Case Law Details
People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) Vs State of Karnataka & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
A public interest litigation was filed seeking directions to restrain the State of Karnataka from granting permission for bull races, including the event known as “Kambala,” outside the rural districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi. The petitioner also sought enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) and relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (2023).
Read Karnataka HC Judgment in this case: No Legal Basis to Ban Kambala Outside Coastal Karnataka, Rules High Court
Earlier, the legality of bull-related sporting events such as Jallikattu and bullock cart races had been examined by the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), where such events were held to be cruel and in violation of the PCA Act. Subsequently, the Karnataka Legislature enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017, which permitted traditional events such as Kambala and bullock cart races subject to conditions to ensure that animals are not subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering. The Act was published in the Official Gazette on 20.02.2018.
Similar amendments were enacted by the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. These amendments were challenged before the Supreme Court. A Constitution Bench considered the issues in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (2023) and examined whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act was a colourable legislation, whether it preserved cultural heritage, whether it related to protection of native breeds, and whether it violated constitutional provisions including Articles 14, 21, and the fundamental duties under Articles 51-A(g) and 51-A(h).
The Constitution Bench held that the amendment was not colourable legislation and was referable to Entry 17 of the Concurrent List relating to prevention of cruelty to animals. It held that the amended law, along with the rules and notifications, minimized cruelty in the conduct of such sports and therefore would not fall within the prohibitions of the PCA Act. The Court further held that determining whether such events form part of cultural heritage is primarily a legislative question and that the legislative determination recognizing Jallikattu as part of cultural tradition could not be disturbed. It also concluded that the amendment did not violate Articles 14 or 21 and was not contrary to the earlier decision in A. Nagaraja, as the defects identified in that judgment had been addressed through the amendment and associated rules. The Court also directed that the amended laws and rules must be strictly enforced by authorities.
The Constitution Bench clarified that its findings regarding the Tamil Nadu amendment would also guide the amendments enacted by the States of Maharashtra and Karnataka and held all three amendment laws to be valid.
In the present proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, the petitioner confined the challenge to the holding of Kambala or bullock cart races outside the districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi. It was argued that these events were part of the tradition and culture of those coastal districts and therefore could not be conducted in other regions such as Bengaluru.
The High Court rejected this contention. It observed that once such events are recognized as part of the tradition and cultural heritage of the State and their legality has been upheld by the Supreme Court, there is no legal basis to restrict them geographically to specific districts. The Court also held that the argument that cultural traditions followed in one region must remain confined to that region had no basis in law and would fragment the cultural fabric of the State. It further observed that determining how traditions and cultural practices are to be preserved is not an inquiry suitable for judicial determination and is a matter for legislative consideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
