Last Updated on
A bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and NV Ramana passed this order while hearing an application filed by an intervenor who sought vacation of the order. While hearing a batch of four petitions challenging the validity of the notification, the same bench had yesterday stayed the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India which had allowed the use of bull for the traditional Tamil festive event ‘Jallikattu’ and bullock cart races in states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat.
Intervenor’s counsel submitted before the court that Jallikattu is not a fight between bulls and humans but a game where the participants are required to embrace the running bulls by hanging on to their hump as long as possible; and they are unarmed. He further contended that the bulls are trained not to let the village youth clamber on to their humps and in no case they are led away by the owners afterwards.
Contending that no cruelty is caused to the bulls, it was urged that Jallikattu is a socio-religious festival and not an entertainment and the people at various places in the state of Tamil Nadu have immense faith in it of many reasons. the said festival for many a reason.
Counsel further contended that the petitioners who had sought the stay do not have any idea about the cultural base of India and there was no justification or necessity to direct stay of the notificaiton.
However, referring to Animal Welfare Board Of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors, Court observed that it is claer that Jallikattu and other form of bulls race cause trouble, pains and stress to the bulls and it is contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Court observed:
Be it be ingeminated that the Court has adjudged the issue in the backdrop of Article 51(a)(g) and (h) of the Constitution of India. There can be no shadow or trace of doubt that the Constitution of India is an Organic and Compassionate Constitution.
Refusing to grant any relief to the intervenor, Court held that there was no ground for alteration or vacation of the stay order.
The order can be read here.