
complete Ban On Such Races Would Not Be In Public Interest Which Is Being
conducted After Harvest Season And Sometimes During Temple Festivals As
well. The State Of Maharashtra Has Not Challenged The Judgment Of The
Bombay High Court And Hence We Have To Take It That The State Is In Favour
of Banning The Exhibition Or Training Of Bulls, Whether Castrated Or
otherwise As Performing Animals.

7. MoEF, As Early As On 2.3.1991, Issued A Notification Under Section
22 Of PCA Act Banning Training And Exhibition Of Bears, Monkeys, Tigers,
panthers And Dogs, Which Was Challenged By The Indian Circus Organization
before The Delhi High Court But, Later, A Corrigendum Was Issued, Whereby
dogs Were Excluded From The Notification. On The Direction Issued By The
Delhi High Court, A Committee Was Constituted And, Based On Its Report, A
notification Dated 14.10.1998 Was Issued Excluding Dogs From Its Purview,
the Legality Of The Notification Was Challenged Before This Court In N. R.
Nair Others V. Union Of India And Others (2001) 6 SCC 84, Which Upheld The
notification. Later, MoEF Issued A Fresh Notification Dated 11.7.2011,
specifically Including “Bulls” Also, So As To Ban Their Exhibition Or
training As Performing Animals, While This Court Was Seized Of The Matter.

8. MoEF Has Now Abruptly Taken Up The Stand That Though “Bull” Has Been
included In The List Of Animals, Not To Be Exhibited Or Trained As
“performing Animal” Vide Notification Dated 11.07.2011, It Has Been Pointed
out That, In Order To Strike A Balance And To Safeguard The Interest Of All
stakeholders, Including Animals, And Keeping In Mind The Historical,
cultural And Religious Significance Of The Event, And With A View To Ensure
that No Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering Is Caused To The Animals,
participants As Well As Spectators, The Government Proposes To Exempt Bulls
participating In Jallikattu In The State Of Tamil Nadu From The Purview Of
the Notification Dated 11.07.2011, Subject To The Guidelines, Copy Of Which
has Been Provided Along With The Affidavit Filed By The Deputy Secretary,

9. Shri Raj Panjwani, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For AWBI As Well
as For The Petitioner In Writ Petition No. 145 Of 2011, Submitted That The
event Jallikattu, Even If Conducted Following The TNJR Act, Would Still
violate The Provisions Of PCA Act, Especially Section 11(1)(a). Learned
senior Counsel Submitted That Jallikattu, As An Event, Involves Causing The
Bull Pain And Suffering And Cannot Be Free From Cruelty And Hence Falls
within The Meaning Of Section 11(1)(a). Further, It Was Pointed Out That,
during Jallikattu, The Bulls, It Is Observed, Carry Out A Flight Response,
indicating Both Fear And Pain And Suffering. Shri Panjwani Made
considerable Stress On The Words “or Otherwise” In Section 11(1)(a) And
submitted That Any Act Which Inflicts Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering On An
animal Is Prohibited Unless It Is Specifically Permitted Under Any Of The
provisions Of PCA Act Or The Rules Made Thereunder. Shri Panjwani Also
submitted That Since The Event Jallikattu, As Such, Is An Offence Under
Section 11(1)(a), Through A State Act, It Can Neither Be Permitted Nor
regulated And Hence The State Act Is Void Under Article 245(1) Of The
Constitution, In The Absence Of Any Presidential Assent.

10. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For State Of
Tamil Nadu, Referring To Section 11(3) Of PCA Act, Submitted That The Act
does Not Prohibit The Infliction Of All Forms Of Pain Or Suffering On
animals And Hence Section 11(1)(a) Has To Be Read And Understood In That
context. Referring To Sections 11(1)(a), (g), (h), (j), (m) And (n),
learned Senior Counsel Submitted That The Expression “unnecessary Pain Or
suffering” Is Not Used In Those Clauses And Hence The Events Like
Jallikattu, Which Do Not Cause That Much Of Pain Or Suffering On The
animal, Cannot Be Completely Prohibited, But Could Only By Regulated.

11. Shri Bali, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Organizers,
highlighted The Historical And Cultural Importance Of Jallikattu Event And
submitted That, Taking Into Consideration The Nature Of The Event, The Same
would Not Cause Any Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering To The Bulls Which
participate In That Event, So As To Violate Section 3 Or Section 11(1)(a)
of PCA Act. Learned Senior Counsel Submitted That Such Events Could Be
regulated Under The Regulations Framed Under TNRJ Act As Well As The
additional Safeguards Taken By The State Government And The Proposed
guidelines Framed By MoEF. Learned Senior Counsel Also Submitted That The
mere Fact That There Has Been Some Violation Of The Regulations Would Not
mean That The Entire Event Be Banned In The State Of Tamil Nadu Which,
according To The Learned Senior Counsel, Will Not Be In Public Interest.
Learned Senior Counsel Also Referred To The Manner In Which Such Events Are
being Conducted World-over, After Taking Proper Precaution For The Safety
of The Animals Used In Those Events.

12. We Have To Examine The Various Issues Raised In These Cases,
primarily Keeping In Mind The Welfare And The Well-being Of The Animals And
not From The Stand Point Of The Organizers, Bull Tamers, Bull Racers,
spectators, Participants Or The Respective States Or The Central
Government, Since We Are Dealing With A Welfare Legislation Of A Sentient-
being, Over Which Human-beings Have Domination And The Standard We Have To
apply In Deciding The Issue On Hand Is The “Species Best Interest”, Subject
to Just Exceptions, Out Of Human Necessity.
Bulls –Behavioral Ethology
13. Bulls (Bos Indicus) Are Herbivores, Prey By Nature Adopted To Protest
themselves When Threatened Engaging In A ‘flight Response’, That Is Run
away Stimulus, Which They Find When Threatening. Bulls, In That Process,
use Their Horns, Legs, Or Brute Force To Protect Themselves From Threat Or
harm. Bulls Are Often Considered To Be Herd Animals. Bulls Move In A
relaxed Manner If They Are Within A Herd Or Even With Other Bulls.
Individual Bull Exhibits Immense Anxiety If It Is Sorted Away From The
herd. Bulls Vocalize When They Are Forced Away From The Rest Of The Herd
and Vocalization Is An Indicator Of Stress. Bulls Exhibit A Fight Or
flight Response When Exposed To A Perceived Threat. Bulls Are More Likely
to Flee Than Fight, And In Most Cases They Fight, When Agitated.

14. Bulls Usually Stand To Graze And Pattern Of Grazing Behavior Of Each
herd Member Is Relatively Similar, Which Moves Slowly Across The Pasture
with The Muzzle Close To The Ground And They Ruminate Resting. Bull Is
known To Be Having Resting Behavior And Will Avoid Source Of Noise And
disturbance And Choose Non-habitual Resting Sites If The Preferred Ones Are
close To The Noise Or Disturbance, Which Is The Natural Instinct Of The
Bull. Study Conducted Also Disclosed That Bulls Have Long Memories.
Factors Mentioned Above Are The Natural Instincts Of Bulls.

15. Bulls, As Already Indicated, Accordingly To The Animal Behavior
studies, Adopt Flight Or Fight Response, When They Are Frightened Or
threatened And This Instinctual Response To A Perceived Threat Is What Is
being Exploited In Jallikattu Or Bullock-cart Races. During Jallikattu,
many Animals Are Observed To Engage In A Flight Response As They Try To Run
away From Arena When They Experience Fear Or Pain, But Cannot Do This,
since The Area Is Completely Enclosed. Jallikattu Demonstrates A Link
between Actions Of Humans And The Fear, Distress And Pain Experienced By
bulls. Studies Indicate That Rough Or Abusive Handling Of Bulls
compromises Welfare And For Increasing Bulls Fear, Often, They Are Pushed,
hit, Prodded, Abused, Causing Mental As Well As Physical Harm.

16. Jallikattu Is A Tamil Word, Which Comes From The Term “Callikattu”,
where “Calli” Means Coins And “Kattu” Means A Package. Jallikattu Refers
to Silver Or Gold Coins Tied On The Bulls’ Horns. People, In The Earlier
time, Used To Fight To Get At The Money Placed Around The Bulls’ Horns
which Depicted As An Act Of Bravery. Later, It Became A Sport Conducted
for Entertainment And Was Called “Yeruthu Kattu”, In Which A Fast Moving
bull Was Corralled With Ropes Around Its Neck. Started As A Simple Act Of
bravery, Later, Assumed Different Forms And Shapes Like Jallikattu (in The
present Form), Bull Race Etc., Which Is Based On The Concept Of Flight Or
fight. Jallikattu Includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu,
Vadam, Vadi And All Such Events Involve Taming Of Bulls.

17. AWBI Gives A First Hand Information Of The Manner In Which The Event
of Jallikattu Is Being Conducted In Southern Parts Of Tamil Nadu, Through
three Reports Submitted Along With The Additional Affidavit Filed By The
Secretary Of The Animal Welfare Board, MoEF, Government Of India On
7.9.2013, Flouting The Various Directions Issued By This Court, High Court
and The Regulatory Provisions Of TNRJ Act. Dr. Manilal Vallyate And Mr.
Abhishek Raje, The Observors Of AWBI, Have Submitted The First Report
regarding Jallikattu Events That Took Place At Avnlapuram On 14.1.2013,
Palamedu On 15.1.2013 And Alanganallur On 16.1.2013. Relevant Portions Of
the Reports Read As Under:

“I. Executive Summary

In A Comprehensive Investigation Authorized By The Animal Welfare
Board Of India, Investigators Observed Jallikattu Events At Venues In
Avaniapuram, Palamedu And Alanganallur On The 14th, 15th And 16th Of
January 2013, Respectively. During The Course Of The Investigation,
One Bull Died And Many More Were Injured. Investigators Observed That
Bulls Were Forced To Participate And Were Deliberately Taunted,
Tormented, Mutilated, Stabbed, Beaten, Chased And Denied Even Their
Most Basic Needs, Including Food, Water And Sanitation. The Findings
Of This Investigation Clearly Show That Bulls Who Are Used In
Jallikattu Are Subjected To Extreme Cruelty And Unmitigated Suffering.

All The Acts Of Cruelty To Animals Detailed In The Below Observations
Contravene The Orders Of The Supreme Court Of India And Madurai High
Court, Which Mandate That Bulls Should Not Be Harmed Or Tortured In
Any Way. Such Animal Abuse Is Also In Violation Of Numerous Clauses
Of Section 11(1) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960.

II. Welfare Implications And Violations Of The Law
1. Ear Cutting/Mutilation
At Least 80 Per Cent Of The Bulls Observed Had Their Ears Cut, With
Three-fourths Of The External Ear Pinna Absent. When Asked About The
Reason For The Mutilation, Many Bull Owners Explained That By Cutting
The Ear, The Animal Would Be Able To Hear Sounds Even From The Back,
Which They Deemed To Be Very Important While The Animals Are In The
Jallikattu Arena.
Welfare Concerns
Cutting The External Ear In No Way Helps To Improve A Bull’s Hearing.
Instead, The Bull Loses His Natural Ability To Receive Sounds Signals
With Appropriate Positioning And Movement Of The Ear Pinna. Cutting
The Ear Causes Intense Pain And Distress As The External Ear Pinna
Consists Of Cartilage And Is Highly Vascular With A Rich Nerve Supply.
The Procedure Leads To Physiological, Neuroendocrine And Behavioural
Changes In The Animal. Bulls Strongly Resist Being Touched On The
Head Or Around The Ear Because Of Painful Past Experiences. Many
Animals Get Agitated If Someone Tries To Do So.
This Is A Violation Of Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty
To Animals Act, 1960, Which Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way
That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering, And Section 11(1)(l), Which
Prohibits The Mutilation Of An Animal’s Body.

2. Fracture And Dislocation Of Tail Bones
Many Bulls Suffered From Dislocated Or Even Amputated Tails Caused By
Deliberate Pulling And Twisting.
Welfare Concerns
The Tail, Which Has Nearly 20 Small Bones, Is An Extension Of The
Spinal Cord And Vertebral Column. Dislocation And Fracture Of The
Tail Vertebrae Are Extremely Painful Conditions.
This Is A Violation Of Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty
To Animals Act, 1960, Which Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way
That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering, And Section 11(1)(l), Which
Prohibits The Mutilation Of An Animal’s Body.

3. Frequent Defecation And Urination
Ninety-five Per Cent Of The Bulls Were Soiled With Faeces From Below
The Base Of Their Tails And Across The Majority Of Their Hindquarters.
Welfare Concerns
Bulls Were Forced To Stand Together In Accumulated Waste For Hours On
End. Frequent Defecation And Urination Are Indicators Of Fear And
Pain In Cattle.
Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960,
Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or

4. Injuries And Death
Because Of The Absence Of A Contained “collection Area” In
Avaniapuram, A Bull Died After A Head-on Collision With A Moving
Passenger Bus. In Palamedu, A Terrified Bull Sustained A Crippling
Leg Injury After He Jumped More Than 10 Feet Off A Narrow Road To
Escape A Mob Carrying Sticks. In Alanganallur, Two Bulls, Who Were
Terrified After Being Chased By Onlookers, Ran Amok And Fell Into Open
Wells In An Agriculture Field. Both Sustained Serious Injuries.
Welfare Concerns
An Injury Involving Muscles, Bones, Nerves And Blood Vessels Causes An
Animal Tremendous Pain. A Complete Fracture Of A Lower Joint In
Large Animals Takes Time To Heal And Leads To A Deformation Of The Leg
That Leaves The Animal Unfit For Any Kind Of Work. Bulls Also Suffer
From Chronic Pain As Well As Mental Trauma Brought On By The Injury
And The Handlers’ And Bull Tamers’ Cruel Treatment.
Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960,
Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or

III. Cruel Practices And Violations Of The Law
1. Biting A Bull’s Tail
On Many Occasions, Bulls’ Tails Bitten By The Organizers And Owners Of
The Animals In The Waiting Area And Inside The Vadi Vassal. The Vadi
Vassal Is A Chamber That Is Closed Off From Public View. Abuse Runs
Rampant In Vadi Vasals. Bulls Are Poked, Beaten And Deliberately
Agitated Before They Are Forced Into The Jallikattu Arena, Where More
Than 30 “bull Tamers” Are Waiting.
Welfare Concerns
Considered An Extremity Of The Body, A Bull’s Tail Has Many Vertebrae
But Very Little Muscle Or Subcutaneous Tissue To Protect It. Any
Direct Pressure Or Injury To The Tail Bones Causes Extreme Pain That
Sends Bulls Into A Frenzy.
Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960,
Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or

2. Twisting A Bull’s Tail
Owners Routinely Beat The Bulls And Twist Their Tails In Order To
Induce Fear And Pain While They Are In The Waiting Area And The Vadi
Vassal. Many Bulls Had Dislocated Or Even Amputated Tails.
Welfare Concerns
The Tails, Which Has Nearly 20 Small Bones, Is An Extension Of The
Spinal Cord And Vertebral Column. Frequent Pulling And Bending Of The
Tail Causes Extreme Pain And May Lead To A Dislocation And/or Fracture
Of The Tail Vertebrae. This Causes Severe Chronic Pain And
Psychological Changes That Make An Animal Easily Frightened When
Someone Goes Behind Him Or Tries To Catch Or Hold His Tail.
This Is Violation Of Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To
Animals Act, 1960, Which Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way That
Causes Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering, And Section 11(1)(l), Which
Prohibits The Mutilation Of An Animal’s Body.

3. Poking Bulls With Knives And Sticks
Many Bulls Were Poked With Sticks By Owners, Police Officials And
Organizers Inside The Vadi Vassal And Near The Collection Yard.
People Inside The Vadi Vassal Often Poked Bulls On Their Hindquarters,
Aces And Other Parts Of Their Bodies With Pointed Wooden Spears, Tiny
Knives, Sticks And Sickle-shaped Knives Used For Cutting Nose Ropes.
Welfare Concerns
Poking Bulls With Sticks Or Sharp Knives Causes Immense Pain And
Agitation. Distressed Bulls Often Adopt A Flight Response And
Desperately Try To Escape Through The Half-closed Gates Of The Vadi
Vasals. While Attempting To Flee From People In The Arena, Agitated
Bulls Often Injure Themselves When They Run Into Barricades, Electric
Polls, Water Tanks, Tractor Carriages And Police Watch Towers Placed
Inside The Jallikattu Arena.
Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960,
Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or

4. Using Irritants
Irritant Solutions Were Rubbed Into The Eyes And Noses Of Bulls Inside
The Vadi Vassal In Order To Agitate Them.
Welfare Concerns
Eyes And Noses Are Very Sensitive, Sensory Organs, And The Use Of Any
Irritating Chemicals Causes Pain, Distress And An Intense Sensation.
Bulls Who Try To Escape From Such Torture Often End Up Injuring
Themselves By Hitting Walls, Gates, Fencing And Other Erected
Structures Inside The Vadi Vasal And Jallikattu Arena
This Practice Violates Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty
To Animals Act, 1960, Which Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way
That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering. It Also Violates Section
11(1)(c), Which Prohibits The Willful And Unreasonable Administration
Of Any Injurious Drug Or Substance To Any Animal.

5. Using Nose Ropes
Nose Ropes Were Frequently Pulled, Yanked Or Tightened In Order To
Control Bulls Before They Were Released Into Arenas And Collection
Yards. Some Animals Were Even Bleeding From The Nose As A Result Of
Injuries Caused By Pulling The Rope.
Welfare Concerns
Pulling Or Twisting The Nose Rope Exerts Pressure On The Nerve-rich
And Extremely Sensitive Septum, Causing Bulls Pain And Making It
Easier For Handlers To Force Them To Move In A Desired Direction.
According To One Study, 47 Per Cent Of Animals Whose Noses Were
Pierced Had Lacerations And Ulcerations, And 56 Per Cent Had Pus In
Their Nostrils. They Study Also Pointed Out That 57 Per Cent Of
Cattle Had Extensive And Severe Nose Injuries.
Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960,
Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or

6. Cramped Conditions
Bulls Were Packed So Tightly Into Narrow Waiting Corridors That They
Were Unable To Take A Step Forwards Or Backwards. Forced To Stand For
More Than Eight Hours In Line At The Waiting Area For A Health
Examination And In The Vadi Vassal, Bulls Had No Protection From The
Blistering Sun And The Crowds Of People, Who Shouted And Hooted At
Them, Harassed Them And Frightened Them. Bull Owners Start Lining Up
The Night Before The Jallikattu Event, And They Are Given Serial
Numbers. Some Were In Line Until The Events Ended At 2 Pm The Next
Welfare Concerns
Bulls Were Denied Shade And Were Not Allowed To Lie Down And Rest.
This Causes Exhaustion And Extreme Distress And Discomfort.
This Is A Violation Of Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty
To Animals Act, 1960, Which Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way
That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering, And Section 11(1)(f), Which
Prohibits Trying An Animal For An Unreasonable Time With An
Unreasonably Short Rope.

7. Forcing Bulls To Move Sideways
The Animals Were Forced To Move Sideways At A Slow Pace For More Than
Eight Hours Over A Distance Of Approximately 500 To 1000 Metres.
Welfare Concerns
Forcing Bulls To Walk Sideways – Which Is An Unnatural Gait For Any
Animal – For A Long Duration Causes Them Extreme Discomfort.
This Is A Violation Of Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty
To Animals Act, 1960, Which Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way
That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering, And Section 11(1)(d), Which
Prohibits Conveying Any Animal In Such A Manner Or Position As To
Cause Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering.

8. Lack Of Food And Water
All The Bulls Observed Were Not Offered Food, Water Or Shelter From 8
Am, When They Were Forced To Line Up, Until The Jallikattu Events
Ended At 2.30 Pm. Though Concrete Water Troughs Were Available At
The Registration Area And Collection Yards, None Of The Animals Were
Offered Water. Bulls Were So Terrified And Focused On Surviving At
The Collection Yards In Palamedu And Alanganallur That They Did Not
Drink Water. Several Bulls Became Recumbent And Were Unable To Stand
Up Because Of Dehydration And Exhaustion. Many People Kicked, Beat
And Bit The Bulls In Order To Force Them Back Onto Their Feet.
Welfare Concerns
As Ruminants, Bulls Normally Graze For Several Hours A Day In An Open
Field Or Eat A Bulk Quantity Of Feed When Kept In Stalls. They
Loiter Around Chewing Their Cud Before Grazing Or Eating Again.
During Jallikattu, The Animals Are Starved And Prevented From Chewing
Their Cud (they Won’t Do It When They Are Frightened Or In Pain
Distress). No Intake Of Food And Water And The Absence Of Shade Lead
To Dehydration And Exhaustion. This Often Results In Injuries Or
This Is A Violation Of Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty
To Animals Act, 1960, Which Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way
That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering, And Section 11(1)(h), Which
States That Failing To Provide Animals With Sufficient Food, Drink Or
Shelter Is An Act Of Cruelty.


9. Forcing Bulls To Drink Liquids
On Many Occasions, Bulls Were Forced To Drink Fluids That Were Likely
Liquor. Animals’ Heads Were Raised By Pulling On The Nose Ropes, And
The Fluids Were Forced Into Their Mouths Using A Plastic Bottle.
Welfare Concerns
Forcing Bulls To Drink Causes Them Physical Discomfort And Fear.
They Often Become Excited And Frenzied As The Alcohol Affects Their
Central Nervous System. Forcing Them To Drink Can Also Cause The
Aspiration Of Fluid In The Upper And Lower Respiratory Tracts (lungs).
This Can Cause Pneumonia, A Serious Respiratory Disease That Can Lead
To Death. Normally, Bulls Drink Water At Their Own Pace From A
Bucket, But No Such Allowances Were Witnessed During Any Of The
Jallikattu Events.
This Is A Violation Of Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty
To Animals Act, 1960, Which Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way
That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering, And Section 11(1)(c), Which
States That Giving Any Injurious Drug Or Substance To Any Animal Is



10. Forcing Bulls To Stand In Their Own Waste
In The Waiting Areas, Bulls Were Forced To Wait For More Than Eight
Hours While Standing In Their Own Faeces And Urine.
Welfare Concerns
No Sanitation Facilities Were Made Available, And Bulls Were Forced To
Stand Together In The Accumulated Faeces And Urine For Hours. The
Accumulated Waste Attracts Flies That Bother The Animals And Cause
Them Discomfort. The Eggs Laid By The Flies May Lead To Maggot
Infestation Of Any Wounds The Bulls May Have.
This Is A Violation Of Supreme Court And Madurai High Court Orders,
Which Mandate That Sanitation Facilities Should Be Made Available
During Jallikattu Events And That Bulls Should Not Be Allowed To
Suffer In Any. Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To
Animals Act, 1960 Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way That Causes
Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering.

11. Spectators Beating And Agitating Bulls
When Collection Yards Were Not Present Or Not Used, Injured, Exhausted
Bulls Were Tormented By Spectators As They Exited. “Parallel
Jallikattu” Events Happened At Each Venue As The Aggressive Crowds
Agitated The Bulls Exiting The Arena By Shouting At Them, Beating Them
And Jumping On Them. Many People, Including Police Officials, Beat
Exhausted Bulls With Sticks And Jumped In Front Of The Bulls In An
Effort To Frighten Them. Running For Their Lives, Terrified Bulls Ran
Amok, Stumbling Into Shops And Houses And Slamming Into Barricades And
Vehicles Parked Nearby. Both The Bull Who Died After A Head-on
Collision With A Passenger Bus In Avaniapuram And The Bull Who
Fractured His Leg After Jumping Off A Road In Palamedu Were Running
Loose When Their Injuries Occurred “Parallel Jallikattu” Is Often
Considered To Be The “real Jallikattu”, As The Most Risky Action Takes
Place During The Deliberate Harassment By Spectators.
Welfare Concerns
When Bulls Are Not Afraid, They Stand Still And Engage In Normal
Behaviour To The Species, Such As Grazing, Chewing Cud, Lying Down Or
Grooming. None Of These Types Of Behavior Were Seen At Any Point
During Any Of The Jallikattu Events. Jallikattu Causes Bulls Severe
Mental And Physical Anguish. When Bulls Are Frightened Or In Pain,
They Adopt A Flight Response That Can Often Lead To Serious Physical
Injuries And Even Death. Near The Collection Area, The Spectators
Didn’t Allow The Bulls To Calm Down And Relax – They Instead Induced
Further Fear, Distress, Discomfort And Pain.
This Is A Violation Of Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty
To Animals Act, 1960, Which States That Beating, Kicking, Torturing Or
Otherwise Treating Any Animal So As To Subject The Animal To
Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering Is An Act Of Cruelty.

12. Restraining And Roping
When Bulls Entered The Collection Yard, They Were Caught Using Looped
Rope That Was Attached To A Long Stick. At No Point Were The
Frightened Bulls Allowed To Calm Down. After A Long Struggle, Bulls
Were Captured By Handlers Who Inserted Two Fingers Into Their Noses
And Pulled Them To The Nearest Tree While Three To Four Men Held Their
Horns And Necks Using Multiple Ropes. Once An Animal Was Tied To A
Tree, A New Thick Nose Rope Was Forcefully Inserted Through The
Existing Hole In The Nasal Septum. Often The Rope Was Very Thick, And
Pulling It Vigorously Caused Injuries To The Nasal Septum, Which Led
To Profuse Bleeding In Many Animals.
Welfare Concerns
As A Prey Animal, Bulls Are Better Controlled Using Behavioural
Techniques Instead Of Crude And Painful Restraining Techniques That
Cause Intense Mental Suffering And Physical Injuries. Such A Painful
Experience Will Cause Long-lasting Psychological And Behavioural
Changes In Bulls.
Section 11(1)(a) Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960,
Prohibits Treating Any Animal In A Way That Causes Unnecessary Pain Or

IV. Xxx Xxx Xxx

V. Injuries And Deaths
Jallikattu Is Dangerous Not Only To Bulls But Also To Humans. Many
Participants And Spectators Sustained Serious Injuries At All Three
Jallikattu Events. A Total Of 58 Participants And 56 Spectators Were
Injured In The Three Jallikattu Events. One Police Constable Was Also
Injured In Avaniapuram.
1. In Avaniapuram, A Total Of 55 Persons Were Injured During The
Jallikattu Event. Of The 26 People Who Were Injured While Trying
To Tame The Charging Bulls By Clinging To Their Backs, Five Were
Seriously Injured. Twenty-four Spectators, Including A Police
Constable, Were Injured Following A Melee After Some Bulls Ran Into
The Crowd. Five People Were Injured When A Section Of The Gallery
Erected For Spectators Collapsed Because Of Severe Crowing.
2. In Palamedu, 21 People, Including 11 Tamers, Were Injured During
The Jallikattu Event. Ten Spectators Were Injured By Bulls Who
Escaped The Fighting Arena. The 21 People Who Suffered Injuries
Were Admitted To The Palamedu Primary Health Centre. One Onlooker,
Who Was Hit In The Abdomen, Was Later Moved To The Government
Rajaji Hospital In Madurai While Others Were Treated As
3. In Alanganallur, 38 People Were Injured During The Jallikattu
Event. Twenty-one Were Tamers, And Others Injured Included
Onlookers And Owners. Two People Who Were Seriously Wounded Were
Admitted To The Government Hospital In Madurai.

VI. Xxx Xxx Xxx

VII. Xxx Xxx Xxx

VIII. Conclusion
Bulls Are Prey Animals. According To Animal Behavioural Studies,
Bulls Adopt A Flight Or Fight Response When They Feel Frightened Or
Threatened. This Instinctual Response To A Perceived Threat Is
Deliberately Exploited By Jallikattu Organizers. During Jallikatt,
Many Animals Are Observed To Engage In A Flight Response As They Run
Away From People When They Experience Pain Or Fear. This Flight
Response Is Not Surprising, Given The Amount Of Pain And Terror Bulls
Are Subjected To Before, During And After Jallikattu. Bulls Are
Beaten, Poked, Prodded, Harassed And Jumped On By Numerous People.
They Have Their Tails Bitten And Twisted And Their Eyes And Noses
Filled With Irritating Chemicals. Many Peer-reviewed Papers
Demonstrate A Link Between The Actions Of Humans And The Fear,
Distress And Pain Experienced By Animals. Research Has Shown That
Rough Or Abusive Handling Of Animals Compromises Welfare By Increasing
An Animal’s Fear Of Humans. Bulls – Who Are Pushed, Hit, Prodded And
Abused In Jallikattu – Suffer Mentally As Well As Physically.

Detailed Reports On Jallikattu In Avaniapuram, Palamedu And


The Cruelty And Animal Abuse Detailed Below In Sections A, B And C
Also Violate The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960.
Observations Of Three Jallikattu Locations Have Been Grouped Broadly
Under Four Categories:
. Waiting Area
. Vadi Vasal
. Arena
. Collection Yard

Avaniapuram – 14 January 2013

Waiting Area
. Bulls Were Forced To Stand In Long Lines For More Than Eight Hours
Without Shade, Food And Water Or Room To Move.
. Many Animals Were Forced To Drink Fluids, Likely Alcohol, To
Disorient Them.
. Bulls Were Continuously Pulled And Yanked By Nose Ropes.
. Handlers Forced Bulls To Move In The Lines Sideways By Painfully
Pulling And Yanking Their Tails.
. Some Reluctant Bulls Jumped Out Of The Line And Attacked Their
Owners Out Of Fear.
. None Of The Animals Had The JK Number Given To Them By The
Animal Welfare Board Of India On Their Horns, Which Is A
Registration Requirement.

Vadi Vasal
. Bulls Were Pulled By Nose Ropes Into The Narrow, Closed
Enclosure. Participants Also Pushed On The Bulls’ Backs As The
Animals Resisted.
. Inside The Vadi Vasal, Nose Ropes Were Cut With A Sharp Sickle.
At Times, Bulls Were Poked With These Sickles In Order To Force
Them To Enter The Arena. Much Of The Cruelty The Bulls Were
Subjected To During Jallikattu Happened Inside The Vadi Vasal.
. Closed Off From The Public, The High-walled Vadi Vasal Is A
Torture Chamber. Here, Organizers Hit The Bulls With Wooden
Sticks And Owners Bit And Brutally Twisted Bulls’ Tails. Organisers
And Owners Of Bulls Also Beat Bulls With Their Bare Hands, Whipped
Them With Snapped Nose Ropes And Poked Them With Small, Sharp
. Some Animals Returned To The Vadi Vasal After Being Terrified By
The Jallikattu Participants.

. The Supreme Court’s Guideline For Arena Barricades Calls For
Them To Be No Less Than 8 Feet High. This Guideline Was Flagrantly
Ignored, And The Barricade In The Main Area Was As Low As 5-1/2
Feet. The Non-compliance Of A Guideline As Basic As The
Barricade’s Height Endangers The Lives Of Spectators.
. The Supreme Court’s Guideline Of Double Barricading Was Not
Implemented Anywhere Around The Arena Or Along The Path From The
Main Arena To The Town’s Street.
. As Many As Six To Eight Matadors Jumped Onto Bulls To Take Them.
Unable To Carry The Weight, The Bulls Often Feel To The Ground.

Collection Yard
. There Was No Collection Yard.
. Because Of The Absence Of A Collection Yard, The Bulls Ran Amok
In The Streets, Which Were Lined With Unruly Crowds Eager To Hit
The Scared Animals.
. Many Spectators Pounded On The Petrified Bulls And Tried To
Perform Jallikattu On The Streets.
. Bulls Entered Bylanes And Trampled Both Men And Parked Vehicles.
. Because Of The Lack Of A Collection Area, One Bull Lost His Life
After A Head-on Collision With A Moving Passenger Bus.

2. Palamedu – 15 January 2013

Waiting Area
. The Bulls Were Forced To Move Sideways For Hours As They Inched
Closer To The Vadi Vasal. This Sideways Gait Is Unnatural And
Uncomfortable To Them.
. Even Though There Were Water Troughs Near The Medical
Examination Area, Bulls Were Not Allowed To Drink Water Because The
Owners Did Not Want To Lose Their Place In Line.
. There Was No Food Or Fodder For The Bulls Who Were Forced To
Stand In Line The Night Before The Event.
. The Bulls In Line Defecated Constantly, Which Is A Sign Of Fear.
. The Ears Of Almost All The Bulls Were Cut And Mutilated.
. Several Bulls In Line Were Dragged By Their Tails.
. Owners Dragged Bulls Around By Inserting Their Fingers Into
Bulls’ Noses And Pulling Them.
. Bulls Were Forcibly Beaten, Pushed And Pulled Into The Vadi
Vasal. The Reluctant Bulls Had Their Tails Painfully Twisted,
Broken And Bitten. These Abusive Practices, Though Common, Were
Particularly Rampant In Palamedu.
. Bulls Were Hit And Poked With Wooden Sticks. One Of The
Organiser’s Sole Duty Was To Force Bulls Into The Vadi Vasal By
Striking And Prodding Them With A Wooden Stick.
. Shockingly, Police In Uniform Blatantly Hit And Poked The Bulls
With Their Wooden Lathis Instead Of Stopping The Abuse.
. On The Sly, Owners Forced Suspicious Liquids, Likely Alcohol,
Down The Throats Of Bulls In Order To Disorient Them.

Vadi Vasal
. The Vadi Vasal Is Hidden From The View Of The Public And Media
And Can Be Accessed And Viewed Only By Select Jallikattu
. The Vadi Vasal Was A Permanent Cement Structure. Its Walls Hid
Some Of The Cruelty From Spectators And TV Cameras.
. The Practice Of Inflicting Pain By Poking And Hitting The Bulls
Is Common. Almost Every Bull That Stayed In The Vadi Vasal For
More Than A Couple Of Seconds After His Nose Rope Was Cut Was
Subjected To Physical Torture. This Rampant Cruelty Proves That
The Court’s Guidelines Regarding Jallikattu Are Completely
. Bulls’ Tails Were Brazenly Twisted And Broken In Order To Force
Bulls To Run Out Of The Vadi Vasal Into The Arena.
. A Bull’s Anus Was Deliberately Injured To Cause Pain To The
. Inside The Vadi Vasal, Bulls’ Eyes And Noses Were Forcibly
Rubbed With Irritant Liquids To Disorient And Agitate Them.
. Feeling Immense Fear, Some Bulls Jumped Against The Exit Door Of
The Vadi Vasal To Try To Flee The Enclosure.

. The Path From The Arena To The Collection Area Was Dotted With
Dangerous Obstructions, Such As Tractor Carriages, Water Tanks,
And A Small Truck. These Obstructions Posed Serious Threats To
Speeding Bulls Who Were Being Chased Away By Participants.
. The Supreme Court’s Guidelines Were Not Implemented As The
Barricades Were Not 8 Feet High.
. An Electric Pole Posed Grave Danger To Speeding Bulls Who
Charged Out Of The Vadi Vasal.

Collection Yard
. The Collection Yard Was Nowhere Close To Half An Acre In Size As
Instructed By The Court Guidelines.
. The Collection Area Was Also Impractical By Design As Bulls Sped
Right Through Its Narrow Enclosure, Which Was Erected In The Path
From The Main Arena To The Town’s Streets.
. Because Of The Insufficient Collection Yard, Bulls Ran Along
Streets And Into Moving Traffic.
. Bull Were Brutally Beaten By Unruly Spectators Who Drew Sadistic
Pleasure In Landing Blows With Their Fists And Sticks. As The
Loud Crowd Hooted, Bulls Ran For Cover.
. Some Bulls Injured Themselves When They Jumped Off The Narrow
Roads Into Fields That Were 10 Feet Below. Others Jumped Into Dry
River Beds.
. One Bull Who Was Being Chased And Beaten By A Mob Jumped Into A
Field And Fractured His Font Leg. It Took 90 Minutes For The
Suffering Animal To Receive Medical Attention Proving That Having
Ambulances On Standby Is Of No Use.
. Several Bulls Trampled The Metal Barricades And Ran Into
Residential Homes And Bylanes.
. One Bull Entered A House.
. Another Bull Plunged Into A Sewage Drain That Was More Than 10
Feet Below The Road.
. Several Young People Were Injured When Bulls Trampled Them On
The Streets.

4. Alanganallur – 16th January 2013
Waiting Area
. The Waiting Area Had Long Lines.
. No Shade Or Fodder Was Supplied To The Bulls.
. The Breaking, Twisting And Biting Of Bulls’ Tails Was Rampant In
The Line.
. One Person’s Sole Job Was To Force Bulls Into The Vadi Vasal By
Beating Them With Sticks.
. Bull Owners Were Seen Rubbing Suspicious Liquids Into The Eyes
Of Bulls Moments Before The Bulls Were Taken Inside The Vadi

Vadi Vasal

. The Vadi Vasal At Alanganallur Was No Different From Those In
Previous Jallikattu Locations. Bulls Were Subjected To Barbaric
Cruelty Inside The Enclosure, Which Was Shielded From Public View.
. Organisers Armed With Sticks Perched Inside The Vadi Vasal And
Repeatedly Hit Bulls Who Were Reluctant.
. The Practice Of Biting Tails Was Most Rampant In This Vadi
Vasal, As Every Other Bull Had His Tail Bitten By People Sitting
. Bulls Had Their Tails Pulled, Twisted And Broken Inside The
Vadi Vasal.
. Some Bulls Were Brutally Hit On The Bridge Of The Nose Right
Before Their Nose Ropes Were Cut Open.
. Bulls Were Kicked In Their Hindquarters.
. People Guarding And Sitting On Top Of The Vadi Vasal Smoked
Beedis, Completely Disregarding The Safety Of The Bulls.
. Cruelty Was Most Rampant And Brazen In This Vadi Vasal.

Collection Yard
. In Alangannlur, The Collection Area Did Not Prevent Bulls From
Running Amok And Injuring Spectators And Villages Standing Outside
The Barricades.
. Many Bulls Ran Straight Out Of The Collection Area And Into The
Nearby Fields. Two Bulls Fell Into Wells Filled With Water And
Injured Themselves.
. The Fact That Bulls Fell Into Wells In Spite Of A Collection
Yard That Was Erected As Per The Supreme Court’s Guidelines Proves
That The Lives Of Bulls Are At Stake Even If The Guidelines Are
Followed. The Scope For Mishaps Is Immense.
. Several Bulls Who Ran Into The Collection Yard Were Frightened
By The Bull Catchers And Ran Back Into The Barricaded Passageway
To The Main Arena.
. Cops Standing On A Tractor Carriage In The Passageway Between
The Main Arena And Collection Yard Often Hit The Bulls With Long
Wooden Sticks.
. Bulls Who Escaped From The Collection Yard Ran Amok And Stayed
Into Nearby Fields. The Bulls Also Trampled And Injured
Spectators Around The Collection Yard.

Manoj Oswal, Animal Welfare Officer To The Board, Submitted The Second
interim Report On 25.1.2012 With Regard To The Events Witnessed At Various
places Like Avanlapuram And Palamedu. The Operative Portion Of The Report
reads As Under:
“Primary Observation:
While It Is Not Possible To Conduct Animal Sport Like Jallikattu
Without Causing Trauma And Cruelty To Animals, It Was Anticipated That
The Guidelines And Rules Would Ensure That The Cruelty Is Minimum.

The Events At The Surface Looked Very Organized And Orderly But
Scratching A Little Below The Surface Showed That The Abuse And
Violations Now Have Been Hidden Away From The Main Arena. The Unruly
People Have Been Found Their Own Place Away From Media Glare And Eyes
Of Animal Welfare Officers.

The Fundamental Issue Remains That A Large Section Of People Come To
The Events With A Hope-expectation That They Are Also A Part Of The
Action, Which Indeed Has Been A Way Of Jallikattu Always. Such People
Continue To Handle Bulls In Crude Fashion, Continue To Risk Their Own
Lives And Create Hazard For Themselves And Others And They Undo
Whatever The System Has Built As Check And Balance.

Queuing Of Bulls
The Most Stressful Time For The Animals Is The Long Wait, Particularly
When Events Are Back To Back. The Same Animals Participate In Many
Events And Travel To New Events Every Day. No Animal Has The
Possibility Of Basic Shelter From Sun And Wind, Food Or Water While It
Awaits Its Turn.

The Situation In All Districts Remain The Same As It Was Last Year.
Between 200 To 400 Bulls Come To The Venue But The Facility Of Pens
And Shelter Are Symbolic, Holding At The Most 10-12 Animals. These
Poster Boys Are Shown As How Well Bulls Were Treated. However, In
Reality They Are Not Even A Fraction Of The Bulls That Participate.

The Bull Are Held Tightly By Their Ropes. There Is No Possibility To
Move Even An Inch. The Bull That Cannot Even Lower Hold Itself To Its
Natural Position, It Is Held Up Tightly That Is How It Remains In That
Single Position For Hour At A Stretch. If The Bull Stands Naturally
The Holder Will Have Bend Himself In An Awkward Position.

In Such A Situation There Is No Possibility Of Either Feeding Or
Watering The Animal. The Bull Start Queuing From 1 Am And They Are
Held That Way Till 4pm Till Then The Program Usually Ends. The Bull
Coming First May Get Released About 2 Hours Earlier.

Cruelty Before Release
The Bull Does Not Want To Go Into The Arena. It Does Not Like People
And Does Not Like The Crowd. The Only Way To Get It Go Before The
Crowd Is To Prod It And Threaten It. Cause The Animal So Much Pain
And Fear That It Believes That Going Before The Thousands Of People Is
A Better Escape Than Being Tortured Here In The Small Box Like

The Methods Of Torture Vary, But The Essence Remains The Same. The
Bull Has To Run For Its Life. The Bull Is Scared Of Both Scenarios
The Large Crowd Outside And The Captive And Painful Life With The
Current Owner. Given An Opportunity The Bull Prefers To Stay In The
Small Enclosure Than Run Into A Crowd Of Strangers, The Way The Bull
Is Made To Run Is To Give It Immediate Pain Or Restrain It

Despite Ban, People Were Seen Giving Alcohol To The Animal In The Sly.
The Tail Of The Animal Is One Of The Sensitive Part Of The Body, So
Is The Nose And The Eyes. Torture To These Parts Is One Quick Way To
Get The Bull Run.

Cruelty Within Arena:

Mental Torture
Physical Abuse Is Not The Only Kind Of Injury That Is Illegal And
Hurtful. Mental Abuse Is Also Amongst The Worst Kind Of Abuse As It
Leaves A Lifelong Mark On The Mind.

It Is A Known Fact That Victims Of Accident, Crime Or
Disasters Recover From Their Physical Injuries In Certain Time But
Mental Injuries Remain Etched For Decades, Play Havoc In Day To Day
Life. Animals, Irrespective Of The Fact Whether They Can Express It
Or Not, In This Particular Case Were Seen Going Through The Same Shock
And Terror As A Person Goes Into In A Hostage Situation. Constant Fear
Of Death And Continuous Torture.

Physical Torture
With The Entire World Watching At The Events, It Was Not Expected That
The Animals Will Be Harassed In The Arena. The Animals Got A Respite
From Physical Abuse In The Arena That Was Well Covered By Media,
However, As Soon As They Left The Main Arena, The Tale Of Torture
Remained The Same What It Has Been For Long.

