DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

JALLIKATTU

SUBJECT

LEGAL LANGUAGE

NAME OF THE FACULTY

ASSOCIATE.PROF.DR.P. VARA LAKSHMI

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE: S.JAVVAD UR RAHAMAN

Roll No: 2017083

Semester - 2

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………...………….………..3
2) ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………...…………………..5
3) INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...6
4) What is the history of Jallikattu?......................................................................................7
5) Ban, protests and authorization………………………………………………………….9
6) Jalikattu as a trigger……………………………………………………………...14
7) Tamil Nadu’s untenable Act on Jallikattu………………………………………17
8) PCA ACT 1960…………………………………………………………………….20
9) Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….23
10) BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………….24

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected Legal

Language Associate. PROFESSOR DR.P.VARA LAKSHMI for giving me a Golden Opportunity

to take up the project regarding “JALLIKATTU”. I have tried my level best to collect

information about the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given

topic.

3|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project is purely Doctrinal and based on primary and secondary sources such as

websites, books, journals and internet sources. The referencing style followed in this project is

BLUE BOOK 19th Edition's format of citation. This Research process deals with collecting and

analyzing information to answer questions. The Research is purely descriptive in its boundaries

of the topic.

4|Page
 ABSTRACT
Subject: Legal Language and Writing.

Topic: A Critical Analysis on Judgements related to JalliKattu(Bull Taming Sport) and its
impact on Policy making

Introduction:

Jallikattu (or sallikkattu), also known as eru thazhuvuthal and manju virattu, is a traditional

spectacle in which a Bos indicus bull, such as the Pulikulam or Kangayam breeds, is released
into a crowd of people, and multiple human participants attempt to grab the large hump on the
bull's back with both arms and hang on to it while the bull attempts to escape. Participants hold
the hump for as long as possible, attempting to bring the bull to a stop. In some cases,
participants must ride long enough to remove flags on the bull's horns.

Government plays a very important role in social development of the nation through various
schemes and projects, most importantly by implementing constitutional provisions.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960 was amended in the year 1982. According to
the newly amended Indian animal welfare act, 2011 cruelty to animals is an offence and is
punishable with a fine which shall not be less than ten thousand Rupees, which may extend to
twenty five thousand Rupees or with imprisonment up to two years or both in the case of a first
offence. In the case of second or subsequent offence, with a fine which shall not be less than
fifty thousand Rupees, but may extend to one lakh Rupees and with imprisonment with a term
which shall not be less than one year but may extend to three years. This amendment is
currently awaiting ratification from the Government of India. The 1962 Act in the meanwhile is
the one that is practiced as of now. The maximum penalty under the 1962 Act is Rs. 50 (under
$1). Many organizations, including ones such as the local SPCA, PFA and Fosterdopt are
actively involved in assisting the general population in reporting cruelty cases to the police and
helping bring the perpetrator to justice. Due to this, much of change has been observed through
the subcontinent.

5|Page
As the current research topic is A Critical Analysis on Judgements related to Jallikattu and its
impact on policy making, researcher would like to discuss various dimensions of Right to
Privacy and cite various landmark judgements given by the Apex Court.

INTRODUCTION:

Jallikattu (or sallikkattu), also known as eru thazhuvuthal and manju virattu[2], is a traditional

spectacle in which a Bos indicus bull, such as the Pulikulam[3] or Kangayam breeds,[4] is
released into a crowd of people, and multiple human participants attempt to grab the large hump
on the bull's back with both arms and hang on to it while the bull attempts to escape.
Participants hold the hump for as long as possible, attempting to bring the bull to a stop. In
some cases, participants must ride long enough to remove flags on the bull's horns.[5][6]

Jallikattu is typically practised in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu as a part of Pongal celebrations
on Mattu Pongal day, which occurs annually in January.

As there were events of injury and death associated with the sport, both to the participants and
to the animals forced into it, animal rights organizations have called for a ban to the sport,
resulting in the court banning it several times over the past years. However, with protest from
the people against the ban, a new ordinance was made in 2017 to continue the sport.

What is Jallikattu?

 Jallikattu is a sport conducted as a part of Mattu Pongal (the 3 rd day of the four-day long
harvest, Pongal).
 Jallikattu is also known as eru thazhuvuthal or manju virattu.
 The Tamil word ‘Mattu’ means bull and the 3 rd day of Pongal is dedicated to cattle.
Bulls get precedence over cows because it helps in the ploughing of field, pulling their cart
of goods and mating with cows to produce more offspring and in turn more production of
milk.

 Bulls are brought to a common place where the ritual happens. The participants are
supposed to embrace the bull’s hump and try to tame it by bringing the bull to a stop.

6|Page
 Jallikattu is derived from the words ‘calli’ (coins) and ‘kattu’ (tie), which means a
bundle of coins is tied to the bull’s horns. In older times, the tamer sought to remove this
bundle from the animal’s head to win gold or silver. He would be called ‘brave’ and
‘valourous’ and would also sometimes be rewarded with a bride.

What is the history of Jallikattu?

  Jalikattu is believed to have been practiced since at least 2500 years.

 A seal from Indus Valley civilization depicting the practice is preserved in the National
Museum, New Delhi.

 A cave painting that depicts a man trying to tame a bull is estimated to be 2500 years
old by the Archaeologists.

 There are references to people enjoying witnessing and participating in Jalikattu in

Silappatikaram one of the 5 great epics of Tamil classical period and 2 other ancient
literary works like Kalithogai 

HISTORY

Jallikattu has been known to be practiced during the Tamil classical period (400-100 BC). It
was common among the ancient people Aayars who lived in the ‘Mullai’ geographical division
of the ancient Tamil country. Later, it became a platform for display of bravery and prize
money was introduced for participation encouragement. A seal from the Indus Valley
Civilization depicting the practice is preserved in the National Museum, New Delhi.A cave
painting in white kaolin discovered near Madurai depicting a lone man trying to control a bull is
estimated to be about 1,500 years old.

Variants and rules

Some variants include:

 Vadi manjuviraṭṭu: This is the most common category of Jallikattu. The bull is released
from a closed space (vadi vasal) and the contestants attempt to wrap their arms or hands

7|Page
 around the hump of the bull and hold on to it to win the award. Only one person is allowed
to attempt at a time. This variant is most common in the districts of Madurai,Theni,
Thanjavur, and Salem.
 Vēli viraṭṭu: In this variant the approach is slightly different as the bull is directly
released into open ground. The rules are the same as that of vadi majuviraṭṭu. This is a
popular variant in the districts of Sivagangai and Madurai.
 Vaṭam manjuviraṭṭu: In this variant, the bull is tied with a 15 m (49 ft) rope
(vatam means "circle" in Tamil). There are no other physical restrictions for the bull and
hence it can move freely anywhere. The maximum time period given is 30 minutes. A team
of seven to nine members can attempt to untie the gift token that is tied on the bull's horn.

Bulls enter the competition area through a gate called the vadi vasal. Typically, participants
must only hold onto the bull's hump, and in some variations they are disqualified if they hold
onto the bull's neck, horns or tail. There may be several goals to the game depending on region.
In some versions, contestants must either hold the bulls hump for 30 seconds or for 15 metres
(49 ft). If the contestant is thrown by the bull or falls, they lose. Some variations only allow for
one contestant. If two people grab the hump, then neither person wins.

TRAINING AND PREPARATION

With the introduction of the Jallikattu Regulation Act - 2009, by the Tamil Nadu legislative, the
following activities were done in preparation of the event:

1. A written permission is obtained from the respective collector, thirty days prior to
conduct of event along with notification of the event location.
2. The arena and the way through which the bulls pass through is double-barricaded, in
order to avoid injuries to the spectators and by-standers who may be permitted to
remain within the barricades.
3. The necessary gallery areas are built up along the double barricades.
4. The necessary permissions are obtained from the collector for the participants and the
bulls fifteen days prior.

8|Page
 5. Final preparation before the event include a complete testing by the authorities of the
Animal Husbandry Department, to ensure that performance enhancement drugs, liquor
or other irritants are not used on the bulls.

Ban, protests and authorization

Chennai: A year ago protests rocked Tamil Nadu over demands to lift the ban on the bull-
taming sport Jallikattu that is traditionally held during the harvest festival, Pongal.

On 16 January villagers of Alanganallur in Madurai, which is famous for the sport, sparked off
protests. Soon, crowds started gathering at Marina beach, Chennai and the movement spread
like wildfire with protests erupting across all districts.

In 2016, the Supreme Court had upheld its earlier order to ban the sport, citing violations of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act. After weeklong agitations, the Tamil Nadu
government passed a bill to amend the PCA Act.

However, it was just the beginning of many more protests that were to mark 2017— a year that
signposts one of the most volatile phases in Tamil Nadu, with political chaos and simmering
discontent taking centre stage.

The agitations over Jallikattu were a trigger for the pent up anger and frustration over many
other issues, according to observers. The year saw protests against: a hydrocarbon extraction
project; the Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd (ONGC) for alleged water contamination; the
National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET); and government inaction in tracing missing
fishermen after cyclone Ockhi, among other issues. The drought that frayed tempers in the
southern state hit the streets of New Delhi in the first half of 2017.

“The government by virtue of ambiguity on its own policies just aggravated the situation which
prolonged the various protests,” said P. Thirumavelan, editor and publisher of Tamil
magazine Junior Vikatan.

Interestingly, rather than organized political outfits, the protests were led by independent
groups, student organizations, and others, which indicate an increase in the level of
9|Page
politicization in the state largely influenced by social media, said Karthikeyan Damodaran, a
scholar in South Asian studies at the University of Edinburgh.

Damodaran added: “There is a vibrant tradition of anti-establishment protests largely pioneered

by the non-Brahmin movement in the early 20th century, by communist parties in the last 50
years and later by various identity-based subaltern groups.”

The National Crime Records Bureau data shows that since 2009 Tamil Nadu has seen more
agitations than any other state in the country.

The surge in dissent, said Damodaran, “does not necessarily bring in a major change in terms of
the political practices in state, nor does it indicate a deep democratization, as politics in Tamil
Nadu is still largely defined by hero-worship and sycophancy”.

Though Tamil Nadu has been eyeing political change in the past years it is difficult to break the
Dravidian duopoly of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (DMK), according to analysts.

“Exclusivities like Arvind Kejriwal, Hardik Patel or Jignesh Mevani that have worked out in
other parts of the country may not be possible here,” said Thirumavelan.

Along with the public dissent, 2017 also witnessed a revival of the debate on state autonomy. A
conference organized by the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) in September with the
participation of DMK, Congress and the Left parties pressed the need to strengthen federalism.

Damodaran said, “The idea of permanent minorities, regional autonomy, etc., will keep Tamil
Nadu politics a separate domain from the centre’s efforts to bring them together.”

The Animal Welfare Board of India filed a case in the Supreme Court of India for an

outright ban on Jallikattu because of the cruelty to animals and the threat to public safety
involved.

On 27 November 2010, the Supreme Court permitted the Government of Tamil Nadu to allow
Jallikattu for five months in a year and directed the District Collectors to make sure that the

10 | P a g e
animals that participate in Jallikattu are registered to the Animal Welfare Board and in return
the Board would send its representative to monitor the event. The Government of Tamil
Nadu ordered that ₹2 lakh (US$3,100) be deposited by the organizers in case of an accident or
injury during the event and enacted a rule to allow a team of veterinarians be present at the
venue for certifying the bulls for participation in the event and to provide treatment for bulls
that get injured.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a notification in 2011 that banned the use of
bulls as performing animals, thereby banning the event But the practice continued to be held
under Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act No 27 of 2009. On 7 May 2014, the Supreme
Court of India struck down the state law and banned Jallikattu altogether. The Supreme Court
noted that any flouting of the ban should result in penalties for cruelty to animals under The
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The court also asked the Government of India to
amend the law on preventing cruelty to animals to bring bulls within its ambit. The Supreme
Court also ruled that cruelty is inherent in these events, as bulls are not anatomically suited for
such activities and making them participate is subjecting them to unnecessary pain and
suffering, so such events were outlawed.

On 8 January 2016, the Ministry of Environment and Forests permitted the continuation of the

tradition under certain conditions, effectively ending the ban. However, on 14 January 2016, the
Supreme Court of India issued a stay on this order, upholding the ban, after a petition filed by
the Animal Welfare Board of India and PETA India, leading to protests all over Tamil Nadu.
The Supreme Court refused to review its decision on 26 July 2016.

