{"id":5918,"date":"2025-11-11T00:08:45","date_gmt":"2025-11-10T18:38:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=5918"},"modified":"2025-11-11T00:26:44","modified_gmt":"2025-11-10T18:56:44","slug":"the-supreme-court-upholds-jallikattu-which-is-a-balance-of-culture-tradition-and-animal-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2025\/11\/11\/the-supreme-court-upholds-jallikattu-which-is-a-balance-of-culture-tradition-and-animal-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court upholds Jallikattu, which is a balance of culture, tradition, and animal rights"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Author:  Adv. Yogesh, pursuing my LL.M at Dayananda Sagar University, Bengaluru.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Introduction:\u00a0<\/strong><\/h5>\n
The debate over Jallikattu is one of the most heated legal issues in India. For millions of people in Tamil Nadu, it is a proud symbol of Tamil heritage, bravery, and identity. It is a cultural symbol that has been passed down through generations in rural areas. For some people, though, it is a symbol of animal cruelty and human insensitivity, as bulls are put through physical and mental pain for entertainment.<\/span><\/h5>\n
The Supreme Court’s historic decision in 2023 to uphold state amendments that allow Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, Kambala in Karnataka, and bullock-cart races in Maharashtra has once again sparked a national debate. But there is a deeper constitutional problem that goes beyond the heated emotions and political rhetoric: can cultural heritage be used to make exceptions to animal welfare laws?<\/span><\/h5>\n
The Court’s decision tries to answer this question by giving a more nuanced view of how India’s constitution balances compassion, culture, and federal autonomy.<\/span><\/h5>\n
Background: What led to the ban on Jallikattu?<\/b><\/h5>\n
The argument goes back to the 2014 case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, in which the Supreme Court banned Jallikattu and events like it. The Court said that bulls aren’t naturally aggressive, but they are often made to submit, get angry, or drunk for these kinds of events.<\/span><\/h5>\n
The Court made a big deal about a few important things:<\/span><\/h5>\n
    \n
  • \n
    Fighting sports are not good for performing bulls, either physically or mentally.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n
    The event broke Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act).\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n
    Article 51A(g) says that all citizens have a duty to show kindness to all living things.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
    This decision changed everything. It made animal welfare a constitutional value, which is in line with the Indian ethos of compassion. But the decision led to huge protests all over Tamil Nadu in 2017. For a lot of people, the ban was a blow to their regional pride and cultural identity. The Jallikattu protests quickly grew into one of the biggest youth movements in modern India, calling for the practice to be recognized as a cultural right by the government.<\/span><\/h5>\n
    State Response: Changing the Law<\/b><\/h5>\n
    Several state governments tried to find a middle ground in response to the public outcry: regulation instead of prohibition.<\/span><\/h5>\n
    Tamil Nadu\u2019s Legislative Approach<\/b><\/h5>\n
    Tamil Nadu took two important steps:<\/span><\/h5>\n
    1. The 2017 Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act<\/span><\/h5>\n
    2. The Rules for the Conduct of Jallikattu, 2017, to Stop Animal Cruelty<\/span><\/h5>\n
    These were meant to show that Jallikattu is a part of Tamil culture while also making sure that cruelty was kept to a minimum by using veterinarians, safety measures, and limits on how animals could be handled.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    Similar Measures in Other States<\/b><\/h5>\n
      \n
    • \n
      Karnataka<\/b> made Kambala (buffalo races) legal because they were important to farming and the community.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    • \n
      Maharashtra<\/b> brought back bullock-cart racing in a controlled way.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
      The states said that these laws didn’t get rid of the PCA Act; instead, they worked within its purpose by allowing regulated cultural events. The main argument for the constitution was that culture and heritage are things that the State can make laws about, according to the Concurrent List.<\/span><\/h5>\n
      What Did the Supreme Court Say in 2023?<\/b><\/h5>\n
      A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph upheld the legality of these State amendments in May 2023. The decision made Jallikattu and other similar activities legal again, but only with strict government oversight.<\/span><\/h5>\n
      The Court’s Most Important Findings<\/b><\/h5>\n
        \n
      1. \n
        No Conflict with the PCA Act \u2013 The changes made by the state do not break or replace the central law; instead, they add to it by regulating things in context.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
      2. \n
        Legislative Competence Upheld: Entry 17 of the Concurrent List gives states power over “prevention of cruelty to animals” and “animal husbandry.”<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
      3. \n
        The legislature is in charge of cultural assessment. It is not the job of the courts to decide if Jallikattu is part of Tamil cultural heritage.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
      4. \n
        Article 51A(g) Harmonized Caring for animals and respecting cultural traditions must go hand in hand; they cannot be separated.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
      5. \n
        The Constitution allows for a regulated framework as long as the state protects against cruelty and provides enough protections.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        The Court, on the other hand, made it clear that any act of cruelty that goes beyond what is allowed is still a crime. So, the judgment doesn’t give a blanket approval; it gives a conditional acceptance based on the balance of the Constitution.<\/span><\/h5>\n
