(The authors of this opinion piece for The Quint, argue that not only does Jallikattu unleash cruelty over bulls but also goes against constitutional morality. However, here are some of the arguments that lawyers representing Tamil Nadu have made in favour of Jallikattu.)
The Supreme Court on 8 December 2022 reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu.
The apex court had in an earlier judgment (Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors 2014) banned the bull-taming sport.
Meanwhile, protests against the ban broke out across Tamil Nadu and the state government, in response, passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017.
The purpose of the 2017 amendment act was to continue with Jalikattu while ensuring “the survival and wellbeing of the native breeds of bulls.”
However, soon after, petitions challenging the 2017 amendment to the 1960 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) were filed in the top court, which referred the case to the current constitution bench.
What Rights Do Animals Have?
While petitioners in the case have argued that the sport is cruel towards bulls and goes against their fundamental rights, Tamil Nadu has contested it.
"That's been the law in Nagaraj. It has recognised Personhood in animals," Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the petitioners (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) said.
"When the Constitution itself recognises that cruelty to animals cannot be perpetrated, then that means the Constitution recognises the rights of animals. They have to be read with Part III. They cannot be read by de hors Part III," Luthra added.
However, over the course of the hearings Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state of Tamil Nadu said that the Nagaraj (2014) judgment “presumes that because there is a duty to preserve the well being of the animal, the animal has a right to demand it.”
But not every duty results in a corresponding right as a matter of law, according to Sibal.
“My duty is to respect the national flag. There is no right involved. Several of those duties in 51A. No right involved. It is just that we don't cause a moral wrong in our dealing with animals. To not cause unnecessary pain,” he said.
Further, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi pointed out that 'humane' and 'humanism' are entirely different things and the latter's mention in Section 51A has nothing to do with compassion.
"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," he said.
‘Unnecessary Pain and Suffering': The Point of Contention
The petitioners' lawyers, have argued that Jallikattu caused unnecessarry pain and suffering to bulls and thus demanded that the Tamil Nadu Act be struck down.
Pointing towards Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act (1960), they have argued that it places a duty on persons responsible for animals in their care to prevent the infliction of ‘unnecessary pain and suffering.’
Stating that the process of domesticating any animal inevitably implies a certain amount of pain and suffering, Sibal has countered the petitioners' arguments on the grounds that it was necessary to focus on the ‘unnecessary bit.’
He, thus, pointed to the 2017 amendment by the Tamil Nadu government and how it ensures that no unnecessary pain is caused – This includes receiving prior permission from the district collector or the magistrate to organise an event, regular monitoring by the AWBI, and medical checks to ensure the bulls have not been drugged.
Is Jallikattu Purely for Entertainment?
The constitution bench, hearing the case, had questioned the state of Tamil Nadu, whether an animal can be used in a bull-taming sport like "Jallikattu" for the entertainment of human beings.
But, Sibal appearing for Tamil Nadu has said that the bull-taming sport has a “societal purpose” and that entertainment is only a by-product.
How though?
Tamil Nadu has argued that the bulls used in Jallikattu are a “domestic breed,” and if that goes away “international breeds might take over.”
Both the Union and the state government don’t want these breeds to go extinct, which, according to them is supported by the fact that between 2013-2017 when the Jallikattu ban was in place, the numbers drastically fell.
Further, In an affidavit the Tamil Nadu government told the top court that it conducted the sport in an organised manner and to ensure that no unnecessary pain or suffering is caused to the animals and no accidents take place during the event, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 had been enacted.
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)