Jallikattu Case| Legislature Entitled To Exempt Incidental Pain From Animal Cruelty : TN Govt Argues Before Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday resumed hearing on the challenge to the constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and MaharashtraThe 5-judge bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C. T. Ravi Kumar is hearing the matter. The present batch of petitions were initially filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on 07.01.2016 and to direct the concerned States to comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547. While the matter was pending, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 was passed. Thereafter, the writ petitions were modified to seek quashing of the said Amendment Act. The Supreme Court had then referred the matter to a constitution bench on whether Tamil Nadu can conserve Jallikattu as its cultural right under Article 29(1) of the Constitution which guarantees protection to cultural rights of citizens. A Division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Nariman had felt the writ petition revolving around Jallikattu involved substantial questions relating to interpretation of the Constitution and referred the matter to the constitution bench with five questions to decide on besides those raised in the writ petitionsThe court-room exchange as it transpired on Tuesday is as follows-'Once legislature exempts an activity as valid, then the fear or pain or suffering which is inevitable, incidental is taken care of by the exemption'- Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the state of Tamil NaduMr. Dwivedi: "How do we construe the expression 'unnecessary pain or suffering' which runs through various provisions of the Act like section 3, section 7 and even the preamble? The term 'unnecessary' will qualify both 'pain' and 'suffering'. 'Unnecessary pain' or 'unnecessary suffering'- it should be looked at like this. When it says that infliction of unnecessary pain or unnecessary suffering is to be prevented, it contemplates that some necessary pain or necessary suffering is going to result on account of the activities which are permitted by the Act. For example, 11(1) says overloading should not be there, but that does not mean that when you load, there is no pain or suffering. The activity of loading for transport is permitted. The rules specify how much can be carried, how many people can be carried, so if you are compliant with the rules which are regulatory rules and delimiting yourself to that, the pain is there, the suffering is there, but that is necessary because that activity was permissible. Likewise, overdriving or overriding. Driving or riding is permitted"Bench: "How does the Act proceed? Animal is taken as an independent entity or some human has ownership of the animals and his activities in relation to the animal are regulated? Section 11 (on what amounts to treating animals cruelly) begins with 'if any person', so it can only be by a human being. There has to be some mens rea also since it is a criminal activity- so you are so lacking in compassion that you do this..."Mr. Dwivedi: "Entry 17 of the concurrent list indicates that it is in relation to human beings because somebody is being prevented from doing cruelty. These are ethics of compassion which human beings have realised in context of environment, in context of other living beings..."Bench: "11(1)(c) also. It says 'wilfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance to any animal'. There is no question of an animal administering it to another animal. It is in connection to human beings only"Mr. Dwivedi: "It is not that if a farmer, while driving his bullock cart to his farm for tilling, gives a kick to the bullock, that will amount to cruelty. There has to be unnecessary pain or suffering. This is a very significant aspect of this Act because there are permitted acts which cause some pain or suffering per se"Bench: "If you look at the perspective of essential human activities and non-essential human activities- if you domesticate the animal for some purpose, it is different, but when you come to sporting events or entertainment...?"Mr. Dwivedi: "The legislature is entitled to exempt activities on some justifiable reasoning. That justifiable reason could be based on religion, could be based on safety considerations, could be based on experimentation, for curing diseases etc, there are a variety of factors. For example, killing for food. There, the food culture comes in. One can't imagine- if we banned fish, then there goes the 'machhor jhol'. Every state in India has some culture. It is a multicultural country. Somewhere you need biryani. So when the clause says that you can kill any animal for food, that is culture-based. It is not an unavoidable thing, it is not something without which we cannot exist. Everybody can survive, after all the vegetarians and vegans are ...

Jallikattu Case| Legislature Entitled To Exempt Incidental Pain From Animal Cruelty : TN Govt Argues Before Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jallikattu Case| Legislature Entitled To Exempt Incidental Pain From Animal Cruelty : TN Govt Argues Before Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers