CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., CHENNAI TAMILNADU AND OTHERS ETC. versus ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD AND ANOTHER ETC.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 477 · Decided: 16-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA, R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 8 S.C.R. 477 
CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., CHENNAI TAMILNADU 
A 
AND OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD AND ANOTHER ETC. 
(Review Petition (Civil) No. 3769 of 2016) 
In 
(Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014) 
NOVEMBER 16, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Constitution of India - Arts. 254(1) & 25 and VII Schedule, 
List II Entries 14 and 15; List III. Entry 17 - Repugnancy between 
Jallikattu Act, 2009 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 
B 
c 
- Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja's case held that rights of 'Bulls' 
guaranteed ulss. 3 and 11 of 1960 Act cannot be taken away and D 
that 2009 Act is repugnant to 1960 Act and hence void being violative 
of Art. 254(1) - Review petition on the ground that 2009 Act since 
would come within ambit of Entries 14 and 15 of List II of VII 
Schedule, the same cannot be repugnant to the 1960 Act and that 
Jallikattu being a socio-cultural event being associated with religion, 
E 
has the protection of Art. 25 - Held: When a 'bull' is tamed for the 
purpose of an event (Ja/likattu), the fundamental concept runs 
center to the welfare of the animal which is basic foundation of 
1960 Act - There is frontal collision and inconsistency between 
1960 Act and 2009 Act - 2009 Act is not covered by Entries 14 and 
15 of List II - The activity 'Jal/ikattu 'squarely falls within Entry 17 
F 
of List Ill and therefore has to be tested on the anvil of r~pugnancy 
- Jallikattu also cannot be associated with right of freedom of 
religion guaranteed u/Art. 25 - Tamil Nadu Regulation of Ja/likattu 
Act, 2009 - ss. 2(c) and 3 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 
1960 - ss. 3 and 11. 
Legal Authority - Persuasive authority - While dealing with 
law and legal principles, reference to cultural ethos, ancient texts 
and international perceptions are not unwarrantable, as far as they, 
do not run counter to constitutional and statutory thought and 
principle. 
477 
G 
H 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the Review petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On a careful scrutiny of Tamil Nadu Regulation 
of Jallikattu Act, 2009, it is manifest that the events can include 
taming of bulls and Jallikattu is named as an event. It cannot be 
said that no cruelty is meted to the bulls while involving them in 
B the event of 'Jallikattu'.[Para 17)[489-F-G; 490-E) 
1.2 When both the enactments viz. Prevention of Cruelty 
to Animnls Act, 1960 and 2009 Act, are :malysed in juxtaposition, 
it is found that when a bull is "tamed" for the pua·pose of an event, 
the fundamental concept runs counter to the welfare oft he animal, 
c which is the basic foundation of the 1960 Act. There is a frontal 
collision and apparent inconsistency between the 1960 Act and 
the 2009 Act. It is inconceivable that a bull which is a domestic 
animal should be tamed for entertainment and a wide ground can 
be put forth that it is not a ticketed show, but meant for celebrating 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the festival of harvest. Such a celebration for giving pleasure to 
some, both the participating and the people watching it is such 
an act that is against the welfare of animals and definitely amount 
to treating the animal with cruelty. [Para 25)(494-B-C) 
Deep Chand v. The State <l VIiar Pradesh and Ors. 
AIR 1959 SC 648 : 1959 Suppl. SCR 8: M. 
Karununidhi v. Union off11dia (1979) 3 SCC 431:1979 
(3) SCR 254 - followed. 
Zaveribhai Amaidas v. Srate of Bombay (1955) 1 SCR 
799; State of Orissa v. MA. Tulloch & Co. (1964) 4 
SCR 461 - relied on. 
1.3 Neither Entry 14 nor Entry 15 of List II of Seventh 
Schedule to the Constitution would cover the 2009 Act. Entry 
14, even remotely, does not have anything to do with Jallikattu, 
which is an event. Solely because the event takes place after the 
han'est, it cannot be associated with agriculture. Entry 15 is meant 
to cotlfer power on the State Legislature to legislate with regard 
to the preservation, protection and improvement of stock and 
preventing any kind of animal diseases. The activity Jallilmttu 
falls squa1·ely within Entry 17 of List III and, therefore, it has to 
be tested on the anvil of repugnancy. 1960 Act and the 2009 Act 
rest on the bedrock of Entry 17 of the Concurrent List. There is 
CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., CHENNAI TAMILNADU 479 
ETC. v. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD 
repugnancy between the two Acts and hence, the State Act has 
A 
been appositely declared ultm 1•ires. Entry 17 relates to prevention 
of cruelty to animals and the 1960 Act cov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.