On 16 January 2016, the World Youth Organization (WYO) protested at Chennai against the
stay on the order overturning ban on conducting Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu. The WYO also
demanded a ban on PETA in India.

On 8 January 2017, several hundreds of protesters conducted a rally

at Chennai Marina opposing the ban on Jallikattu. The participants walked from the lighthouse
to the labour statue bearing posters saying ‘save Jallikattu'. A few churches openly conducted
prayer mass and rally against the Supreme Court ruling. Following the protests at Chennai,
many students started rallies in various towns of Tamil Nadu.

11 | P a g e
After hearing the petitions which were led by the Animal Welfare Board of India challenging
central government's notification, the Supreme Court of India on 12 January ordered a stay,
issued notices to the central government and the government of Tamil Nadu and later refused to
lift the stay. Numerous Jallikattu events were held across Tamil Nadu in protest of the ban, and
hundreds of participants were detained by police in response. The Supreme Court has agreed to
delay its verdict on Jallikattu for a week following the Centre's request that doing so would
avoid unrest.

Due to these protests, on 21 January 2017, the Governor of Tamil Nadu issued a new ordinance
that authorized the continuation of jallikattu events. On 23 January 2017 the Tamil Nadu
legislature passed a bi-partisan bill, with the accession of the Prime Minister, exempting
jallikattu from the Prevention of Cruelity to Animals Act (1960). The first legal jallikattu under
this exemption is scheduled on 1 February in Alanganallur, Madurai district.

The legal situation surrounding jallikattu is as yet not clearly resolved. Some, such as
ex Ministry of External Affairs cabinet minister Salman Khurshid, have stated that the matter
will only be truly resolved if the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is amended as local
ordinances and state laws cannot trump Indian federal law. According to The Hindu, many
other Indian legal experts agreed with Khurshid's view, as federal laws such as the PCA are
always more powerful than state laws, and in that respect the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 is not much different from the state law overturned in
2009. For its part, PETA India has said that it will "study" the new ordinance, and has not ruled
out a challenge to the new law on the same grounds as it challenged the 2009 law. On Jan 25,
the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) started the legal process towards another ban by
formally challenging the new law before the Supreme Court, but they withdrew the petition on
Jan 26. According to the AWBI's acting chairperson, AWBI does not plan to re-file the petition,
but he claimed no knowledge of what other organizations, such as PETA, may do.

Jallikattu is a bull taming event practiced in Tamil Nadu as a part of Pongal celebrations.
Jallikattu is recently in news because of the Supreme Court rulings, Government interventions
and agitations from the public against the Jallikattu ban. In this post, let’s analyze, Jallikattu and
other important issues associated with it in detail.

12 | P a g e
While the Supreme Court will resume legal arguments over the fate of jallikattu on Monday, the
eruption of widespread popular protests across Tamil Nadu against the ban on the traditional
bull-taming sport continues to fascinate and intrigue  the media across India. The protesters –
students, professionals, women and children who thronged Marina
beach in Chennai, Tiruchirappalli, Madurai and Coimbatore drew the support of not only
local Tamils but also those living abroad. So what did these protests signify? And what does it
entail for Tamil Nadu politics?

The spontaneity of the protests attests to the stirred collective consciousness of the Tamil
community. Of course, the call to protest against the Supreme Court’s ban on jallikattu was
given in the name of protecting Tamil culture and identity. But the struggle to protect cultural
identity is a subtle manifestation of the larger socio-economic and political malaise afflicting
Tamil society today. It appears that the protests were an attempt to salvage the situation brought
on by the onslaught of foreign capital and rampant globalisation.

Culture isn’t an isolated, narrow entity confined to linguistic and artistic expressions. It is rather
a composite construct encompassing the material conditions that produce it. Any damage to that
ecosystem would affect material well-being, which in turn endangers identity, inherent values
and cultural heritage. In recent years, the increasing unemployment, falling agricultural yield
and continuing political stasis have presented a bleak picture to the Tamils about their future
prospects. Popular anger and frustration were simmering due to the lack of an appropriate
political alternative to address their grievances. It just needed an outlet. The masses found it in
the ban against jallikattu, not only to challenge the unresponsive political system but also to
vent their anger against an economic process that they believe is exploiting then and
jeopardising their culture and identity. Therefore, the struggle to protect Tamil culture and
identity is in fact a safety valve to preserve their own livelihoods.

