sign in sign up
<<
Home , Jallikattu, Tame Yourself

SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 3 | JAN | 2018 ISSN: 2456-9704 ______

BAN ON ; A Religious & Cultural Right i.e. ‘people RIVALRY WITH CULTURE have a right to preserve their culture’.

By Umang Gola BAN ON JALIKATTU From Delhi Metropolitan Education, The Supreme Court has announced that Noida affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Animals have a right to protect their life Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) and dignity from human interference. The Judgment banning the bull taming sport “Conservation of Culture should not in was pronounced on 7th day involve inflicting unnecessary pain or of May, 2014. In its judgment Supreme suffering to animals’ Court validated the Right of Animals and - Justice Misra Birds to live a life with dignity and honour. The Supreme Court made the INTRODUCTION Right to life of Animals and Birds an Jallikattu is a sport played in Tamil Nadu inherent and permanent right. mainly in Madhuraj, Tiruchipalli and Tanjore. It is a kind of ‘Bull fight’ in There are many laws in which were which the bull of Pulikulam and in violation with the sport Jallikattu. As Kangayam breeds is freed in to a large India is a developing country and crowd where the participants or the judiciary is playing a very active and person from the crowd try to catch the great role in its development. In the hump of the bull. This game was a part of judgment passed by Supreme Court, in th festival and was played on 4 day the case of Board of of Pongal celebration i.e. Mattu Pongal. India vs. A. Nagaraja & Ors.1, the court The bulls were a part of festivities in extended the meaning of Article 21 to Tamil Nadu, where torturing them Animals and Birds also. So, with regard physically and mentally was a part of to this particular case of bull taming human pleasure and enjoyment. sport, it means that Bulls also have a right to live with dignity and in a healthy & But in recent years, this game is banned clean environment. By banning the bull by a verdict passed by the Supreme taming sport Jallikattu, the Supreme Court. Reason being animals also have Court has stopped the practices of Right to life under Article 21 of the kicking, beating or torturing of animals Constitution of India and this game of which is against their Fundamental releasing bull where people try to grab Rights and other laws in India which their hump and try to climb them, affects protects from cruelty against animals and the bulls physically and mentally. Many strives to give them a life free from people were against it and protested as the human inference and excesses. ban on the Jallikattu game infringes their fundamental Right to follow their

1 (2014) 7 SCC 547. SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 3 | JAN | 2018 ISSN: 2456-9704 ______

Inspite of banning of the bull taming sport no protests have been seen against the ban in Tamil Nadu, the event was held in on Jallikattu. various places in Tamil Nadu. 2 spectators and 80 people were injured in CASE: Animal Welfare Board of India the event of Jallikattu, one died because vs. A. Nagaraja & Ors. of bull attack and another died by cardiac (2014) 7 SCC 547 shock when the bull ran towards him at M The Supreme Court pronounced its Pudar area of Tamil Nadu in April, 20172 judgment on 7th May, 2014, banning the and another incident happened at Jalikattu sport and game practiced in Avanipuran, Tamil Nadu in which 36 Tamil Nadu as a part of their festival people injured and one of them was ‘Pongal’. The Supreme Court historically seriously injured in the Jalikattu event extended the fundamental right to life to held during February, 2017.3 So, it is animals. It held that bulls have the evident from these incidents that this fundamental right under Article 21 of the particular game does not only infringe the Indian constitution to live in a healthy and Right to life of the Animals but the Right clean atmosphere, not to be beaten, to life of the humans also. So there was a kicked, bitten, tortured, plied with very urgent need to stop these practices in alcohol by humans or made to stand in the name of sport or game. This point has narrow enclosures amidst bellows and been opposed by saying that the people jeers from crowds. In short, the Supreme did it by Volenti non fit injuria (a doctrine Court declared that animals have a right of common law) i.e. willingly putting to protect their life and dignity from yourself in the position which can cause human excesses.5 harm. But this also has been a recognized principle of the law and well settled by The studies of bull’s behavior have the judiciary that ‘No one can take his proved that they adopt fight reaction own life to an end, even if he wants it on when they are frightened and threatened. his own free will’4. It held that bulls cannot be used either in Jallikattu or Bullock-cart races, in Tamil This festival is generally held in the Nadu, Maharashtra or any other place in month of January and February. Several the country.6 people started protesting in the beginning of 2017 as the festival of Pongal was The court pronounced its judgments ahead. In 2018 the festival is going to be relying upon Section 3, 11 (1) (a) & (m), held from 13th January to 16th January. 21 and 22 of PCA Act, Article 51(A) (g) For the upcoming years pongal, till now, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

