Jallikattu | 'Nagaraja Judgment Is On A Wrong Premise That Animals Have Rights' : TN Govt Argues Before Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing on the challenge to the constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.The 5-judge bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C. T. Ravi Kumar are 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 Wednesday is as follows-Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the state of Tamil Nadu, had argued on Tuesday, "With regard to Nagaraja, it is my submission that Nagaraja does not lay down correct law. Nagaraja has three pillars- repugnancy; three reports of the board showing the prevailing position then; and thirdly, that animals have statutory rights which have been raised virtually through constitutional rights. With regard to repugnancy and the scenario, repugnancy is met by virtue of assent, and the scenario then prevailing is taken over by the scenario now prevailing which is based on the rules that your lordships saw and the stand of the board that for the years 2018, 19, 20, 21, 22, there is a change in the scenario and by virtue of the rules which have been strictly implemented by the state of Tamil Nadu, the position then obtaining does not obtain today. We are left with the issue of rights of animals. And I submit that the judgment proceeds on the premise that they have rights, animals have rights, because humans have duties. If humans have duties, animals have rights and those rights are under 3 and 11 (of the 1960 Act) and those rights have to be protected. This is the basis of that judgment. I submit that there is no warrant, either in our Constitution or in this Act, to say that the duties on humans lead to corresponding rights of animals. And those rights, the rights under this Act have been intermingled by the judgment as flowing from Article 51A and the 'Five Freedoms' (of animal welfare), and 3 and 11 have been mixed up to say that this is the compendium of rights in the judgment. I submit there is no warrant in our Constitution. These are legal duties on the pain of sanction, that if you don't do this, you will be disorderly"Mr. Rohatgi continued his submissions on Wednesday.Justice Aniruddha Bose: "When the humans have a duty to do or not to do something, as far as the litigation, the judgment is concerned, it will have the same effect, whether you hold that the animal has rights or that the humans have obligations"Mr. Rohatgi: "The entire judgment, from the beginning, proceeds on this premise that in this case, the Supreme Court says that we are concerned only with the right granted to animals and nothing to do with humans. How can you have an approach only of animals and not humans?...No dictionary has the meaning of 'humanism', as used in Article 51A, as given by the judges in the Nagaraja judgment. Your Lordships were thinking of 'humane'. 'Humane' and 'humanism' are completely different. Former is having a human, merciful, compassionate approach. Humanism has nothing to do with it, humanism means a rationalist who doesn't believe either religion or some supernatural power...How does the court decide that Jallikattu or bullock cart races are essential or not essential, that it is avoidable and still causing pain? It is a part of culture, amusement or religion, whatever it is. The court is not the arbiter of deciding whether it is non-essential or not. Can you say that walking in the park for a human being is not essential? He need not walk, he need not run, he need not do this, he need not do that? I told your lordships 11(1)(m) (of the 1960 Act) permits an activity which can be totally for amusement. After domesticating a horse, if you ride a horse, it is only for amusement"Justice K. M. Joseph: "Suppose the officers of a local body are ill-treating some animals, say dogs. They are treating them in a very cruel manner. Can a writ be filed by somebody saying that don't do it...

Jallikattu | 'Nagaraja Judgment Is On A Wrong Premise That Animals Have Rights' : TN Govt Argues Before Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags