THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Summary

The Constitution Bench upheld the 2017 Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka amendments permitting regulated Jallikattu, bullock-cart racing and Kambala. Read with their rules and notification, the amendments substantially reduced the practices underlying A. Nagaraja and validly changed that judgment’s statutory basis. The Court declined to confer fundamental rights on animals or conclusively decide cultural status in writ proceedings, and made District Magistrates and competent authorities responsible for strict enforcement of safeguards.

Issues

1. Whether the State amendments were competent legislation under Concurrent List Entry 17 or colourable attempts to override A. Nagaraja.
2. Whether the amendments must be read with the accompanying regulatory safeguards.
3. Whether the sports’ asserted cultural character established protection under Article 29 or justified otherwise unlawful conduct.
4. Whether the amendments concerned preservation of native breeds under Article 48 or violated Articles 14, 21 and 51A(g) and (h).
5. Whether animals could claim fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
6. Whether Presidential assent was defective and what enforcement directions should follow.

Provisions considered

• Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m), and 22, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960The statutory objective is protection against unnecessary pain and suffering. The State amendments and safeguards altered how the sports could lawfully be conducted, addressing the practices underlying the earlier prohibition. (¶¶ 2, 11, 12, 13, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40)
• Sections 2(dd), 3(2), 11(3)(f), 22, 27 and 28A, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as amended in Tamil Nadu in 2017The Jallikattu exceptions were upheld together with the Tamil Nadu conduct rules. The Court treated those rules as integral to interpreting the amended law, rather than an unconditional sporting exemption. (¶¶ 5, 12, 13, 15, 28, 29, 30, 35, 40, 41, 42)
• Sections 2(bb), 3(2) and (3), 11(3)(c-1), 22, 27, 28A and 38B, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as amended in Maharashtra in 2017The permission and welfare conditions and statutory rule-making scheme formed part of the valid regime for bullock-cart races. Authorities must strictly enforce the law and rules. (¶¶ 5, 12, 13, 28, 29, 30, 35, 38, 41, 42)
• Sections 2(aa) and (dd), 3(2), 11(3)(f) and (g), 22, 27 and 28A, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as amended in Karnataka in 2017The Kambala and bull-race provisions were read with the notification imposing conditions, including the prohibition on unnecessary pain or suffering; the notification was treated as integral to the amended statute. (¶¶ 5, 12, 13, 28, 29, 30, 35, 41, 42)
• Article 254(2) and Seventh Schedule, List III, Entry 17, Constitution of IndiaThe amendments concerned prevention of cruelty to animals in pith and substance and fell within concurrent legislative competence. The Court found no flaw in obtaining Presidential assent. (¶¶ 9, 12, 32, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41)
• Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaThe Court declined to extend fundamental-right status to animals. Animal-welfare legislation could nonetheless be tested for arbitrariness at the instance of a human or juridical person; the challenged classification and regime survived that review. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 37, 40)
• Articles 29, 48 and 51A(g) and (h), Constitution of IndiaThe Court did not conclusively decide cultural status under Article 29, but declined to displace the legislature’s cultural assessment. Preservation of breeds was incidental rather than the amendments’ pith and substance; the regimes did not offend the cited duties or directive principle. (¶¶ 8, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37, 38, 40)

Held

• The amendments and their statutory rules or notification must be read together. Those safeguards regulate permission, the arena and track, veterinary examination and separation of spectators, and prohibit practices such as beating, poking, irritants and tail twisting. Treating the regulatory instruments as part of the legislation was essential to assessing whether the earlier defects were cured. (¶¶ 12, 13, 28, 29)
• The regulated events substantially differ from their pre-amendment form. Although the Court could not say that no pain or suffering would occur, the new instruments substantially reduced the pain-inflicting practices on which A. Nagaraja rested. Anticipated disobedience or misuse did not justify invalidating the laws. The amendments therefore changed the basis of the earlier judgment rather than merely overriding it through cosmetic legislation. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 40)
• In pith and substance the legislation concerns prevention of cruelty to animals under Concurrent List Entry 17. Legislative entries receive broad interpretation. The amendments were not principally legislation for cattle-stock improvement under State List Entry 15 or preservation of breeds under Article 48; such effects were incidental. No defect in the Presidential-assent process was established. (¶¶ 9, 32, 33, 34, 38, 40)
• A. Nagaraja had not conferred fundamental rights on animals; its proposal to elevate statutory protections was advisory. The Bench declined to bring bulls within Article 21 or treat animals as persons invoking Article 14, leaving further elevation of their rights to the legislature. Humans or juridical persons could still seek review of animal-welfare legislation. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 37)
• The Court found no irrational classification or constitutional arbitrariness in the amended regime. The parent Act itself balances human uses of animals with protection against unnecessary suffering; judicial review did not authorise an absolute prohibition of every infliction of pain. Wider balancing of societal choices was for the legislature. The amendments did not violate Articles 14, 21 or 51A(g) and (h). (¶¶ 30, 31, 36, 37, 40)
• Jallikattu had been practised for centuries, but deciding conclusively whether it forms an integral part of Tamil culture required a broader social, religious and cultural inquiry unsuitable for these writ proceedings. The Court declined to disturb the legislative assessment and rejected A. Nagaraja’s contrary cultural conclusion as inadequately supported. Cultural status, however, cannot excuse breach of law; permission rests on the amended safeguards. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 40)
• The reasoning concerning Tamil Nadu also governed Maharashtra and Karnataka, and all three Amendment Acts were upheld. Strict implementation of the Acts, rules and notification was directed, with District Magistrates and competent authorities responsible for compliance. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42)
• The referred questions were answered, all writ petitions dismissed, and the appeal and transferred case disposed of in those terms. Intervention applications were allowed, remaining applications disposed of and no costs ordered. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45)

Result

All three State Amendment Acts upheld and referred questions answered. Writ petitions dismissed; appeal and transferred case disposed of in those terms. District Magistrates and competent authorities to ensure strict compliance with the amended laws, rules and notification. Intervention applications allowed; other pending applications disposed of. No costs.