2 Article in Hindustan Times, validated by the judiciary in the case of Smt. Gian (www.hindustantimes.com). Kaur vs. The State of Punjab; 1996 SCC (2) 648. 3 Article in Hindustan Times, 5 Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja (www.hindustantimes.com). & Ors.; (2014) 7 SCC 547. 4 This is the reason why attempt to suicide is 6 Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja punishable under section 309 of IPC, and later on & Ors.; (2014) 7 SCC 547. SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 3 | JAN | 2018 ISSN: 2456-9704 ______

While dealing with the issue of the and describes about the prejudicial Validity of Jallikattu, the Supreme Court behavior of the humans towards other also said something regarding these species. The term ‘’ has been things also in its judgment – defined as ‘the assumption of human superiority over the other creatures, Compassion, it is also fundamental duty leading to the exploitation of animals’8. of every citizen to have a sense of compassion towards other living beings under Article 51A(g). By enacting this EXTENSION OF ARTICLE 21 TO Article the Parliament has made it a duty ANIMALS and responsibility to every citizen that Now, the Right to Life under Article 21 is they have to be kind towards the other extended to Animals and birds also. That creatures and environment. Though under means animals also have a Right to live Article 48A it is also a state’s policy to with dignity and in a clean and healthy Endeavour to protect and improve the environment. Every species is blessed environment and to safeguard the forests with right to life and security and this and of the country. And similar have been indirectly covered under duty has also been imposed upon every Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. citizen in the form of Article 51A(g). Article 21 protects life, and the word Humanism, it is specified under Article “life” has been expanded by the highest 51A(h) which reads as under, ‘it is the constitutional Court, so as to include all duty of every citizen to develop the forms of life in the environment, which scientific temper, humanism and spirit of contains animal life also, which are enquiry and reform’. The focus has been necessary for human life. Hon’ble court made to the term Humanism in the held that “life” in context of animals does Supreme Court. The people must try to not mean, mere survival or existence or prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain instrumental value for human beings, but and harm to the animals and develop a also life with some intrinsic worth, sense of humanism and concern towards honour and dignity. It in addition enlisted them and the same is also mentioned in these five internationally recognized the preamble of Prevention of Cruelty to freedoms for animals, such as: Animals Act, 1960. i. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; Speciesism, the term was first coined by ii. Freedom from fear and distress; the Richard Dudley Ryder7, the concept iii. Freedom from physical and of speciesism is about the dominating thermal discomfort; behavior of human over the other species

7 Richard D. Ryder is a British writer, 8 Oxford English Dictionary. psychologist, and advocate has done many works on the attitude of animals. SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 3 | JAN | 2018 ISSN: 2456-9704 ______iv. Freedom from pain, injury and relief; OTHER LAWS v. Freedom to express normal The judgment banning the sport Jallikattu patterns of behavior.9 has been relied upon many laws. Article 21 is the milestone among them. But the scope of application of the Anything coming in the way of Article 21 judgment is limited, when such animal’s would be straight away abolished. life is necessary to be taken for the Because Article 21 i.e. Right to life is an survival of human life. absolute right and it cannot be abrogated at any cost. Reliance has also been made By this judgment we can say that our to the Article 51A(g) of the constitution society is shifting from anthropocentric of India, Section 3, 11(1) (a) & (m) and approach to eco-centric Approach. 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Anthropocentric approach is concerned Animals Act, 1960. with the human interests only and giving them preference whereas the eco-centric Article 51A (g) was introduced by 42nd approach focus on the needs of nature. amendment act, 1976 to the Constitution The Supreme Court following the eco- of India in which duty was imposed to centric approach has extended the Article every citizen in the form of Fundamental 21 of the Indian Constitution to the Duties. It reads as under, ‘to protect & animals also. Now, treating animals improve the natural environment cruelly is against the public morale and including forest, lakes, rivers & wildlife public order.10 and to have compassion for living creatures.’ Court has spent its many time So, the Right to life of the animals has on thinking ‘how to induce people to have been confirmed but subject to the human compassion towards animals?’ and the necessity. Therefore the animals have a answer was found in the Article 51A (g) right against inflicting unnecessary pain of the Indian constitution. The word and suffering. But this game called ‘wildlife’ in the Article is related to every Jallikattu cannot be exercised without animal and this Article puts a duty on inflicting pain, and every person to have and generate a sense unnecessary to the bulls that of compassion to animals. This Article is does not do anything important but only basically for the protection of the natural adds to the human enjoyment, hence, the environment which includes forests, Supreme Court took the decision in lakes, rivers, wildlife etc. favour of the animals and banned the game or sport.