Outside The Arena:
What Has Changed
- Registered Bulls Marked In Five Out Of Six Venues (not So In
- Symbolic Testing Done For Alcohol (actual Testing Done In
Previyasuriya, Rest Of The Places The Test Was Just A Cover Up).
- Obvious And Visible Forms Of Cruelty Disallowed In Public View.
- The Double Barricades Were Less Porous And So It Was Not Easy For
Unruly People To Enter Arena. (not So In Siravayal)

Everything Else, The Issues Highlighted In The Report In 2011 Remain

1. Queuing Of Animals And Holding Them In Unnatural Position For Hours
Without Food And Water.
2. In The Secluded And Enclosed Area, All Forms Of Animal Abuse.
3. The Animals Are Invariably Not Going Into The Yard But Onto The
Street, Groves, Cluttered Vegetation, Dry Canals And Other Free-for-
All Areas, All Misnamed As Yards.
4. Animals Running Out The Yard To Escape Brutality Straying Into The
Streets Of The Village.
5. Jallikattu Barricades Punctured At Certain Points Or That They
Being Open At One End Leading To Non Participants Indulging In The
Same Kind Of Cruelty That Were Seen Last Year.
6. A Complete Parallel Set Of Jallikattus Happening With The Crowd As
People Release The Unregistered Bulls Into The Crowd, This Is More
Particular And Obvious In Sivagangai.
7. A Less Obvious But With Same Effect, Parallel Jallikattu Happening
In Areas Designated As Bulls Yards. So Instead Of Rest, The Bull
Yards Are The Areas Designated As Bull Yards. So Instead Of Rest,
The Bull Yards Are The Areas Where The Bulls Get Tortured The Most.

18. We Have Also Perused The Recent Affidavit Filed By Smt. Uma Rani, The
Secretary, AWBI, MoEF, Chennai On 7.4.2014, Giving The Details Of The
manner In Which Jallikattu Was Conducted In Various Parts Of Tamil Nadu,
like Avaniapuram, Palamedu Etc., And The Torture And Cruelty Meted Out To
the Bulls, Which Is Unimaginable.

19. We Notice That The Situation Is The Same In The State Of Maharashtra
also. The Details Furnished By The 2nd Respondent In I.A. No. 5/2014 On
20.1.2014 Along With The Photographs, Depict The State Of Affairs, Which Is
also Cruel, Barbaric, Inhuman And Savage. Report Highlights The Manner In
which It Is Being Conducted.

20. We Notice, In Various Parts Of Maharashtra, Varied Types Of Bullock-
cart Races Are Being Organized. Bailgada Sharyat Is A Race Where No Person
rides The Cart. In Such A Race, At Times, Bullocks Are Brought To The
venue Blind Folded Through Trucks And Let Free, Through A Ghat Either Side
of Which Spectators, Large In Number, Assemble. Due To Sudden Exposure To
the Light, After Unfolding, And The Huge Noise Source Made By Spectators,
Bullock Get Terrified And Run In Straight On The Slope. Many Of The
Bullocks Are Tortured And Whipped To Make Them Run And The Price Is Decided
on The Basis Of Time Taken To Cover Gap Of Approximately 300 Meter
distance. Races Are Also There Where Bullocks Have To Cover 10 Kilometres
and More. Before And During The Course Of The Race, Cruel Practices Like
beating, Twisting Of Tail, Biting Tail, Poke With Spiked Instruments,
electric Shock Etc. Is Given. Races, Such As, Ghoda Bail Sharyat Which
involves A Horse And A Bull On The Same Cart Is Also Being Held.
Sometimes, A Bigger Bullock Is Paired With A Smaller One. Various Forms Of
torture Are Adopted In All These Races.

21. We Are Sorry To Note, In Spite Of The Various Directions Issued By
this Court, In The Conduct Of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race Etc., The
regulatory Provisions Of TNRJ Act And The Restrictions In The State Of
Maharashtra, The Situation Is The Same And No Action Is Being Taken By The
District Collectors, Police Officials And Others, Who Are In-charge To
control The Same, To See That Those Directions Are Properly And Effectively
complied With And The Animals Are Not Being Subjected To Torture And
cruelty. Being Dumb And Helpless, They Suffer In Silence.

22. We Notice, Following The Central Government Notification Dated
11.7.2011, The Committee Constituted In The State Of Maharashtra To Monitor
animal Welfare Laws In The State, Submitted A Letter Dated 1.8.2011 To The
then Chief Minister, With Specific Reference To The Notification Dated
11.7.2011, Stating As Follows:
“Now That The Exhibition And Training As Performing Animals Of Bulls
Also Is Prohibited, Bullocks Cart Races Which Are Very Widely
Organized In The State Become Illegal. During The Month Of Shravan,
Many Such Races Are Organized In The Rural Parts Of The State And
These Must Be Stopped In Compliance With The Above Notification.

We, Therefore, Request You To Issue Instructions Through The
Collectors All Over The State, Prohibiting Such Bullock Cart Races
With Immediate Effect.

This Issue Has Been Agitated In The State Of Years Now By Animal
Welfare Activists And The Central Government’s Move Should Put An End
To It. As The Notification May Not Have Come To The Notice Of People
And Even Administration At Large, We Hope You Will Kindly Take
Necessary Action As Requested Above At The Earliest.

Thanking You,

Yours Sincerely,
For Committee To Monitor Animal
Welfare Laws In Maharashtra
C.S. Dharmadhikari

The State Of Maharashtra, Based On The Notification Dated 11.7.2011 And The
letter Dated 1.8.2011 Of The Committee, Issued A Notification Dated
24.8.2011, The Operative Portion Of The Same Reads As Follows:
“Reference Item No. 1 Above, As Per The Notification Of Environment &
Forest Department Of Central Government Dated 11.7.2011, Has Been
Brought On Training, Exhibition And As Such The Performance Of Animals
Like Bears, Monkeys, Tigers, Leopards, Lions And Bullocks Etc.
Accordingly, It Was Under Consideration Of The State Government To
Bring About A Ban On The Bullock Cart Races And Various Exhibitions
Taking Place In The State.

Accordingly, By This Notification, A Ban Has Been Imposed On
Bullock Cart Races / Games/ Training / Exhibition In The State In
Accordance With The Above Reference Item No. (1) Notification Of The
Central Government.

As Per Order Of The Government Of Maharashtra.

C. N. Suryavanshi
Deputy Secretary, Govt. Of Maharashtra”


The State Of Maharashtra Later Issued A Corrigendum Dated 12.9.2011
clarifying That The Word “Bull” Be Read As Valu/Sand, Meaning Thereby, It
would Take Both Bulls Whether Castrated Or Not. The State Of Maharashtra
later, Through The Government Decision Dated 20.4.2012 Imposed Total
prohibition In The State Of Organizing Bull/Bullock-cart Races, Bulls
Fight, Training Of Bulls/Bullocks For The Sport, Sport Activities. The
operative Portion Of The Order Reads As Follows:
The Organization Of Animal Sports In State, Mainly In Its Rural
Hinterland Especially Sports Such As Bull Ox/ Bullock Cattle
Exhibition, Organizing Their Race, Their Cart Race, Fight Etc., Is
Nothing But Violence To These Dumb Animals For Which, To Stop The
Continuation Of The Same, To Prohibit The Same, The State Government
Has Already Taken A Decision To Prohibit Them On 24.8.2011. Moreover,
As In The List In This Regard Of Prohibited Animals By Central
Government As Bulls, Bullock Has Not Been Included But Not In State
Government, The State Government Issued A Corrigendum By Prohibiting
Bulls Instead Of Bullock In State Govt. List Too. In This Regard,
The Corrigendum Of The State Government Was Issued On 12.9.2011. But
By Opposing This Corrigendum Of State Government, Above Referred No.1,
And No.2 Cases Were Filed In The Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai. In
Accordance With The Judgment Given By The Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai
In Those Cases, To The State Government Issued Abovementioned Circular
Nos.4 And 5 Are Superseded Now And The Government Decision In This
Regard Is Now Being Issued As Under:-





In Compliance Of Central Govt.’s Department Of Forest And Environment
Departmental Notification Dated 11.7.2011 And Also In The Light Of
Relevant Judgment Pronounced By Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai Bullock
Cart Race, Bullock Race/ Bull Fight/ Training Of Bull / Bullock / Ox
For Such Race, Fights / Using Them For Any Animal Sport Activities Is
Being Prohibited Herewith Now.

In Accordance With Letter Dated 7.10.2011 Of Central Government,
Bamboo Cart / Cart / Ox / Cow / Calf Etc., Are Also Increased In The
Broader Sense Of Technical Definitions Of ‘Bulls’ Prohibited Under
This Act Which Must Be Prohibited For Usage As Sort Sporting / Animal
Sporting/ Fighting / Right Sports Related Training.

