Issue(s)

Whether events like Jallikattu, bullock-cart races, etc. violate the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act), in particular Sections 3 and 11.

Whether the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (TNRJ Act) is constitutionally valid or repugnant to the PCA Act.

Whether the rights under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act (and principles under Articles 51A(g) & (h)) can be considered as rights of animals that cannot be
abrogated by state legislation.

What interim regulatory safeguards should be imposed pending final adjudication.

Rule(s)

Statutory law: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

Section 3 imposes a duty on persons having custody of animals to take “all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of the animal” and prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

Section 11 prohibits certain cruel acts toward animals, including causing unnecessary pain or suffering, mutilation, or forcing animals to fight, among other restrictions.

Section 22 gives the Central Government power to make rules to regulate use, exhibition, etc., of performing animals.

Constitutional provisions & principles

Article 51A(g) & (h) (Fundamental Duties) impose a duty upon citizens to have compassion for living creatures and protect the environment.

The judgment also frames the PCA Act as a welfare legislation, which is to be liberally construed in favour of weaker parties (i.e., animals) in case of ambiguity.

The rule of legislative repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution: if a State law is repugnant to a Union law, the union law prevails.

The power to frame rules and regulatory oversight may be read into the parent statute, and rules made under a statute must be treated as integral to it (i.e. judicial notice of rules).

Judicial principles and prior doctrine

In welfare statutes, courts should ensure that the benefits of the statute are not defeated by technicalities or narrow construction.

The notion that animals, though not persons under the Constitution, can be beneficiaries of statutory rights, i.e. when human agents enforce them.

The court must balance cultural traditions/customs vs. statutory mandates; tradition cannot justify violation of a valid statutory prohibition.

Application / Analysis

Application of Sections 3 and 11 to Jallikattu / bullock-cart races
The court accepted that bulls used in such events are “performing animals” under Section 21 of the PCA Act (classification not seriously disputed).

However, although classification as performing animals is permissible, the organizers often fail to comply with the statutory safeguards required under
Section 22 and the prohibitions of Section 11.

The court reviewed significant evidence (affidavits, reports, photographs) of cruelty inflicted on animals in preparation and during the events: mutilation
(ear‐cutting, tail twisting), use of irritants in eyes/nose, overcrowding, lack of food/water, forcing unnatural movement, injuries, deaths, etc.

The court held that even if the animals are used for performance, they cannot be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering. The manner in which Jallikattu and bullock‐cart races have been organized in many cases violates the  coreprohibitions of Section 11.

The court also stressed that the obligations under Section 3 are mandatory and not discretionary, thus the duty‐bearers (owners, organizers) must ensure welfare and minimize suffering.

Validity of TNRJ Act (2009) vis-à-vis the PCA Act
The Supreme Court treated the TNRJ Act (Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 )as supplemental, not substitutive, to the PCA Act. The TNRJ cannot
override the protections in the PCA Act.

The court found that the High Court’s validation of the TNRJ Act was flawed as the TNRJ provisions were inconsistent with the mandatory safeguards under

Sections 3/11 of the PCA Act.

The TNRJ Act was held to be repugnant to the PCA Act insofar as it permits practices that contravene Sections 3 and 11. Under Article 254(1), the union law
(PCA Act) prevails.

The State Act could not override the Central Act’s core protective scheme.

On rights of animals & enforceability

The court declined to hold that animals have fundamental rights under the Constitution, noting that such a step would amount to judicial overreach.

However, the court treated the duties under the PCA Act as giving rise to statutory protections for animals which cannot be alienated by state statute, i.e. those protections cannot be legislatively overridden in a way that violates the PCA Act.

The judgment emphasizes that the constitutional scheme (especially Article 51A(g)/(h)) supports an interpretative framework in favour of protecting animals.

Interim regulatory framework (directions pending final decision)

Because the appeals were pending and the Jallikattu season was imminent, the court fashioned interim directions:

• Every animal participating must be registered under Chapter V of the PCA Act and comply with statutory conditions.
• District Collectors must approve events (e.g. at least a month’s notice to the Collector).
• Collectors should notify the Animal Welfare Board so that observers can be sent.
• Organisers of “major” events (especially those with prior fatalities) must deposit an elevated compensation fund (at least Rs. 5 lakhs) for victims.
• All statutory, regulatory and safety conditions must be strictly complied with; events may proceed only under these safeguards.

Judicial balancing of tradition vs statutory protection

The court acknowledged that Jallikattu and related events have cultural importance and historical roots.

But it held that tradition or custom cannot justify violation of a valid statutory protection. If an event as practiced inflicts cruelty, the statute must prevail.

The court observed that even the ancient cultural traditions did not authorize the excessive cruelty observed in modern practice; the manner of conduct matters.

Conclusion (Held / Ratio)

The Supreme Court affirmed that animals, especially bulls used in performances, are entitled to the protections under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act.

The court struck down or read down the TNRJ Act insofar as its provisions are inconsistent with those protections, holding that the State Act cannot override the Central Act under Article 254.

It declared that rights guaranteed under Sections 3 and 11 (together with the directive duty under Articles 51A(g)/(h)) cannot be taken away or curtailed by
state legislation if inconsistent with the PCA Act.

It enjoined that events such as Jallikattu or bullock-cart races may only proceed under strict regulatory safeguards as outlined in interim directions.

The court did not hold that animals have constitutional fundamental rights, but it left open that statutory rights may evolve.

The judgment’s ratio is that statutory protections for animals in a welfare statute cannot be abrogated by state legislation in breach of the statute; tradition does not justify cruelty where it conflicts with statutory norms.