9 Thelawblog.in; right-to-life-for-animals- 6378, 6148, 6032, 2029, 5616, 486, 2636, 6229, changing-from-anthropocentric-to-eco-centric- 8173, 9483, 3845, 430, 6352, 2460 & 11729 of jurisprudence. 1999. 10 Jumbo v. Union of India, June 6, 2000,O.P Nos. 155, 1066, 2187, 1141, 5086, SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 3 | JAN | 2018 ISSN: 2456-9704 ______

The Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Prevention of Act, Nagaraja & Ors.11 initially was the case 1960. of infringement of Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 mainly of the Section 22 of the Prevention of cruelty Section 3, 11(1) (a) & (m) and 22. to Animals Act,1960 places restriction on exhibition and training of performing Section 3 of Prevention of cruelty to animals, which reads as under, Animals Act, 1960 reads as under, ‘Restriction on exhibition and training of ‘Duties of persons having charge of performing animals: No person shall animals: It shall be the duty of every exhibit or train (i) any performing animal person having the care or charge of any unless he is registered in accordance with animal to take all reasonable measures to the provisions of this Chapter; (ii) as a ensure the well-being of such animal and performing animal, any animal which the to prevent the infliction upon such animal Central Government may, by notification of unnecessary pain or suffering.’ The in the official gazette, specify as an Organisers of these sports like Bullock- animal which shall not be exhibited or cart race and Jallikattu have the charge of trained as a performing animal.’ such animal. They take an active role in Performing Animals Rules, 1973 define organization of these sports which causes ‘performing animal’ to mean any animal pain, fear and suffering to the bulls and which is used at or for the purpose of any which is clearly against the Section 3 of entertainment to which public are the Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, admitted through sale of tickets. 1960. Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races, it was contended by the state, are conducted Section 11 (1) (a) & (m) of Prevention without sale of tickets and hence Section of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 reads as 22 of the PCA Act would not apply. It under, ‘If any person, beats, kicks, over- may be noted that when Bull is rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or specifically prohibited to be exhibited or otherwise treats any animal so as to trained for performance, the question subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering whether such performance, exhibition or or causes, or being the owner permits, any entertainment is conducted with sale of animal to be so treated, solely with a view tickets or not, is irrelevant from the point to provide entertainment; shall be of application of Sections 3 and 11(1) of punishable, under this Act.’ Therefore, the PCA Act.12 any act which comes under this Section is prohibited unless specifically permitted Therefore, it not only violate Section 3, under this Act. Jallikattu is a game where 11 (1) (a) & (m) and 22 of the Act but also bulls are being climbed up, kicked, the notification issued by the Central grabbed etc. and these activities are government in the official gazette dated evidently in contradiction with the 11.07.2011 in which bulls were involved

11 (2014) 7 SCC 547. 12 (2014) 7 SCC 547. SUPREMO AMICUS

VOLUME 3 | JAN | 2018 ISSN: 2456-9704 ______in the list of animals which are banned to question. There was a rivalry between act as a performing animal from training Right to life under Article 21 and Cultural and exhibition. Rights under Article 29(1) of the Indian Constitution. But because the Right to life RIGHT TO LIFE VERSUS is an absolute right and it cannot be taken CULTURAL RIGHTS away or abrogated at any cost and in any Firstly, it has to be decided that ‘whether circumstances, therefore, following this Jallikattu comes within the ambit of approach the Supreme Court banned and culture’. Under Article 29(1) of the prohibited the exercise of Jallikattu. Constitution of India, people have a right to preserve their culture. Through this Right to religion, though a Fundamental right, people can take any measures to right but still it is not an absolute right. protect their culture. The question is The Supreme Court has observed in the ‘Whether the sport Jallikattu is a part of case of Acharya Maharajshri Narendra the culture of the Tamil Nadu or not?’ As Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj vs. said in the judgment of the Supreme State of Gujarat13, ‘Enjoyment of one’s Court itself, Jallikattu culture sport has an rights must be consistent with the historical and religious importance in the enjoyment of right also by others. One celebration of the festival Pongal in Fundamental Right of a person may have Tamil Nadu and hence it is part of the to co-exist in the harmony with the culture of people of Tamil Nadu. exercise of another Fundamental Right by others’. The judiciary is well versed with It is a well settled principle of law that the importance of Right to life which was whenever there is a conflict between right extended to animals also in this caseand to life and cultural rights, the cultural also with the importance of Culture in the rights must yield. The judiciary has also life of the people. But there is an validated this principle several times. The approach which says that the Cultural Supreme Court again relied on this Rights also important and their own principle in the present case, i.e. Animal sense. The court considered the approach Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagraja & from both ends and after applying its Ors., and banned the Jallikattu event judicial mind, the Supreme Court righty which was a part of the culture of the came to the conclusion of banning the people in the celebration of the Pongal Jallikattu. festival, because it is evidently against the Right to life of the Animals. The sustainment of the Jallikattu ***** infringes Right to life of Animals whereas the banning of it infringes the Cultural Rights of the people; therefore, two Fundamental Rights were in

13 AIR 1974 SC 2098; (1975) 1 SCC 11.