Preventing animal cruelty is a duty of the state

Why in News?

• The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will deliver judgment related to petitions seeking to strike down a Tamil Nadu law which protects Jallikattu by claiming that the bull-taming sport is a cultural heritage of the State and is protected under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution.
• The article underlines that the court’s decision related to the case will have a deep bearing on the future of animal rights and safety in India.

 

What is Jallikattu?

• It is a bull-taming sport, usually held during the Pongal season where men compete against each other to hold on to the humps of agitated bulls that are released into an open arena.
• Jallikattu has been known to be practiced during the Tamil classical period (400-100 BCE) and references to this sport are also depicted in Silappadikaram one of the 5 great epics of Tamil classical period and 2 other ancient literary works like Kalithogai and Malaipadukadaam.
• Jallikattu displays Tamil culture and showcases the quality of cattle, the breeding skills of cattle rearers, etc. It also signifies the centrality of cattle in an agrarian economy in rural Tamil Nadu.

 

Article 29(1) of the Indian Constitution

• Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
• It thus confers the governments at the state and Centre with formulating a regulatory mechanism for Jallikattu.

 

Why ban on Jallikattu is demanded by animal rights activists?

• The practice of Jallikattu has long been contested, with animal rights groups concerned over issues of cruelty to animals as the bulls are deliberately placed in a terrifying situation.
• Bulls are also provoked with alcohol, sticks, knives, sickles and even chilli powder in the eyes.
• It also causes death and injuries to both the bulls and human participants.

 

Timeline related to Jallikattu ban

• The ban on Jallikattu itself has existed on and off since 2006. In 2006, the Madras High Court banned it after the death of a young spectator.
• In 2009, the ban was subsequently lifted with the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009.
• In 2014, in Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) v. A. Nagaraja, the SC declared Jallikattu illegitimate.
• But the TN legislation, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017 led to continuation of the bull taming sport.
• In 2021, the Environment Ministry has declared that the sport could carry on irrespective of the imposed ban.

 

The SC’s observations in the AWBI vs. A. Nagaraja case

• The SC in this case banned the use of bulls and bullocks in “entertainment activities” such as Jallikattu and bullock cart racing, among others.
• The judgment also added that Governments and Animal Welfare Board must protect the ‘five freedoms’ of animals as follows:
  • Freedom from hunger and thirst
  • Freedom from discomfort
  • Freedom from pain, injury, and disease
  • Freedom from fear and distress
  • Freedom to express normal behaviour

 

What does Indian Constitution say on animal rights?

• None of the guarantees contained in Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights, are explicitly conferred on animals.
• Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) are bestowed on persons.
  • Until now, we have generally understood “persons” to mean human beings, or, in some cases, associations of human beings, such as corporations, partnerships, trusts, and the like.
• Though some of the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) and the Fundamental Duties (Part IVA) of the Constitution reflect a responsibility placed on the state and on citizens to protect and improve the natural environment, but these are unenforceable obligations.

 

What are the legislations related to animal welfare?

• Background: Initial efforts to legislate on the issue emanated from a elementary ethical perception that our collective conscience makes it morally wrong to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals.
  • It was with this vision in mind that Parliament enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), 1960.
• About PCA 1960: It provided punishment for causing unnecessary cruelty and suffering to animals and established of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to oversee animal welfare.
• Shortcomings of PCA, 1960: While PCA criminalises several types of actions that cause cruelty to animals, it exempts, for example, from its coverage the use of animals for experiments with a view to securing medical advancement.
  • Also, though it enshrines the provisions relating to the exhibition of the performing animals, and offences committed against them, but its implementation remain tardy.

 

Arguments of petitioners

• Non-justifiable exclusion: The petitioners recognized that though both the Union and the State legislatures have equal power to make laws on ‘prevention of animal cruelty’, i.e., Entry 17 of the Concurrent List of Schedule VII to the Constitution.
  • However, the TN legislation, by excluding Jallikattu from the PCA Act by amendment in 2017, acquits animal cruelty and thus must be viewed as a colorable action with no link to the concurrent list.
• Organising Jallikattu violates SC’s verdict and the Constitution: The petitioners submitted SC’s findings in Nagaraja case, that held Jallikattu, in itself a violation of the existing provisions of the PCA Act.
  • The court also expanded the meaning of right to life under Article 21 by including right against disturbance to the basic environment hence implying that animal life must also be treated with “intrinsic worth, honour and dignity”.
  • It also violates the fundamental duty contained in Article 51A(g), which requires citizens “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”
• Thus, the petitioners concluded that neither the TN legislature possesses the competence to enact the law nor the exclusion by amendment is in line with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

 

Questions that need to be answered

• The argument related to violation of fundamental rights by the petitioners raise several allied questions as follows:
  • Do animals have personhood?
  • Does our idea of justice include a guarantee of animal rights?
  • If not, do we still owe a duty of care towards our fellow creatures?
  • What does that duty entail?
  • How does it balance with other rights guaranteed to human beings?
• The arguments for personhood are based on the belief that animals such as apes, elephants, and whales share many similarities with humans. 
• However, reading the Constitution as if animals were promised the same rights to life and personal liberty as humans under Article 21 and equality under Article 14 could have bizarre consequences.

 

Conclusion

• Rather than focusing on personhood, a better approach to the debate might be to frame it in terms of our own right to live in a world that treats animals with equal concern. 
• It could also be argued that the right to a healthy environment includes the right to animal welfare.
• Thus, the governments would be constitutionally obligated to take measures and legislate to prevent animal cruelty.

 

---

Q1) Who is the founder of Animal Welfare Board of India?

Late Smt. Rukmini Devi Arundale, well known humanitarian established Animal Welfare Board of India in 1962 under Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

 

Q2) What is the cultural significance of Jallikattu?

The term Jallikattu is a union of two words: ‘Calli’ (coins) and ‘Kattu’ (tie), which denotes a bundle of coins tied to the bull’s horns. Practitioners believe that the sport cultivates and represents a cordial man-animal relationship, wherein the owner strives to develop an “emotional connect” with the bull through the long process of rearing.

 

---

Source: Preventing animal cruelty is a duty of the state