Animals Have No Rights Under Constitution; Jallikattu Not A Mere Sport, Has A Societal Purpose : TN Govt Tells Supreme Court

A 5 judge Constitutional bench headed by Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravi Kumar, is hearing a batch of petitions challenging constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal representing the State of Tamil Nadu started his submissions today. Before laying down the premise of his argument, Mr. Sibal said, "No gain saying that we live in an interdependent world. While we are dependent on animals, their preservation is also important for our own livelihood. There is a food chain that is necessary for survival of both animals and man. There are animals of two kinds wild and domesticated. In the present petition we are dealing with domesticated animals. The Act deals with both kinds of animals." He further said, "To domesticate an animal is not an easy task. It causes a lot of pain and suffering. But you still domesticate. Any act of domesticating an animal involves pain and suffering. Is it necessary, unnecessary? I don't know? There are animals who don't see the light of the day. They are only on our tables. Is it necessary, unnecessary? I don't know?" Mr. Sibal then pointed out to the bench three key elements that are going to be the basis of his submissions. He said, "First, is it necessary pain or unnecessary in the present context. Second element, we are dealing with the rights of private individuals who own these animals. Third, when you have legislation called "prevention of cruelty" there is a legislative presumption. It is to prevent cruelty that the law has been enacted." Mr. Sibal conceded right at the start of his submissions that it is natural for animals do suffer pain in the process of being domesticated or otherwise. However, he said that the real test for the court to see was whether such pain or suffering was "unnecessary". He also said, "I agree that animals are sentient beings. They suffer pain. No doubt about it. All animals suffer pain. In the olden days, I remember, tongas would be used. Horses would be in pain trying to pull humans. Was it necessary or unnecessary? I don't know." On the argument of the petitioners that animals have rights, Mr. Sibal argued that just because compassion for living creatures is specified as a fundamental duty under Article 51A, it cannot be argued that animals have rights under the Constitution."Not every duty results in a concomitant right or a corresponding right as a matter of law. My duty is to respect the national flag. There is no right involved. Several of those duties in 51A. No right involved. Judgment in Nagaraj presumes that because there is a duty to preserve the well being of the animal, the animal has a right to demand it. There is no right involved. It is just that we don't cause a moral wrong in our dealing with animals. To not cause unnecessary pain." Responding further on the Nagaraj judgment and its findings, that were heavily relied upon by the petitioners, Mr. Sibal argued, "The Nagaraj judgment proceeded on a regime that was prevalent at that time. In Nagaraj, the Animal Welfare Board presented three reports of 2013 pursuant to directions by this court to go and investigate as to what's happening on the ground. The court took them as the factual basis of what was happening on the ground. But now the nature of the regime has changed…The regime of 2013 based on which reports were made and presented in Nagaraj, that entire regime is gone by a new regime that has been brought in via new rules, etc." On the issue of legislative competence Mr Sibal's reply was, "Can parliament or legislature change the regime - the answer is Yes. Section 3 has been amended. Can the legislature do that - the answer is, Yes. Section 11, 22, 27 all have been amended. Can the legislature do that - the answer is Yes." He said that the act cannot be a colourable legislation because there was a legislative presumption. He said, "They are saying it is a colourable legislation because it perpetuates cruelty. But there is a presumption. The new regime seeks to prevent it. If it seeks to prevent it, it cannot be a colourable exercise of power." Justice Bose then inquired, "So the execution is the problem. So if a law contains preventive measures, and in real life if it is found that the law is not implemented in toto, then the law can be struck down because it is not practical." At this point, taking note of the latest reports showing cruelty in Jallikattu that was relied upon and cited by the Petitioners, Mr. Sibal argued, "I would submit that your lords do that in another case and not in this. This is because the new report relied on by my learned friend was filed a day before this hearing took place." Justice Bose inquired, "So this report has no probity?" Mr. Sibal replied None at all. During the...

Animals Have No Rights Under Constitution; Jallikattu Not A Mere Sport, Has A Societal Purpose : TN Govt Tells Supreme Court

Anurag Tiwary

Tags