A protest with a difference?

There was no visible vertical leadership that organised these protests. Exchange of views and
venues on social media among various stakeholders as equals created a horizontal structure for
the gatherings. The protestors occupied symbolic public spaces such as Marina beach
and Allanganallur Vadi Vasal (the Mecca of jallikattu). The notable disruptive element is that

13 | P a g e
most of the protesters were without any political affiliation with mainstream parties and
consistently voiced their lack of faith in parliamentary parties in resolving problems.

In addition to the usual forming of human chains, holding placards and shouting slogans, the
protests and sit-ins showed a great deal of novelty and defiance of authority.
Imaginative memes on social media extolling jallikattu and decrying the authorities were
aplenty. When state police officials switched off the street lights at Marina beach to disperse the
protesters, thousands of mobile torch lights were switched on to light up the night sky. Many
demonstrated their prowess in traditional Tamil martial arts like Silambam, performing in front
of the gatherings. In a number of places, protesters broke Coke and Pepsi bottles and carried
them on a pall singing an oppari (a mournful song sung at a funeral). Echoing this, a section of
traders’ associations in Tamil Nadu reportedly asked their members to stop selling
multinational fizzy drinks and mineral water from March 1, 2017. The protests snowballed with
film stars, traders, transporters and lawyers joining in to show their solidarity. These protests
demonstrate a rupture in Tamil politics, an increased political awareness and understanding of
the reasons for their plight among the masses and the courage to articulate their grievances
directly, instead of relying on their ineffective representatives. But how did this come about?

Jalikattu as a trigger

Tamil Nadu was one of the earliest states to privatise education and attract investments from

multinational corporations following liberalisation. The state managed sectoral growth in IT,
automobile, textiles and leather, and became the largest urbanised state with 48.5% of the
population living in urban localities. Tamil Nadu was paraded as a successful model for
globalisation. Nonetheless, misplaced priorities, ad hoc policies and ubiquitous corruption led
to the unequal distribution of wealth and income, although welfare sops were often highlighted
as a successful case of distributive justice. But the global recession has exposed the downside
of the growth-based model.

According to the Labour Bureau Report, 2013-14, the growth rate of industrial Gross State

Domestic Product (GSDP) swung between the highest of 28.66% in 2009-10 and negative
rate of 1.17% during 2012-13. Further, indiscriminate commercialisaton of education bereft of
any quality or adequate vocational training rendered a large number of graduates and

14 | P a g e
trainees unemployable, leaving the pie to the best and brightest. Interestingly, the
unemployment rate rose in proportion to educational levels at 13.5% for post-graduates.
Besides, about 44% of the workforce is employed as casual labour and 29% as self-
employed. The downward spiral of the economy hit them both hard.

On the other, during the 11th Five-Year Plan period of 2007-12, the annual average rate of
overall agricultural production in Tamil Nadu declined by 2.37%. Growing water scarcity,
increasing land degradation, declining farm size and rising costs of labour have not only made
farming unviable, but also a burden. The rural unemployment rate reached 9.4%.
Consequently, rural distress became more pronounced. In the past two months, 17 farmer
suicides were confirmed in the drought-hit areas. On January 10, 2017, just ahead of the
jallikattu protests, the chief minister, O. Panneerselvam, declared all districts of the state
drought-hit.

Although successive state governments attempted to mitigate the ill-effects of globalisation on

the marginalised, women and those at the economically lower rung of society with competitive
welfare policies, they could neither provide gainful employment to the urban populace nor
alleviate rural suffering. At the same time, the indifference of the mainstream parties to the
tribulationsofthemasseswhileengaginginunboundedfinancial aggrandisement through unlawful 
meanshasn’tgoneunnoticed. Finally, the demonetisation drive ripped apart small and micro
industries, returning a large number of migrant labourers to their rural homes, which
were already experiencing the pain. Public anger only needed a trigger to explode. That was
jallikattu.

