Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (Jallikattu Reference), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016; (2023) 10 SCC 535, decided by a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India on 18 May 2023, upheld the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 permitting Jallikattu, and the corresponding Karnataka and Maharashtra amendments permitting Kambala and Bailgada Sharyat. The Court held the Amendments had received valid Presidential assent under Article 254(2), cured repugnancy with the central PCA Act, 1960, and that their regulatory safeguards adequately addressed the cruelty concerns in A. Nagaraja (2014). It is tested in CLAT, Judiciary Mains, and UPSC Law Optional.
Key Takeaways
- Tamil Nadu PCA Amendment, 2017 upheld; Jallikattu legally permitted under regulated framework.
- Karnataka (Kambala) and Maharashtra (Bailgada Sharyat) amendments also upheld.
- Article 254(2) Presidential assent cured repugnancy with the central PCA Act, 1960.
Case Fact Sheet
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Case name | Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (Jallikattu Reference) |
| Citation | W.P.(C) No. 23 of 2016; (2023) 10 SCC 535 |
| Neutral citation | — |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | 5-judge Constitution Bench |
| CJI-led | No |
| Judges | Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice C.T. Ravikumar |
| Judgment date | 18 May 2023 |
| Disposal | Allowed — State amendments upheld |
| Key statutes | Article 29(1); Article 51A(g)-(h); Article 254(2); Section 11 PCA Act; TN Amendment, 2017 |
| Judgment importance | Landmark |
Ratio in One Line
Ratio: A State amendment to a central law on a Concurrent List subject — here the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — that has received the President's assent under Article 254(2) validly cures repugnancy, and where the amendment introduces regulatory safeguards reasonably calibrated to minimise cruelty, it does not violate Articles 14 or 21; the non-justiciable Fundamental Duties under Articles 51A(g) and (h) cannot, standing alone, invalidate such legislation.
Statutes and Articles Invoked
| Statute / Article | Role in the Judgment |
|---|---|
| Article 29(1), Constitution of India | Cultural-rights argument — question left open |
| Article 51A(g) and (h), Constitution of India | Fundamental Duties on animals and scientific temper — held non-dispositive |
| Article 254(2), Constitution of India | Presidential-assent mechanism curing State-law repugnancy |
| Entry 17, List III (Concurrent List) | Subject-matter basis for both central PCA Act and State amendments |
| Section 11, PCA Act, 1960 | Cruelty offence under the central statute |
| PCA (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 | Principal statute under challenge — upheld |
| PCA (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 2017 | Implementing regulatory safeguards |
| Karnataka and Maharashtra PCA Amendments | Companion statutes — upheld on the same rationale |
Who decided this case?
Answer: Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (Jallikattu Reference) was decided by a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. The Bench delivered a unanimous judgment on 18 May 2023, allowing the writ petitions and upholding the State amendments. Justice Aniruddha Bose authored the principal opinion for the Bench.
| Role | Judge |
|---|---|
| Presiding | Justice K.M. Joseph |
| Member (authoring judge) | Justice Aniruddha Bose |
| Member | Justice Ajay Rastogi |
| Member | Justice Hrishikesh Roy |
| Member | Justice C.T. Ravikumar |
How did the case reach the Supreme Court?
Answer: After Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) prohibited Jallikattu, the Union issued a 2016 notification permitting regulated bull-taming, and Tamil Nadu enacted the PCA (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017. Writ petitions under Article 32 challenged both the 2016 notification and the State amendments. The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench in February 2018 and finally decided in May 2023.
| Stage | Forum | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 SC ban | Supreme Court of India | Jallikattu prohibited |
| 2016 MoEFCC | Union | Notification permitting restricted Jallikattu |
| 2017 TN statute | Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly | PCA Amendment with safeguards |
| Writ filing | Supreme Court of India | W.P.(C) 23/2016 and connected petitions |
| Reference | Supreme Court of India | Referred to 5-judge Bench (2 Feb 2018) |
| Final | Supreme Court of India | Amendments upheld (18 May 2023) |
What are the facts in brief?
Answer: The 2014 decision in A. Nagaraja had banned Jallikattu on the ground that the sport inherently inflicted cruelty under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Union issued a 2016 notification and Tamil Nadu passed the PCA (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, both permitting regulated Jallikattu. Parallel amendments in Karnataka (Kambala) and Maharashtra (Bailgada Sharyat) followed.
In Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, the petitioners — AWBI and PETA India — argued that the Amendments were colourable legislation seeking to overturn A. Nagaraja, that they violated Articles 14, 21 and 51A(g)-(h), and that the States lacked legislative competence under Entry 17. The States defended the Amendments on Article 29(1) cultural-rights grounds and on the strength of Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
What were the issues before the court?
Answer: The Constitution Bench in the Jallikattu Reference framed five core issues.
- Issue 1: Whether the PCA (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 is a valid exercise of State legislative power on a Concurrent List subject.
- Issue 2: Whether the Amendment is colourable legislation seeking to overturn A. Nagaraja (2014).
- Issue 3: Whether Presidential assent under Article 254(2) cures repugnancy with the central PCA Act, 1960.
- Issue 4: Whether Jallikattu is protected as a cultural practice under Article 29(1).
- Issue 5: Whether the Fundamental Duties in Articles 51A(g) and (h) can invalidate the Amendment.
What did the court hold?
Answer: In Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 535, the Bench unanimously upheld the Amendments.
- Holding 1: The PCA (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 is a valid exercise of State legislative power under Entry 17 of List III.
