The Constitution Bench of 2023, and What Survives of Nagaraja

In one line

Nine years after A. Nagaraja, five judges upheld the State amendments that reversed it, and a student who stops at 2014 states the law backwards.

In exam wording: in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016, judgment of 18 May 2023 by a Constitution Bench of K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar JJ., the Court upheld the amendments made by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 in their application to those States, permitting jallikattu, bullock-cart racing and kambala; held that with Presidential assent there was no flaw in the State action; held that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is relatable to Entry 17 of List III and not to Article 48; held that it does not violate Articles 14 or 21 and is not contrary to Articles 51A(g) or 51A(h); and held that it is not directly contrary to the ratio in A. Nagaraja because the defects identified there have been overcome by the Amendment Act read with the Rules made under it.

How the question came back

A. Nagaraja, decided 7 May 2014, held the Tamil Nadu Act of 2009 repugnant to the central Act and void under Article 254(1). A review petition was dismissed on 16 November 2016.

Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka then amended the central Act in its application to their States. That is the crucial procedural fact. A State legislature may make a law on a Concurrent List subject that is repugnant to a central law, and under Article 254(2) that law prevails in the State if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent. Each of the three amendments took that route.

The Karnataka amendment inserted a sub-section into section 3 permitting kambala and bullock or bullock-cart races subject to conditions. The Maharashtra amendment inserted sub-sections permitting a bullock-cart race with the prior permission of the Collector, on conditions, with a punishment of a fine up to five lakh rupees or imprisonment up to three years for breach.

The challenge went to a Constitution Bench of five judges.

What the Court decided

Presidential assent cures the repugnancy. With the assent obtained under Article 254(2), the Court found no flaw in the State action. Jallikattu as a bovine sport has to be isolated from the manner in which it was earlier practised, and organising the sport is permissible in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules.

The Amendment Act is not relatable to Article 48. The Court held that in pith and substance the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not directed to ensuring the survival and well-being of native breeds of bulls, and is not relatable to Article 48, which requires the State to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. Its incidental impact may fall on a breed of bulls and affect agricultural activities, but in pith and substance it is relatable to Entry 17 of List III, prevention of cruelty to animals.