CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-1

PSDA

Submitted by

Mahira Saraf

Enrolment no.-35617703821

Semester-3

Section-A

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Pitampura, Delhi-110034

​2022
 Petioner-2 (Issues 3&4)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-1 PSDA MOOT COURT 2023.

IN THE MATTER OF

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD ………………….APPELLANT

V.

UNION OF INDIA ………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.

Issue 1- The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the cultural
heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment
Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of the people of the State of
Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of
India?

In 2017, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly enacted an Act to amend the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, permitted the conduct of
‘Jallikattu’ so as to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu and
to ensure the survival and wellbeing of the native breeds of bulls. This act was
passed with the assent of the President of India. Similarly, in 2009, the Tamil
Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act was enacted, according to which, the owners
of the bulls must bring the bulls participating in the event before the Authorities
of the Animal Husbandry Department to obtain a certification of the bulls not
being intoxicated or drugged. It also stated that only one bull must be allowed at
one time in the arena during the event and that no bull should participate more
than once in the same event. The Act was then declared void by the Supreme
Court of India in 2014 stating that The Statement of Objects and reasons of the
TNRJ Act refers to ancient culture and tradition and does not state that it has
any religious significance. Even the ancient culture and Tradition do not support
the conduct of Jallikattu or bullock cart race, in the form in which they are being
conducted at present. Welfare and the well being of the Bull is Tamil culture and
tradition, they do not approve of infliction of any pain or suffering on the bulls,
on the other hand, Tamil tradition and culture are to worship the bull and the
bull is always considered as the vehicle of Lord Shiva. Yeru Thazhuvu, in Tamil
tradition, If to embrace bulls and not overpower the bull, to show human
bravery. Jallikattu means silver or gold coins tied to the bull's horns and in olden
days those who got at the money to the bull's horns would marry the daughter of
the owner. Jallikattu or the bullock cart race, as practised now, has never been
the tradition of cultüre of Tamil Nadu.1
The Court, in N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, while examining
the scope of Articles 25(1), 26 (a), 26(b), 17, 14 and 21, hold as follows- “Any
custom or usage irrespective of even any proof of their existence in
pre-constitutional days cannot be countenanced as a source of law to claim any
rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity. social equality and the
specific mandate of the Constitution and law made by Parliament. No usage
which is found to be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of the law of
the land or opposed to public policy or social decency can be accepted or upheld
by courts in the country.”2

Therefore, as per the Supreme Court’s established judgements, the event of

1
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
2
N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2002) 8 SCC 106
ISSUE 2- Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to ensure
the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls? Is the Act, in pith and
substance, relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India?

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is applied when the subject matter of List I
of the Seventh Schedule is in conflict with the subject matter of List II. The
reason behind adopting this doctrine is that otherwise every law will be declared
invalid on the ground that it encroaches upon the subject matter of another
sphere. The doctrine examines the true nature and substance of the legislation in
order to determine which List it belongs to. In the given case, the Respondents
are of the view that the conduct of ‘Jallikattu’ preserves the native breed of
bulls, the cause of conservation of a native breed of cattle is addressed by the
continuous conduct of these events. However, considering ‘Jallikattu’ to be a
legitimate practice would legitimise cruelty against animals and would have a
serious impact on Right to Life. Article 21 of the Constitution, while
safeguarding the Rights of humans, protects life and the word "life” has been
given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment,
which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessarily for
human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as
animals are concerned, in our view, "life" means something more than mere
survival or existence or instrumental value for human beings, but to lead "a life
with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. Animals' well-being and welfare
have been statutorily recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and the
rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and
the right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary
pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 of
the PCA Act read with Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get food,
shelter is also a guaranteed right under sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the
rules framed thereunder, especially when they are domesticated. The right to
dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but
to animals as well. The right, not to be beaten, kicked, overridden, overloaded is
also a right recognised by Section 11 read with Section 3 of the PCA Act.
Animals also have a right against human beings not to be tortured
and against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. Penalty, for violation of
those rights are insignificant, since laws are made by humans Punishment
prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence,
hence being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the
Act, hence the necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who
fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under
the PCA Act. 3

Article 48 which comes under the Directive Principles of the State Policy
provides for the organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry. The Article
specially mentions the preservation, improvisation of breeds, and prevention of
cow slaughter, calves, and other milch animals. Article 51-A(g) states that it
shall be the duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures. In State of
Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, the Supreme Court held that
by enacting Article 51-A(g) and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one
of the objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and
message of Articles 48 and 48-A are met. 4

3
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
4
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534