Context: Recently, Supreme Court has formed five-member Constitution Bench on petitions seeking to strike down Tamil Nadu law passed in 2017 that protects jallikattu. 

• It will soon deliver its verdict on the validity of Tamil Nadu’s law permitting the practice of jallikattu in the State.

• Supreme Court’s ban on jallikattu was imposed through a judgment in the Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja case.

Background, Objective & Origin of Petition

• A massive agitation erupted in 2017, demanding that the Central and State governments come up with a law that would annul the Supreme Court’s ban on jallikattu.

• It was imposed through a judgment in May 2014 in the Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja case. 

• Apart from demanding that the event be allowed again, the protesters had raised the issue of “redeeming Tamil identity and culture.” 

About Jallikattu 

History

• Jallikattu has been known to be practiced during the Tamil classical period (400-100 BCE).

• It was common among the Ayar people who lived in the ‘Mullai’ geographical division of ancient Tamil Nadu.

• Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport. 

• The festival is a celebration of nature, and thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest, of which cattle-worship is part.

• It is a violent sport: and there is only one winner, man or bull.

• Traditional event in which a bull such as the Pulikulam or Kangayam breeds is released into a crowd of people, and multiple human participants attempt to grab the large hump on the bull's back with both arms and hang on to it while the bull attempts to escape.

• Participants hold the hump for as long as possible, attempting to bring the bull to a stop.

• In some cases, participants must ride long enough to remove flags on the bull's horns.

Arguments in favour of Jalikattu

• It is a religious and cultural event for Tamil Nadu people and is sacrosanct to them.

• Cultural rights are protected under Article 29(1) of the Constitution- “Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same”.

• It is a century old practice and symbolism of a community’s identity loss of which can lead to loss of art and practices of the region.

• Banning will affect livelihoods of livestock keepers- It serves as a tool to conserve indigenous breed of livestock used in festival.

• The festival did not violate principles of compassion and humanity.

• There are chances for Bulls to be sent for slaughter due to ban.

Arguments against jallikattu

• It causes deaths and injuries caused to both humans and bulls.

• Under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960- over-shadows or overrides the tradition and culture.

• It is a form of “extreme cruelty” inflicted on the animals.

• There is no evidence to justify jallikattu as a part of culture.

• Animal cruelty-Bulls are beaten, poked, prodded, harassed and jumped on by numerous people.

• Bulls’ tails are bitten and twisted and their eyes and noses filled with irritating chemicals.

Significance

• Culture: It is about showcasing the quality of cattle, the breeding skills of cattle rearers, the centrality of cattle in an agrarian economy, and the power and pride they bring to farmers and land-owning castes in rural Tamil Nadu.

• Article 29(1): Governments at the state and Centre have wrestled with formulating a regulatory mechanism for Jallikattu, and a matter relating to whether Tamil Nadu can conserve it as a cultural right under Article 29(1) of the Constitution.

• Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

• Vaadivaasal: Perhaps the best guide to the cultural universe of Jallikattu is C S Chellappa’s brilliant novell, ‘Vaadivaasal’ (Arena), a slim volume written in the 1940s, with a handful of male characters and bulls.

Key Suggestion

• Any ban on such a practice would be viewed as “hostile to culture and against the sensitivities of the community.

• Any effort at securing animal welfare will have to be grounded in our own rights as human beings. 

• If such a reading of Article 21 allows for a kinder, more compassionate society, where animals are treated with dignity, it is perhaps the interpretation that the Supreme Court must prefer. 

• The court’s venture must be to independently construe Article 21, to see whether a finding that the right partakes freedom to live in a society free of animal cruelty fits with India’s larger constitutional design. 

• Lastly, How the court chooses to resolve the questions posed to it could come to have a deep bearing on the future of animal rights and safety in our country.

Conclusion

• Tradition and culture are not immune to change and in this context, both the Court as well as the Governments at the Union and State levels must work towards reaching a consensus that balances out the cultural and ecological concerns associated with the practice of Jallikattu.