The popular protests symbolise a new beginning in Tamil Nadu politics. Police

coercion did manage to break the rhythm and continuity of the protests. Yet, it was a clear
departure from past movements as this one emerged from below, rejecting conventional top-
down leadership. Although Tamil Nadu has a history of emancipatory politics, be it the
Dravidian movement in the 1930s and 1940s against Brahmin domination or the
agitation to challenge the hegemony of Hindi in the 1960s, the recent protests broke new
ground in terms of their spontaneity, articulation, organisation and participation. As

15 | P a g e
the aspirations of Tamils remain high, the protests against the banning of jallikattu show a new
direction and possibility in Tamil politics.1

What is the background to the court’s ban on Jallikattu?

Legal battles over Jallikattu have pit animal activists against bull owners since the early 1990s.
The case first reached the Supreme Court after animal rights organisations, Animal Welfare
Board of India (AWBI) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), decided to
challenge a 2007 division bench judgment of the Madras High Court in favour of Jallikattu. In
2011, the Ministry of Environment issued a notification, modifying its earlier 1991 notification,
which had banned the training and exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs, by
adding “bulls” to the list.

In May 2014, on a petition by PETA and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), the
Supreme Court upheld the 2011 notification and said, “Bulls cannot be allowed as performing
animals, either for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races in the state of Tamil Nadu,
Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country.”

In January 2016, ahead of Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, the Centre, seeking to overturn the
SC ban, modified its 2011 notification and issued a new one which said Jallikattu can be held in
2016. After AWBI and PETA challenged the Centre’s move in SC, the court gave an interim
stay, preventing Jallikattu. The sport’s supporters believe that had the Centre issued an
Ordinance instead of a notification in 2016, it would have survived in court.

What are the arguments against Jallikattu?

The two parties who have opposed Jallikattu in court, AWBI and PETA, had submitted various
reports, affidavits and photographs to prove “cruelty” involved in the event. The AWBI argued
that Jallikattu bulls are “physically and mentally tortured” for “human pleasure”. By no stretch
of imagination, AWBI said, can it be said that Jallikattu or bullock-cart races have any

1
https://thewire.in/culture/jalikattu-protests-tamil-nadu-politics

16 | P a g e
historical, cultural or religious significance, either in Tamil Nadu or in Maharashtra, and argued
that the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals Act should supersede any such practices.

What do supporters have to say?

Jallikattu organisers, and now the protesters, argue that the ‘sport’ is a way of life in these parts
and that it is a tradition that goes back over 2,000 years. They counter the cruelty argument by
saying that Jallikattu bulls are specifically identified, trained and nourished for these events and
that owners spend considerable amount money for their upkeep. More often than not, they say,
the bulls are part of the farmer’s family and they wouldn’t subject the animals to any cruelty.

Besides, they say, banning Jallikattu will destroy the native breed since the sport is probably the
only reason farmers keep these animals. For some years now, with modernisation and farm
mechanisation, the native breeds of Tamil Nadu such as Kangayam and Pulikulam have been
under threat. The ban on Jallikattu, say activists, will complete the rout.

Tamil Nadu’s untenable Act on Jallikattu

Tamil Nadu has returned to normalcy after a week of turmoil over Jallikattu, and it's now time
to analyse the events with an open mind. We need to understand the circumstances that led to
the ban on the sport, the reasons cited for the latest State amendment to the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, and the actions that may follow.

Many, including celebrities such as actor Kamal Haasan, have been heard arguing that loss of
human lives in Jallikattu could not become a reason for imposing a ban on the sport, especially
when hundreds die in road, rail and air accidents too.

However, little do the supporters of Jallikattu realise that neither Justice R. Banumathi (now a
Supreme Court judge), who banned the sport for the first time on March 29, 2006 during her
stint as a judge on the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, nor Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan
and Pinaki Chandra Ghose of the Supreme Court who banned it on May 7, 2014, had cited
harm to human lives as the prime reason for imposing the ban.

17 | P a g e
Justice Banumathi as well as the two- judge Bench of the Supreme Court had premised their
decision only on cruelty meted out to bulls during Jallikattu in its present form. The judges
consciously avoided an anthropocentric view and adopted eco-centric principles while dealing
with the Jallikattu case.

This takes us to the next contention: How fair is it to ban Jallikattu while permitting slaughter
of bulls for beef?

