ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA versus A. NAGARAJA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 07-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 646 
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA 
v. 
· A. NAGARAJA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014) 
MAY 07, 2014. 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: 
ss.3 and 11of PCA Act read with Art. 51-A of the 
Constitution - Conducting of Jal/ikattu and Bullock cart races 
in States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra - Held: s. 3 casts a 
duty on the person in-charge or care of animal to prevent 
0 
infliction upon an animal of unnecessary pain or suffering -
Primary duty on persons-in-charge or care of animal is to 
ensure the well-being of the animal -'Well-being' means state 
of being comfortable, healthy or happy -
s.3 gives a 
corresponding right to the animal to ensure its we/I-being -
Bulls cannot be performing animals, anatomically not 
E designed for that, but are forced to perform, inflicting pain and 
suffering, in total violation of ss. 3 and 11 (1) of PCA Act -
Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu, Vadamadu, 
Erudhu, Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of 
bulls - Jal/ikattu or Bullock-cart race, from the point of the 
F 
animals, is not an event ensuring their well-being or an event 
meant to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or 
suffering, on the contrary, it is an event against their well-being 
and causes unnecessary pain and suffering on them -
Therefore, Jal/ikattu and Bullock-cart race, as an event, being 
G avoidable non-essential activities violate not only ss., 3, 
11 (1 }(a} and (m) and· s. 22 of PCA Act, read with Art.51 A(g) 
of the Constitution but also the notification dated 11. 7. 2011 
issued by the Central Government uls 22(ii) of the PCA Act 
-
Rights guaranteed to the bulls ulss 3 and 11 of PCA Act . 
H 
646 
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. A. 
,• 647 
NA GA RAJA 
~ead with Articles 51A(g) and (h) cannot be taken away or A 
~
urtailed, except u/ss 11 (3) and 28 of PCA Act - TNRJ Act 
s declared unconstitutional and void -"" Government of India 
Notification dated 11.7. 2011 upheld - Directions given to 
implement provisions of PCA Act and safeguard freedom and 
right of animals as enumerated in the judgment - Prevention 
B 
of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965 -
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals 
on Foot)- Rules, 2001 -
r. 11 -
Performing Animals 
(Registration) Rules, 2001 -
r. 8 -
Government of India 
Notification dated 11. 7. 2011. 
c 
s. 11 - Treating animals cruelly - Held: s. 11 confers no 
right on the organizers to conduct Jallikattu/Bullock-cart race 
- s. 11 is a beneficial provision enacted for the welfare and 
protection. of animals and it is penal ·in nature - It confers 
,rights on the animals and obligations on all persons, including D 
thos~ who are in-charge or care of the animals, to look after 
their well-being and welfare. 
s. 11 (3) read with s. 11 (1) -
Cruelty to animals -
Exceptions - Penalty - Held: PCA Act does not speak of E 
'taming of animals' (over-powering animals) -
Taming of 
animal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition 
or entertainment are entirely different - s.2(c) of TNRJ Act 
speaks of 'taming of bulls' which is inconsistent and contrary 
to the provisions of Chapter V of PCA Act -
Sub-s. (3) of s. 11 
carves out exceptions in five categories of cases mentioned 
F 
in s. 11 (3)(a) to (e) - Exceptions are incorporated based on 
the "doctrine of necessity" -
Entertainment, exhibition or 
amusement do not fall under these exempted categories and 
cannot be claimed as a matter of right under the doctrine of 
necessity -
Penalty for violation of rights of animals are G 
insignificant, Punishment prescribed in s. 11 (1) is not 
commensurate with the gravity of the offence, thus, being 
violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose 
of the Act, therefore, there is necessity of taking disciplinary 
action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties H 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.51A(g) - Doctrines -
Doctrine of necessity. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
B 
Arts. 21 and 51A(g) of the Constitution read with ss.3 and 
11 of PCA Act - Protection of 'life' - Rights of animals - Held: 
Art. 21 while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life 
and the word "life" has been given an expanded definition; and 
any disturbance from the basic environment which includes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.