If Anybody Is Found Guilty Of The Aforesaid Prohibited Act And
Activities, Then On Such Offenders, Let Action Be Taken Stringently
And Effectively Against Them Under The Provisions Of Cruelty To
Animals Act And The Concerned District Collectors, Police
Superintendents Have The Entire Enforcement Responsibility.

Under The Directions Of And In The Name Of Hon’ble Governor Of
Maharashtra State.

Under Secretary
Govt. Of Maharashtra”

23. We Have Already Indicated That The State Of Maharashtra Has Accepted
the Judgment Of The High Court And The Government Decision Dated 20.4.2012
is Also Not Under Challenge.

24. We Have To Examine, In The Light Of The Above Facts, Whether The
events That Are Being Conducted In The States Of Tamil Nadu And Maharashtra
are In Violation Of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 21 And 22 Of The PCA Act
read With Articles 51A(g) And (h) Of The Constitution And The Notification
dated 11.7.2011.


25. The PCA Act Was Enacted Even Before The Introduction Of Part IV-A
dealing With The Fundamental Duties, By The Constitutional 47th Amendment
Act, 1956. Earlier, The Then British In India Enacted The Prevention Of
Cruelty Act, 1890 For The Human Beings To Reap Maximum Gains By Exploiting
them With Coercive Methods With An Idea That The Very Existence Of The
animals Is For The Benefit Of The Human Beings. During The Course Of
administering The Above Mentioned Act, Many Deficiencies Were Noticed By
the Government Of India And A Committee Was Constituted To Investigate And
suggest Measures For Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals. Following That, A
Bill Was Introduced In The Parliament And, Ultimately, The PCA Act, 1960
was Enacted So As To Prevent The Infliction Of Unnecessary Pain Or
suffering On Animals And To Amend The Law Relating To Prevention Of Cruelty
to Animals.

26. PCA Act Is A Welfare Legislation Which Has To Be Construed Bearing In
mind The Purpose And Object Of The Act And The Directive Principles Of
State Policy. It Is Trite Law That, In The Matters Of Welfare Legislation,
the Provisions Of Law Should Be Liberally Construed In Favour Of The Weak
and Infirm. Court Also Should Be Vigilant To See That Benefits Conferred
by Such Remedial And Welfare Legislation Are Not Defeated By Subtle
devices. Court Has Got The Duty That, In Every Case, Where Ingenuity Is
expanded To Avoid Welfare Legislations, To Get Behind The Smoke-screen And
discover The True State Of Affairs. Court Can Go Behind The Form And See
the Substance Of The Devise For Which It Has To Pierce The Veil And Examine
whether The Guidelines Or The Regulations Are Framed So As To Achieve Some
other Purpose Than The Welfare Of The Animals. Regulations Or Guidelines,
whether Statutory Or Otherwise, If They Purport To Dilute Or Defeat The
welfare Legislation And The Constitutional Principles, Court Should Not
hesitate To Strike Them Down So As To Achieve The Ultimate Object And
purpose Of The Welfare Legislation. Court Has Also 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.

27. The PCA Act, As Already Indicated, Was Enacted To Prevent The
infliction Of Unnecessary Pain, Suffering Or Cruelty On Animals. Section 3
of The Act Deals With Duties Of Persons Having Charge Of Animals, Which Is
mandatory In Nature And Hence Confer Corresponding Rights On Animals.
Rights So Conferred On Animals Are Thus The Antithesis Of A Duty And If
those Rights Are Violated, Law Will Enforce Those Rights With Legal
sanction. Section 3 Is Extracted Hereunder For An Easy Reference:
3. Duties Of Persons Having Charge Of Animals.- It Shall Be The Duty
Of Every Person Having The Care Or Charge Of Any Animal To Take All
Reasonable Measures To Ensure The Well-being Of Such Animal And To
Prevent The Infliction Upon Such Animal Of Unnecessary Pain Or

Section 3 Of The Act Has Got Two Limbs, Which Are As Follows:
I) Duty Cast On Persons-in-charge Or Care To Take All Reasonable
Measures To Ensure The Well-being Of The Animal;
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. Primary Duty On
the Persons-in-charge Or Care Of The Animal Is To Ensure The Well-being Of
the Animal. ‘Well-being’ Means State Of Being Comfortable, Healthy Or
happy. Forcing The Bull And Keeping The Same In The Waiting Area For A
number Of Hours And Subjecting 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”. Organizers 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 Limb Of Section 3, As Already
indicated, Gives A Corresponding Right To 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-
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 Section 3 Which Casts
a Duty On The Person In-charge Or Care Of Animal To Prevent The Infliction
upon An Animal, Unnecessary 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 Reduced, Whether The Conduct Which Caused The Suffering Was In
compliance With Any Relevant Enactment. 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 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 Preventive Provision Casting No Right
on The Organizers, But Only Duties And Obligations. Section 3, As Already
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 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-cart Race.

29. Section 11 Generally Deals With The Cruelty To Animals. Section 11
confers No Right On The Organizers To Conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart Race.
Section 11 Is A Beneficial Provision 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 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-

A) Beats, Kicks, Over-rides, Over-drives, Over-loads, Tortures
Or Otherwise Treats Any Animal So As To Subject It To
Unnecessary Pain Or Suffering Or Causes Or, Being The Owner
Permits, Any Animals To Be So Treated; Or

B) Xxx Xxx Xxx

C) Willfully And Unreasonably Administers Any Injuries Drug Or
Injurious Substance To Any Animal Or Wilfully And
Unreasonably Causes Or Attempts To Cause Any Such Drug Or
Substance To Be Taken By Any Animal; Or

D) Xxx Xxx Xxx

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 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 Animal
With Sufficient Food, Drink Or Shelter; Or

I) Xxx Xxx Xxx

J) Xxx Xxx Xxx

K) Xxx Xxx Xxx

L) Mutilates Any Animal Or Kills Any Animal (including Stray
Dogs) By Using The Method Of Strychnine Injections In The
Heart Or In Any Other Unnecessarily Cruel Manner; Or;


xxx Xxx Xxx

(2) For The Purposes Of Sub-section (1), An Owner Shall Be
Deemed To Have Committed An Offence If He Has Failed To Exercise
Reasonable Care And Supervision With A View To The Prevention Of Such

Provided That Where An Owner Is Convicted Of Permitting Cruelty
By Reason Only Of Having Failed To Exercise Such Care And Supervision,
He Shall Not Be Liable To Imprisonment Without The Option Of A Fine.

(3) Xxx Xxx Xxx”

Section 11(1)(a) Uses The Expressions “or Otherwise”, “unnecessary Pain Or
suffering” Etc. Beating, Kicking Etc. Go With The Event So Also Torture,
if The Report Submitted By AWBI Is Accepted. Even Otherwise, According To
AWBI, The Expression “or Otherwise” Takes In Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race
etc. But, According To The State Of Tamil Nadu, That Expression 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
legislature 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
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 Principles Also Can Be Safely Applied While Interpreting
Section 11(1)(a).

30. Pain And Suffering Are Biological Traits. Pain, In Particular,
informs An Animal Which Specific Stimuli, It Needs To 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:
“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”.

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 Moods
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 Care 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.

31. Section 11(3) Carves Out Exceptions In Five Categories Of Cases
mentioned In Section 11(3)(a) To (e), Which Are As Follows:
“11(3) Nothing In This Section Shall Apply To-

(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 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

(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 Unnecessary Pain Or

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 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.
Entertainment, Exhibition Or Amusement Do Not Fall Under These Exempted
categories And Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right Under The Doctrine Of

32. 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 On
animals. Sections 3, 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 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. Section 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

33. 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 Large Abdomen And Thorax And The Entire Body Has A Resemblance To A
barrel Shape, Which 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 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
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.

34. 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 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

(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, Specify As An Animal
Which Shall Not Be Exhibited Or Trained As A Performing Animal.”

35. The Words ‘exhibit’ And ‘train’ Are Defined In Section 21 Of The PCA
Act, Which Is As Follows:
“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.”

36. Section 23 Of The PCA Act Deals With The Procedure For Registration.
Section 24 Of The PCA Act Deals With The Powers Of The 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 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 11.7.2011. We Find No Substance Or Logic In
that Submission. It May Be Noted That 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 Sections 3 And 11(1)
of The PCA Act.

37. We May, In This Respect, Refer To Section 11(1)(m) Which Reads As
“11. Treating Animals Cruelty.- (1) If Any Person-
Xxx Xxx Xxx
Xxx Xxx Xxx
M) Solely With A View To Providing Entertainment-

I) Confines Or Causes To Be Confined Any Animal
(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;

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,
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.

38. We May, In This Connection, Also Refer To The Performing 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 Fear And Distress, This Natural Instinct Is Being

39. 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 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, 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, 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.
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 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
(emphasis Supplied)

Further, It Was Also Stated In The Affidavit That:

“I Also Affirm On Behalf Of The Answering Respondent That 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, And Repugnant To The Provisions Of The Prevention Of Cruelty To
Animals Act.”