Mr. Haasan himself had backed this argument and was recently heard saying: “If Jallikattu is to
be banned then Biriyani should also be banned.” This argument might sound attractive at the
first blush, but the Supreme Court had a reasoning that counters this. It is a reasoning that draws
on human supremacy over all other species of the planet.

The Supreme Court found that there had been no major international agreement so far to ensure
the welfare and protection of animals, and said: "The international community should hang its
head in shame for not recognizing their (animals') rights all these ages."

The court also said: “United Nations, all these years, safeguarded only the rights of human
beings, not the rights of other species like animals ignoring the fact that many of them,
including bulls, are sacrificing their lives to alleviate human suffering, combat diseases and
serve as food for human consumption.”

Nevertheless, observing that the law on environment was still in its development stages, the
apex court pointed out that countries like Germany had now provided Constitutional safeguards
to animals while others had safeguarded their rights through statutes.

“When we look at the rights of animals from the national and international perspective, what
emerges is that every species has an inherent right to live and shall be protected by law, subject
to the exception provided out of necessity,” the judges added.

The objective of the PCA Act is also to prevent infliction of only 'unnecessary' pain or suffering
on animals and even Section 11(3)(e) of the PCA Act which permits killing of animals for food
comes with a rider that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering while
being killed.

18 | P a g e
On how to determine what is necessary and what is unnecessary pain, the Supreme Court said it
could be done by considering “whether the suffering could have reasonably been avoided or
reduced... or whether the conduct causing the suffering was for a legitimate purpose such as the
purpose for benefiting the animals.”

It went on to state: “By organising Jallikattu and bullock-cart race, the organisers are not
preventing the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering but they are inflicting pain and
suffering on the bulls which they are legally obliged to prevent.”

Further, observing that courts had a “a duty under the doctrine of parents patriae to take care of
the rights of animals since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings,”
the apex court said: "Sadism and perversity is writ large in the actions of the organizers of
Jallikattu and the event is meant not for the well-being of the animal but for the pleasure and
enjoyment of human beings particularly the organizers and spectators.

“Organizers of Jallikattu feel that their bulls have only instrumental value to them forgetting
their intrinsic worth.”

This leaves us with the third ground, of culture and tradition, on which Jallikattu enthusiasts
have rested their claim to conduct the sport.

Rejecting that ground too, the Supreme Court had this to say: “Jallikattu or bullock cart race, as
practised now, has never been the tradition or culture of Tamil Nadu. Welfare and well-being of
the bull is Tamil culture and tradition... Yeru Thazhuvu, in Tamil tradition, is to embrace bulls
and not overpowering them to show human bravery.”

Now, in order to overcome the Supreme Court order, the government of Tamil Nadu has
promulgated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Ordinance, 2017.
A Bill has also been passed on similar lines in the Legislative Assembly.

The State amendment to the Central legislation exempts the conduct of Jallikattu from the
provisions of the Act by ignoring the fact that the apex court had held that Jallikattu was not
only in violation of the statute but also the fundamental duties imposed on citizens, under

19 | P a g e
Articles 51A(g) and (h) of the Constitution, to have compassion for living creatures and
develop humanism.

“Parliament, by incorporating Article 51A(g), has again reiterated and re-emphasised the
fundamental duties on human beings towards every living creature which evidently takes in
bulls as well. All living creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live peacefully and right
to protect their well-being which encompasses protection from beating, kicking, over-driving,
over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering etc.

“Human life, we often say, is not like animal existence, a view having anthropocentric bias,
forgetting the fact that animals have also got intrinsic worth and value,” the Supreme Court had
said while striking down a similar law known as Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act of
2009.

Attempting to differentiate itself from the 2009 Act, the preamble to the present Ordinance
states that it had been promulgated “to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu
and to ensure the survival and well being of the native breed of bulls.”

It is pertinent to point out that the first reason of culture and heritage had already been
discussed at length by the Supreme Court and rejected as untenable. The only new reason cited
in the ordinance for protecting Jallikattu is the one relating to survival of native breed.

It would actually be a daunting task for the State to justify the conduct of Jallikattu on the sole
ground of survival of the native bulls if someone happens to challenge either the ordinance or
the proposed Act in a court of law. We have to wait and watch whether Jallikattu would stand
the test of law in another round of litigation.

PCA ACT 1960:

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1960

to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to amend the laws

relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. As per the provisions of the law the government

of India formed the Animal Welfare Board of India.

20 | P a g e
The act however makes a provision under heading [Chapter VI, Heading 28] "Saving as

respects manner of killing prescribed by religion" : Nothing contained in this Act shall render it

an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community. 

Supreme court judgement on Jallikattu

Bench to decide whether Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra can conserve jallikattu and
bullock cart races as their cultural right and demand their protection under Article 29 (1)

The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a Constitution Bench to decide whether the people of
Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra can conserve jallikattu and bullock-cart races as their cultural
right and demand their protection under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, in a
judgment, formulated five questions for the Constitution Bench to decide on.

The judgment was authored by Justice Nariman for the Bench.

Article 29 (1) is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution to protect the
educational and cultural rights of citizens.

Though commonly used to protect the interests of minorities, Article 29 (1) mandates that “any
section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct
language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same”.

If jallikattu is upheld by the Constitution Bench as a cultural right and part of the "collective
culture" of the people of Tamil Nadu under Article 29 (1), provisions of other laws which
undermine jallikattu may run the risk of being struck down.

“It has never been looked into whether a State can claim constitutional protection under Article
29 (1) for what it thinks is a cultural right,” Chief Justice Misra orally observed when reserving
the case for final judgment in the previous hearing.

21 | P a g e
The Constitution Bench would also look into whether the 2017 jallikattu and bullock cart races
laws of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra actually subserve the objective of “prevention” of cruelty
to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960.

The Bench will also have to say whether the laws are really in consonance with the basic tenets
of the 1960 Act.

'80% of Tamil Nadu people support the sport'

The Tamil Nadu government, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, argued that 80%
of the population of the State supported jallikattu and the sport had strongholds in the rural
parts.

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said the support for jallikattu was irrespective of religion or
caste.

Justice Nariman referred to part of Article 29 (1) which says “any section of the citizens
residing in the territory of India”. “And Tamil Nadu is definitely a part of India,” Justice
Nariman remarked.

Mr. Venugopal referred to the Supreme Court decision in the Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College
Society case, in which it was pointed out that the scope of Article 29 (1) does not necessarily
confine itself to the cultural rights of minorities but may well include the majority.

The court is hearing a batch of petitions, led by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA), to quash the new jallikattu law passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, which
brought bulls back into the fold of “performing animals”.

The laws under challenge The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act
of 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017 opened the
gates for the conduct of the popular bull-taming sport in the name of culture and tradition
despite a 2014 ban by the Supreme Court.

In 2014, in the A. Nagaraja judgment, the Supreme Court held jallikattu as cruelty to bulls.

22 | P a g e
The PETA petition contends that the 2017 Jallikattu Act and Rules violate the five
internationally recognised freedoms the freedom from hunger, malnutrition and thirst; freedom
from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain,
injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

Conclusion

The legal situation surrounding jallikattu is as yet not clearly resolved. Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 is not much different from the state law

overturned by Supreme Court in 2009. For the Supreme Court, the question of interim stay on

Tamil Nadu’s Jallikattu Amendment Act is still open.

The matter will only be truly resolved if the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) is

amended by the Parliament. State ordinances and state laws cannot overrule an Indian federal

law.

Again, if Jallikattu is a part of Tamil culture, it has to be conducted with protection to animals

and human beings. It should be regulated by an authority. Age old traditions and cultures need

to be revisited if they are in violation of the laws of the land.

23 | P a g e
 BIBIOGRAPHY:

WEBLINKS:

1. http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/dispatch/jallikattu-a-red-rag-to-a-bull
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42714543
3. http://indianexpress.com/about/jallikattu/
4. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jallikattu-2018-date-history-and-importance-1799780
5. Jallikattu: New Symbol of Tamil Angst a book by N. Sathiya Moorthy (Author)
6. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/a-book-that-sets-apart-jallikattu-
from-spanish-bullfight/articleshow/62397362.cms
7. https://www.theweek.in/review/books/book-review-jallikattu-new-symbol-of-tamil-
angst.html
8. http://thesouthasiantimes.info/news-Making_a_case_for_Jallikattu-160455-Art-
Books-37.html

24 | P a g e