A. Nagaraja: The Rights of Animals

In one line

The Supreme Court held that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 confers rights on animals, that entertainment is not a defence, and that a State law permitting jallikattu was void.

In exam wording: in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014, judgment of 7 May 2014 by K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose JJ., the Court held that sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 confer no right on the organisers of jallikattu or a bullock-cart race but impose duties and confer corresponding rights on animals; that entertainment, exhibition and amusement are not among the statutory exceptions and cannot be claimed under any doctrine of necessity; that those provisions must be read with the fundamental duty in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution to have compassion for living creatures, which the Court described as the magna carta of animal rights; that the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act 2009 was repugnant to the central Act and void under Article 254(1); and that the notification of 11 July 2011 under section 22 of the central Act was valid.

The facts

Jallikattu is an event in which bulls are released into a crowd and men attempt to hold on to them. Bullock-cart races were organised in Maharashtra.

Three legal instruments were in play. The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act 2009 purported to regulate the event. A notification of 11 July 2011 issued under section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 prohibited the exhibition and training of bulls as performing animals. And sections 3 and 11 of the central Act imposed the general duty and defined cruelty.

The Madras High Court allowed the event to proceed. The Bombay High Court did not. Both matters, with a writ petition, came to the Supreme Court.

What the Court decided

Sections 3 and 11 confer rights on animals. The Court held that those sections confer no right on the organisers but impose duties, responsibilities and obligations, and confer corresponding rights on animals. All living creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live peacefully and to protect their well-being, which encompasses protection from beating, kicking, over-driving, over-loading, torture, pain and suffering.

Entertainment is not an exception. Section 11(3) lists the exempted categories, and entertainment, exhibition and amusement are not among them. They cannot be claimed as a matter of right under any doctrine of necessity. The Court noted that section 28 favours killing an animal in a manner required by the religion of a community, and that no comparable saving exists for entertainment.

Article 51A(g) is the constitutional anchor. Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (o) and the related provisions have to be understood and read with Article 51A(g), which casts a fundamental duty on every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. The Court described that clause as the magna carta of animal rights, and read Article 51A(h), the duty to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform, alongside it. It relied for that reading on an earlier decision of the Court on Article 51A(g), State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, which had held that by enacting the clause and giving it the status of a fundamental duty Parliament sought to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48A are honoured as a duty of every citizen. That decision has not been read for this book and is therefore named without a report citation.