Jallikattu can’t be culture just because some people call it so, SC told

Express News Service

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court was told on Tuesday that bull-taming sport jallikattu and bullock cart races cannot be a culture just because a group of citizens calls it so and this has been adopted by the legislature. 

“Mere activity or an assertion cannot be said to be culture just because the legislature has adopted it,” senior advocate Siddharth Luthra told a five-judge bench headed by Justice KM Joseph.

Luthra said that when the Constitution recognises prevention of cruelty to animals, it means the Constitution recognises the right of animals and the amendments passed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra must be read in consonance with Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights.

“There’s (the) doctrine or principle of necessity. That exception cannot be treated on a par or as a sport for the purpose of human enjoying. When the legislation and legislative entry talks about prevention of cruelty and amending act perpetuates cruelty, the two cannot go together,” Luthra added.

For the petitioners, senior advocate Shyam Divan added that the amendment acts were contrary to the separation of power, and said issues regarding jallikattu had attained finality in the A Nagaraj judgment.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court was told on Tuesday that bull-taming sport jallikattu and bullock cart races cannot be a culture just because a group of citizens calls it so and this has been adopted by the legislature. 

“Mere activity or an assertion cannot be said to be culture just because the legislature has adopted it,” senior advocate Siddharth Luthra told a five-judge bench headed by Justice KM Joseph.

Luthra said that when the Constitution recognises prevention of cruelty to animals, it means the Constitution recognises the right of animals and the amendments passed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra must be read in consonance with Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights.

“There’s (the) doctrine or principle of necessity. That exception cannot be treated on a par or as a sport for the purpose of human enjoying. When the legislation and legislative entry talks about prevention of cruelty and amending act perpetuates cruelty, the two cannot go together,” Luthra added.

For the petitioners, senior advocate Shyam Divan added that the amendment acts were contrary to the separation of power, and said issues regarding jallikattu had attained finality in the A Nagaraj judgment.