- Holding 2: Presidential assent under Article 254(2) cures the repugnancy between the State amendment and the central PCA Act, 1960.
- Holding 3: The Amendment is not colourable legislation — it legislatively alters the statutory regime that A. Nagaraja interpreted, which is constitutionally permissible.
- Holding 4: The regulatory safeguards in the Amendment and Rules — veterinary oversight, breed and venue controls, age and tasering prohibitions — adequately mitigate cruelty.
- Holding 5: Articles 51A(g) and (h) are non-justiciable and cannot, standing alone, invalidate otherwise-valid State legislation; the Article 29(1) cultural-rights question is left open.
Why is the Jallikattu Reference a landmark?
Answer: The Jallikattu Reference is a landmark because it authoritatively maps the interaction between Concurrent List legislation, Presidential assent under Article 254(2), judicial precedent, and Fundamental Duties. It demonstrates that legislatures can respond to judicial statutory interpretations by amending the statute itself, provided they comply with the Article 254(2) mechanism and embed reasonable safeguards. It also preserves — without finally deciding — the Article 29(1) cultural-rights question for future constitutional adjudication.
Exam Angle
This case is essential for CLAT, Judiciary Mains, UGC-NET Law, and UPSC Law Optional (Constitutional Law, Federalism, Current Affairs).
Sample MCQ
In Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (Jallikattu Reference) (2023), the Supreme Court held that —
(a) Jallikattu is per se unconstitutional and violates Article 21. (b) A. Nagaraja (2014) was overruled. (c) The Tamil Nadu Amendment, having received Presidential assent under Article 254(2) and containing regulatory safeguards, is constitutionally valid. (d) Articles 51A(g) and (h) are self-executing and invalidate the Amendment.
Answer: (c)
Sample descriptive question
"Discuss the interplay between Articles 254(2), 29(1) and 51A(g)-(h) in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (2023). Can legislatures legislatively override a Supreme Court statutory interpretation?" (Judiciary Mains — Constitutional Law, 15 marks)
Five facts to memorise
- Case: Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (Jallikattu Reference); Citation: (2023) 10 SCC 535.
- Bench: 5-judge Constitution Bench — Joseph, Rastogi, Bose, Roy, Ravikumar JJ.; Date: 18 May 2023.
- Core holding: State amendments upheld; Article 254(2) Presidential assent cured repugnancy; A. Nagaraja distinguished.
- Constitutional anchors: Articles 14, 21, 29(1), 51A(g)-(h), 254(2); Entry 17 List III.
- Companion cases upheld: Karnataka (Kambala) and Maharashtra (Bailgada Sharyat) amendments.
Syllabus mapping
| Exam | Where it appears |
|---|---|
| CLAT | Legal Reasoning — Constitutional Law; Current Affairs |
| Judiciary Prelims | Constitution — Fundamental Rights and Duties; Federalism |
| Judiciary Mains | Constitutional Law Paper — Articles 29, 51A, 254 |
| AIBE | Constitutional Law |
| UGC-NET Law | Paper II — Constitutional Law; Fundamental Rights |
| UPSC Law Optional | Paper I — Federalism, Repugnancy, Cultural Rights |
Related cases in the constitutional-law cluster
- Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 — 2014 ban on Jallikattu under PCA Act, 1960 (distinguished in this case).
- State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534 — animal slaughter and Article 19 limits.
- M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431 — repugnancy and Article 254 framework.
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 — cultural-religious practices and constitutional scrutiny.
Frequently asked questions
Did the Court decide whether Jallikattu is a "cultural right" under Article 29(1)?
No. The Bench expressly left open the question whether Jallikattu qualifies as a cultural practice of a section of the population under Article 29(1). The Amendments were upheld on repugnancy-cure and regulatory-adequacy grounds. Future petitions may revisit the Article 29(1) characterisation.
How does Article 254(2) operate to "cure" repugnancy?
Article 254(2) provides that a State law on a Concurrent List subject that is repugnant to a central law may nevertheless prevail in that State if it has received the assent of the President. The Tamil Nadu Amendment received such assent on 31 January 2017, permitting it to operate in Tamil Nadu despite the central PCA Act.
Can Parliament override the Amendment by re-amending the central PCA Act?
Yes. Article 254(2) also provides that Parliament may subsequently enact a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the State law. If the Union wishes to reassert a pan-India prohibition on Jallikattu, it can amend the central PCA Act and override the State regime.
Did the Court expressly approve the Kambala and Bailgada Sharyat practices?
Yes. The judgment expressly upheld the Karnataka Amendment (Kambala) and the Maharashtra Amendment (Bailgada Sharyat) on the same rationale — Presidential assent curing repugnancy plus regulatory safeguards. Organisers of these events must strictly comply with the respective Rules to avoid cruelty offences.
Is the 2023 judgment under review?
No review or curative petition against the 2023 Jallikattu Reference has been entertained by the Supreme Court. Animal-welfare organisations may seek legislative remedies through Parliament or revisit the Article 29(1) question in subsequent Article 32 proceedings, but the current framework stands.
Cross-references
- Practitioner guide: Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India — Practitioner Guide on Jallikattu and Article 254 — ratio decidendi, current statutory framework, practice implications.
- Glossary: repugnancy; cultural rights; fundamental duties.
Source
This article is produced from the Veritect AI Legal Database — Veritect's proprietary, authoritatively-verified corpus of Supreme Court of India judgments, curated with our legal-AI pipeline. The underlying decision is Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18 May 2023, reported at (2023) 10 SCC 535. Statutory text cross-referenced from India Code. This summary is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.