The Supreme Court of India, through a five-judge Constitution Bench, on 18 May 2023 upheld the constitutional validity of state amendments enacted by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act), permitting the conduct of traditional animal sports including jallikattu, kambala, and bull-cart racing. Justice Aniruddha Bose, writing for the unanimous Bench, held that these cultural practices fall within the domain of legislative competence and that the Court would not engage in judicial adventurism by substituting its own judgment for the legislature's policy choices.
Background
In May 2014, the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja had banned jallikattu and bullock-cart racing, holding that these practices subjected animals to unnecessary pain and suffering in violation of the PCA Act and that animals possess rights protected under Articles 51A(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Following the ban, significant public protests erupted in Tamil Nadu in January 2017, demanding the restoration of jallikattu as a cultural practice integral to Tamil identity. In response, the Tamil Nadu legislature enacted an amendment to the PCA Act in January 2017, carving out an exception for jallikattu with regulatory safeguards. Karnataka and Maharashtra subsequently enacted similar amendments for kambala and bull-cart racing respectively. The Animal Welfare Board challenged these state amendments before the Supreme Court.
Key Holdings
The Constitution Bench determined the following:
State amendments constitutionally valid: The amendments enacted by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra were upheld as valid exercises of legislative power. The states possessed competence to amend the PCA Act within their territories, and the amendments represented a legitimate policy decision to balance cultural traditions with animal welfare.
No recognition of animal fundamental rights: The Court declined to recognise fundamental rights for animals under the Constitution. While acknowledging the duty to prevent cruelty under Article 51A(g), the Bench held that this duty does not translate into justiciable fundamental rights for animals that could override legislative choices.
Regulatory framework sufficient: The amendments did not simply permit unregulated animal sports but incorporated safeguards including veterinary inspections, limits on the number of participants, mandatory insurance, and penalties for violations. The Court held that this regulatory framework was sufficient to address animal welfare concerns.
Legislature's domain, not judiciary's: The Bench observed that policy choices regarding the balance between cultural heritage and animal welfare are for the legislature to make, not the judiciary. The Court explicitly stated it would not engage in "judicial adventurism" by substituting legislative wisdom.
Strict enforcement directed: While upholding the amendments, the Court directed District Magistrates and competent authorities to ensure strict compliance with all regulatory conditions, rules, and notifications governing the conduct of these events.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment resolves a near decade-long legal uncertainty around traditional animal sports in India. For practitioners advising state governments and cultural organisations, the ruling affirms that state legislatures can carve exceptions to central legislation on concurrent list subjects, provided the amendments receive Presidential assent and incorporate adequate regulatory safeguards.
The refusal to recognise animal fundamental rights is particularly significant for the animal rights litigation community. While the Nagaraja decision had moved in the direction of expanding the rights framework to include animals, this Constitution Bench has pulled back, confining animal protection to the statutory framework rather than elevating it to a constitutional right.
Practitioners should note that the enforcement direction is meaningful — the Court's validation is conditional on strict regulatory compliance. Violations of the conditions governing jallikattu, kambala, or bull-cart racing events remain actionable under the PCA Act and the respective state amendment rules. District authorities who fail to enforce these conditions may face judicial scrutiny.