How has SC validated T.N. stand on jallikattu?

Context

Recently, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the amendments made by the legislatures of Tamil Nadu to The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, allowing bull-taming sport like jallikattu.

About Jallikattu

Jallikattu is a traditional sport that is popular in Tamil Nadu.
The sport involves releasing a wild bull into a crowd of people, and the participants attempt to grab the bull’s hump and ride it for as long as possible or attempt to bring it under control.
It is celebrated in the month of January, during the Tamil harvest festival, Pongal.
There are references to people enjoying observing and partaking in Jalikattu in Silappatikaram the great epics of Tamil classical period.

The Laws, Acts and the underlying issues

In 1960, Union government enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA), 1960 that criminalised several different types of actions resulting in cruelty to animals.
In 2014, in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, the Supreme Court declared jallikattu illegitimate stating that the practice was cruel and caused the animal unnecessary pain and suffering.
The state thereafter mentioned that the subject of preventing animal cruelty falls in the Concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Tamil Nadu government claimed that it possess an equal authority to determine what actions constitute cruelty to animals within its respective territory.
Based on this, Tamil Nadu legitimised jallikattu, by amending the PCA Act, and by exempting the practice entirely from the statute’s demands.
The amendment defines the practice of jallikattu as an event involving bulls conducted with a view to follow tradition and culture.
Tamilnadu also argued that the amendment serves to preserve native varieties of bulls and the exemption in favour Tamil people’s right to conserve their culture.

Controversies over jallikattu

The main conflict over the sport, which involves sturdy bulls being let loose into the arena and being chased by men who are considered winners if they manage to hold on to the humps of the animals without being thrown off, is whether it entails unnecessary cruelty.
Animal rights activists have been arguing that the manner in which it is held is cruel because it inflicts pain and suffering.
What appears to be a bull’s ferocity in the arena is actually a flight response born out of fear.
Specific acts that allegedly took place in the past — before the events were regulated by law — such as beating the bulls or twisting their tails and other acts that inflict pain so that they are more ferocious in the arena, are now rare.

Reasons for the ban by Supreme Court

In a landmark verdict the Supreme Court imposed a ban on jallikattu and similar sports involving animals in 2014.
It said the Act was “anthropocentric” in the sense that it sought to protect the interests of organisers, spectators and participants and not the animals.
On the other hand, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA) was an “ecocentric” law. The Bench ruled that the provisions of the State law were contrary to provisions of the Central Act.
The court cited the ‘Five Freedoms’ recognised for animals by the World Health Organization for Animal Health — freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; 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 and said that these freedoms should be read into the provisions favouring animal rights found in the PC

Present ruling of SC

In its latest ruling, a Constitution Bench has accepted the basic argument that jallikattu is part of the cultural heritage of Tamils.
It observed that the judiciary cannot examine the question whether something was part of tradition and culture, and that it would defer to the legislature’s view in this regard.
On this point, it differed from the 2014 verdict which had rejected the claim that the sport had cultural and traditional value.
It upheld the Amendment Act, saying it has now legitimised the bovine sport and that it cannot be termed a piece of colourable legislation.
The court recalled that the 2014 judgment had banned the sport by citing acts that amounted to cruelty then. However now it ruled that the State legislation should be read along with the rules framed for holding these events. Therefore, there are no statutory violations now that warrant a ban on jallikattu.

What's New