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 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.

40. Stand Of The Animal Welfare Division Of MoEF And 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 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 MoEF On Relevant Materials, While This Court Was Seized Of The
matter. AWBI’s Advice Under Sections 9(a) And (l) 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 Already Accepted And Acted Upon.

41. 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 51A(g) Of The Constitution Of India. MoEF, In
exercise Of Its Powers Conferred Under 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 Concerned, Is Not Recognising That Bullock-
cart 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 /Ox / 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 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.


42. 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 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 As The Vehicle Of
Lord 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
or The Bullock Cart Race, As Practised Now, Has Never Been The Tradition Or
culture Of Tamil Nadu.
43. PCA Act, A Welfare Legislation, In Our View, Over-shadows Or
overrides The So-called Tradition And Culture. Jallikattu And Bullock Cart
races, The Manner In Which They Are Conducted, Have No Support Of Tamil
tradition Or Culture. Assuming, It Has Been In Vogue For Quite Some Time,
in Our View, 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 The Animals Are Being Exploited By The Human Beings By
using Coercive Methods And Inflicting Unnecessary 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 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 Conscience As The Principles Of
justice And Public Utility. This Court, In N. Adithayan V. Thravancore
Dewaswom Board And Others (2002) 8 SCC 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 Accepted Or
Upheld By Courts In The Country.”

44. As Early As 1500-600 BC In Isha-Upanishads, It Is Professed As

“The Universe Along With Its Creatures Belongs To The Land. 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.”


45. In Our View, This Is The Culture And Tradition Of The Country,
particularly The States Of Tamil Nadu And Maharashtra.

46. 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 Intrinsic Value And Worth Of Animals. All The
same, The Act Has Taken Care Of The Religious Practices Of The Community,
while Killing An Animal Vide Section 28 Of The Act.



47. 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
that 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 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, Which Are As Under:

(a) The First Stage: Human Self-interest Reason For Environmental

- 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 To Agriculture (1875),
Convention Designed To Ensure The Protection Of Various Species Of
Wild Animals Which Are 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.

- 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

- 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.

- 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 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 Benefit Of Present And Future Generations
Through Careful Planning And Management”. Other Documents Expressed
This Shift In Terms Of Sustainability And Sustainable Development.

(c) The Third Stage: Nature’s Own Rights

- Recent Multinational Instruments Have Asserted The Intrinsic Value Of

- UNEP Biodiversity Convention (1992) “Conscious Of 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.”

48. 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.

49. 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 Including 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.

50. 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 Being Of The Animals. The Animal Welfare Act, 2010 (Norway)
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 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:

A) Xxx Xxx Xxx
B) Xxx Xxx Xxx
C) Xxx Xxx Xxx

(d) Are Not Trained For Or Used In Fights With Other Animals Or

51. 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.

52. Universal 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 In PCA Act And The Rules Framed
thereunder To A Great Extent.

53. 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 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 To Express Innate
behaviour And If It Is Not Suffering From Unpleasant States Such As Pain,
fear And Distress.


54. Chapter 7.1.2 Of The Guidelines Of OIE, Recognizes Five
internationally Recognized Freedoms For Animals, Such As:

i) Freedom From Hunger, Thirst And Malnutrition;

ii) Freedom From Fear And Distress;

iii) Freedom From Physical And Thermal Discomfort;

iv) Freedom From Pain, Injury And Disease; And

v) Freedom To Express Normal Patterns Of Behaviour.

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 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 III Of The Constitution Of India.

55. Animals Are World-wide Legally Recognised As ‘property’ That Can Be
possessed By Humans. On Deletion Of Article 19(1)(f) From The Indian
Constitution, Right To Property Is More 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.

56. 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 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.


57. 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 SCC 534, This Court Held That By
enacting Article 51A(g) And Giving It The Status Of A Fundamental Duty, One
of The Objects 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 With Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 22 Etc. Of PCA


58. Article 51A(h) Says That It Shall Be The Duty Of Every 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,
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 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


59. 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 (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”. Speciesism 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 Tend
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.

60. 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 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 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 Plants And Also Destruction Of Animals For Food
under Section 11(3) Of The PCA Act. Legislature Through Section 28 Also
saved The Manner Of 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 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.




61. We Have, However, Lot Of Avoidable Non-essential Human Activities
like Bullock-cart Race, Jallikattu Etc. Bulls, Thinking That They Have
only Instrumental Value Are Intentionally Used Though 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 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 In Translation” Say:

“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 Choice Between Intense Pain And Intense Fear,
They’d Probably Pick Fear.”


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..


62. 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 “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
or Existence Or Instrumental Value For Human-beings, But To Lead A Life
with 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 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 Purpose Of The Act, Hence The 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.

63. 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 Want
to Go To The Arena But, As Pain Is Being Inflicted In The Vadivasal Is So
much, 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 – 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.

64. 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 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.


65. 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
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 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 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 In The Case Of
Vijay Kumar Sharma V. State Of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 562.

66. Instances Are Many, Where The State Law May Be 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
State Law May Be Inoperative. Repugnancy Will Also Arise 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.

67. 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

68. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust V. Commissioner & Secretary To
Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State And
Another (2000) 5 SCC 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 After, Would Be Over-borne On The Ground Of

69. 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 Provisions So That They Cannot Stand Together Or Operate
in The Same Field. Both The Legislators Trace Their Legislative Power In
Entry 17 List III.
“Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals.”

70. 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 Statutory Provisions, Which Would Indicate That The Parliament
wanted A Comprehensive Act With The Object Of Promoting Message Of Animal
welfare And For Preventing Cruelty To The Animals. The Statement Of
Objects And Reasons Of The Act Reads As Follows:
“Statement Of Objects And Reasons

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. 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 Provision For Prevention
Of Cruelty To Animals Other Than Domestic And Captured
3) It Covers Only Certain Specified Types Of Cruelty To Animals;
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 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 Cognizable, 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 It Is
Necessary To Do So 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


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.
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 An Offence.

72. 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, 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 Cautions That
the Basic Natural Instinct Of The Animals Be Protected And Be Not

73. The TNRJ Act, 2009 Is An Anthropocentric Legislation Enacted Not For
the Welfare Of The Animals, Unlike PCA Act, 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 While
conducting The Event Of Jallikattu. Act Has No Preamble And The Statement
of Objects And Reasons Of The Act Reads As Follows:


“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 Tamils. The Said
Tradition Is In Vogue For More Than 400 Years. At Present, There Is
No Legislation To Regulate The Conduct Of Jallikattu, Manjuvirattu,
Oormadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu Vidum Vizha Or Any Such Activity Involving
The Taming Of Bulls. The Government Have, Therefore, Decided To Bring
Out A Legislation To Regulate The Conduct Of The Jallikattu In The
State Of Tamil Nadu By Prescribing Norms To Hold Such 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. Section 4(3)
provides For Double Barricade Area In Order To Avoid Injuries To The
spectators And By-standers, The 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. Section 4(vi) Empowers The Animal Husbandry Department 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 Collector 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 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.

74. Section 2(d) Of The PCA Act Speaks Of Domestic Animal And Taming The
animal For Use Of Men, Which Is Evidently 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’ And Section 28 Speaks Of Killing Of Animal In A Manner Required
by 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 Animal For Domestic Use And
taming Of Animal For Exhibition Or Entertainment 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 Tamers. Bull Tamers, Therefore, Tame The
bulls At The Arena, Thereby Causing Strain, Stress, Inflict Pain 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 And
suffering, That Is Exactly What The Central Act (PCA Act) Wants To Prevent
for The Well-being And Welfare Of Animals, Which Is Also Against The Basic
natural Instinct Of The Bulls.

75. 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 Animal 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.


76. 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 Animals And To Preserve The Natural Instinct
of The Animal. Over-powering 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 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 Jallikattu, Which Is Inconsistent And In Direct Collision With
Section 3, Section 11(1)(a), 11(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.

77. 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 Animals, Either For The Jallikattu Events Or Bullock-
cart Races In The State Of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra Or Elsewhere In The
country. We, Therefore, Make The Following Declarations And Directions:
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.

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
“Governments”), MoEF And AWBI.
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 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.
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 Or Care Of The Animal Shall Not Incite Any Animal
To Fight Against A Human Being Or Another Animal.
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.
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
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.
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.
10) The Governments Would See That If The Provisions Of The PCA Act And
The Declarations 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.
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 India.
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 Remedy The Same,
Including Appropriate Follow-up Action.


78. Appeals, Transferred Cases And The Writ Petition Are Disposed Of As
above, Setting Aside The Judgment Of The Madras 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.



(K.S. Radhakrishnan)


(Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
New Delhi,
May 07, 2014.

Go to Navigation