Bulls Not Structured To Fight, Converting Them Into Fighting Animals Is Cruelty : Petitioners Argue In Supreme Court Against Jallikattu

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. The hearing which took place on Wednesday (November 30) started with Justice Rastogi posing a question to Senior Advocate Mr. Shyam Divan who was about to continue his submissions. he asked, "This court has observed that Jallikattu is brutal. So, the form in which the practice exists is cruel, not the practice itself. The reason why I ask this question is because in 2014 when Nagaraj came, the form was different. Now there is an amendment and rules have been brought in and things have changed. Now, once the mechanism is put in place, anyone who is not following the rules is violating it. Penal action is embedded in the statute. Now you've presented reports. Even if those reports are taken at face value it's the execution that's the problem. So, is the rule bad or the manner in which it is being followed is bad? We have to test the scheme and not the ground reality. Mr. Divan replied and said, "Firstly, There is an expression called behavioural ethology - science of animal behaviour and, Secondly, There is biological integrity of the animal which comprises two elements - mental as well as physical." He further argued, "Science tells us that a manner in which a bull is structured as an animal is that if you are going to engage them in a highly stressful situation, they will seek to flee. Now, when you keep them in an enclosure, it amounts to cruelty. Converting a bull into a fighting animal, making it fight in whatever manner, by compelling it through all sorts of obnoxious means, amounts to cruel treatment. Having regards to the behaviour of the bull; the anatomy of the bull; with all the safeguards, it will still amount to cruel treatment. Bulls are not structured to fight." On the question of whether the practice could be protected under cultural and traditional rights of the people of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Divan argued,"Now there could be a tradition, a culture, but with all the protected measures, it would still amount to cruelty. These are not performing animals. It is one thing if the legislature felt that we have come to the conclusion that the scientific material relied on by the court in Nagaraj was wrong and so here is the material that is now the basis for us to change it or overturn it. But there is no such evidence on record placed by the legislature." Mr. Divan then inquired from the court if Nagaraj decision could be overturned despite it having survived the Review. He said, "As far as final determination by this court is concerned, they ought not to be overturned. Except for a few narrow situations." On the question of Article 21, Mr. Divan restricted his submissions to the apect of dignity and said that there is a whole new set of study pointing to the science of sentient creatures. On the aspect of Article 14, 19 and 21 rights arising qua the petitioners, Justice Joseph asked Mr. Divan, "See how the law has developed as far as 14 is concerned. Milestone is Maneka Gandhi decision. All of this is founded on a triangular approach - 14, 19 & 21. They are interconnected. For that you will need to have a premise on Article 19 as well." Mr. Divan replied and said, "Article 19 ofcourse will not be available to an animal because it is not a person in that sense." Justice Joseph immediately asked, "So how do you bring in the theory of arbitrariness there in that context?" Mr. Divan further fleshed out his argument and said, "Court has evolved the law by including aspects into it that were not there in the Constitution directly and explicitly. Such rights have been derived from the 1980s. Because the intrinsic value has always been there. For example, the right to a wholesome and clean environment." On the question of Article 14 and reasonable classification, Mr. Divan argued, "Bulls form a homogenous class. You cannot create a sub-group or a subclass within that and treat them separately. The legislature ought to be alive to the distinction. This is an impermissible classification. In the context of classification under Article 14 - the object itself should be lawful. The object cannot be discriminatory. Here object is bad because you cannot subject certain animals to cruelty. Object is bad also because it is bad in separation of powers. Dimensions of 14 kick in here too. Because your statements and objects mention the SC judgment. How can you overrule? How is that permissible I ask myself. The legislature may have a deeming fiction in its plenary powers. But with the progression, we have situations where the court decides. This is the most crucial factor, and it decides on facts, it decides an...

Bulls Not Structured To Fight, Converting Them Into Fighting Animals Is Cruelty : Petitioners Argue In Supreme Court Against Jallikattu

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anurag Tiwary

Bulls Not Structured To Fight, Converting Them Into Fighting Animals Is Cruelty : Petitioners Argue In Supreme Court Against Jallikattu

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers