The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors v. Union of India (2023)

The Supreme Court’s judgement in The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors v. Union of India is a landmark decision dealing with the constitutional validity of State amendments enacted by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka to permit traditional bull-taming sports such as Jallikattu, Kambala and bullock-cart races. These sports had earlier been prohibited under the Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) ruling, which held that the practices violated the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The present case came before a five-judge Constitution Bench, which examined whether the State amendments create a new legal regime for these sports and whether these amendments withstand scrutiny under the Constitution. The Bench also examined whether the amendments were colourable legislation designed to circumvent the earlier Supreme Court ruling banning these events.

The judgement is significant as it deals with the intersection of animal welfare, cultural rights, federal legislative competence, and constitutional values under Articles 14, 21, 29 and 51A of the Constitution of India.

Facts of The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors v. Union of India Case

In 2014, the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja banned the conduct of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bullock-cart races in Maharashtra. The Court held that these activities violated the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which aims to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering to animals.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a notification permitting Jallikattu and other similar events under certain regulatory conditions. This notification was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Court set aside the notification and reinstated the ban.

In response, the Central Government introduced an Ordinance permitting Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, subject to safeguards. The President of India later gave assent to a bill introduced by the Tamil Nadu legislature, amending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and recognising Jallikattu as a permitted activity under regulated conditions. The amendment was framed to allow the conduct of the sport while introducing new rules governing its practice under Section 3(2) of the amended Act.

Various animal-rights organisations, including the Animal Welfare Board of India, PETA, and others, challenged these amendments. The primary argument was that the amendments subjected bulls to unnecessary pain and suffering, which was contrary to the objectives of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and violative of the ruling in A. Nagaraja.

The petitioners also argued that the State legislatures lacked the competence to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as it was a Central legislation, and that the amendments were a colourable exercise of power designed to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling.

The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench in 2018 to determine, among other issues, whether Jallikattu and similar events were protected under Article 29 as cultural rights and whether the State amendments were constitutionally valid.

On 18 May 2023, the Constitution Bench upheld the amendments passed by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka that permitted Jallikattu, Kambala and bullock-cart racing.

Key Issues

The Supreme Court considered the following questions:

Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III in the Seventh Schedule or whether it perpetuates cruelty to animals.

This issue required the Court to determine whether the State amendment legitimately relates to the regulation of animal cruelty or whether it effectively allows unnecessary suffering, thereby violating the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Whether the law amounts to colourable legislation not linked to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List.

Colourable legislation would mean that the State legislature enacted the amendment to indirectly achieve what it could not do directly, namely, nullifying the effect of the A. Nagaraja judgement.

Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act violates Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution.

The Court examined whether the amendment goes against the constitutional duty to protect the environment and develop a scientific temper.

Whether the Amendment Act is violative of Articles 14 and 21 due to unreasonableness and arbitrary treatment of animals.

The challenge was that the Act permits unnecessary pain and suffering to bulls, which would violate the rights protected under Article 14 and Article 21.

Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act contradicts the decision in A. Nagaraja.

This question involved examining whether the amendment overcomes the defects identified by the Supreme Court in its earlier ruling.

Whether the State legislature has the power to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The competence of the State to create rules in a domain occupied by a Central law was a central question.

Observations of the Court in The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors v. Union of India

The Constitution Bench made several key observations while deciding the validity of the amendment.

Change in circumstances after the 2014 judgement

The Court noted that at the time of the A. Nagaraja ruling, the conduct of Jallikattu and similar events violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The manner of these events at that time involved acts that caused unnecessary pain and suffering to bulls.

However, with the passage of the Amendment Acts, a new legal regime was created to regulate these sports. The amendments introduced a framework that governs how these events must be conducted, with safeguards intended to reduce cruelty and regulate the conditions under which animals participate.

Substantial change in the manner of conduct

The Court observed that the practices of Jallikattu, Kambala and bullock-cart racing had undergone substantial change after the amendment. The regulatory framework introduced by the State amendments created a different factual and legal environment from what existed when the A. Nagaraja ruling was delivered.

Thus, the issues decided earlier were not identical to the present framework.

Colourable legislation argument rejected

The Court held that the amendments were not a mere attempt to bypass the earlier ruling. They were enacted within the legislative competence of the State and introduced substantial changes rather than superficial or cosmetic modifications to the law.

Since the amendments created a new regulatory structure, the Court held that they could not be struck down as colourable legislation.

Reasonableness under Article 14

A challenge was raised on the ground that the amendments were arbitrary because they allegedly allowed animals to be subjected to unnecessary pain.

The Court observed that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act itself recognises that some activities inherently cause pain and suffering to animals yet are permitted by law, as long as they serve a regulatory or societal purpose and are conducted under specific safeguards.

In this light, the Court held that the amendments do not violate Article 14.

Effect of Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h)

The petitioners argued that State amendments violate these Fundamental Duties, which promote compassion, environmental protection, and scientific temper.

The Court held that these provisions cannot be used as standalone grounds for invalidating legislation. They serve as guiding principles but do not override legislative competence or constitutional safeguards provided through law.

Consistency with A. Nagaraja

The Court held that the amendments do not contradict the A. Nagaraja decision. The earlier judgement highlighted the cruelty inherent in the sports as they were practised then. The present amendments introduce safeguards and a regulatory structure designed to address the defects identified in A. Nagaraja.

Thus, the amendments overcome the concerns noted in the earlier decision.

State legislative competence upheld

The Court held that the amendments fall within Entry 17 of the Concurrent List, relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. States, therefore, have the power to amend the law as long as the amendment does not contradict the basic structure of the Central Act.

Since the amendments created a regulatory framework consistent with the objectives of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Court upheld the legislative competence of the States.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the amendments passed by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka permitting the conduct of Jallikattu, Kambala and bullock-cart races under regulated conditions. The Court concluded that the amendments do not violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, do not constitute colourable legislation, and are not arbitrary under Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.

The Court also held that these amendments do not contradict the earlier judgement in A. Nagaraja, as they introduce a new regulatory framework that addresses the concerns raised in the 2014 decision. The legislative competence of States to enact such amendments was affirmed.