        Understanding Jallikattu and Its Cultural Context<\/b><\/h5>\n
        Jallikattu, which comes from the Tamil words “Salli” (coins) and “Kattu” (tie), is a bull-taming sport that has been around for hundreds of years and is played during Pongal, the Tamil harvest festival. People try to grab the hump of a bull and hold on for a certain amount of time when they are let out into an open area. Tamers who do well get rewards and respect.<\/span><\/h5>\n
        Arguments in Favor<\/b><\/h5>\n
          \n
        • \n
          Cultural Continuity: It stands for Tamil pride, bravery, and the farming way of life.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
        • \n
          Breed Conservation: The role of native cattle breeds like Kangeyam in Jallikattu helps keep them alive.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
        • \n
          Rural Economy and Identity: The event brings people together and celebrates rural life.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
        • \n
          Regulation Possible: Supporters say that cruelty can be reduced by keeping an eye on animals, taking them to the vet, and treating them with kindness.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
          Arguments Against<\/b><\/h5>\n
            \n
          • \n
            Animal Cruelty: Bulls are hurt, scared, and stressed; reports show that they have their tails twisted, are forced to drink alcohol, or are physically abused.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
          • \n
            Injuries and Deaths: Both people who take part and people who watch often get hurt badly.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
          • \n
            Ethical Objections: People who don’t like it say it’s like old customs like sati or dowry, which were once seen as cultural practices.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
          • \n
            Breaking PCA Principles: Some people say that the event goes against the Act’s main goal, which is to stop unnecessary suffering.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
            Kambala and Other\u00a0Practices<\/b><\/h5>\n
            Kambala is an annual buffalo race that takes place on muddy paddy fields in coastal Karnataka. It used to be connected to farming rituals, but now it celebrates the success of farming and the pride of the people who live there. Supporters see it as a sign of life in the countryside, while opponents see it as an old-fashioned show that could upset animals.<\/span><\/h5>\n
            Bullock-cart racing in Maharashtra is also seen as an agricultural tradition. In all three states, the courts have said that regulation, not prohibition, is the way to go.<\/span><\/h5>\n
            Legal Framework: The 1960 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act<\/b><\/h5>\n
            The PCA Act of 1960 is still the most important law in India for protecting animals. It:<\/span><\/h5>\n
              \n
            • \n
              Defines \u201ccruelty\u201d and prohibits unnecessary suffering.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
            • \n
              Sets up the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
            • \n
              Sets rules for performances and experiments that use animals. \u2022 Sets punishments for breaking the rules.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
              The Supreme Court made it clear that the State amendments do not weaken the PCA Act; they work alongside it. They want to make sure that local customs work within reasonable limits and are always watched.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              Culture vs. Animal Rights: The Constitutional Balancing Act<\/b><\/h5>\n
              Culture and Animal Rights: The Constitutional Balancing Act. <\/span>The Jallikattu ruling is at the crossroads of cultural pluralism and constitutional morality. The Constitution of India protects both, but not completely.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              Value of the Constitution, Provision, and Importance <\/span>Safeguarding Culture Articles 29 and 30 protect the right to keep cultural practices and heritage.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              Being kind to animals Article 51A(g) says that people have to be kind to all living things.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              Legislative Competence Entry 17, Concurrent List: This lets states make laws about animal care and welfare.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              Article 48 of the Directive Principle on Humane Treatment says that animal husbandry should be done in a humane way <\/span>So, the problem isn’t a clash between “law and culture,” but between two constitutional commitments compassion and culture that are both trying to make India’s plural democracy work together.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              Judicial Philosophy: From Prohibition to Regulation<\/b><\/h5>\n
              The 2014 Nagaraja decision took a rights-based view of animals, treating them as living beings who deserve respect. The 2023 ruling didn’t disagree with that idea, but it did look at it from a federal and practical point of view.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              The Court said that in a country with a lot of different cultures and a democratic system, courts shouldn’t make decisions for the legislature unless there are clear violations of the Constitution. So, this decision was marked by judicial restraint, not judicial activism.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              It also shows how people’s understanding of constitutional morality is changing. Tradition isn’t automatically thrown out, but it has to change through humane reform.<\/span><\/h5>\n
              Effects and Consequences<\/b><\/h5>\n
              There are a number of important effects of the judgment:<\/span><\/h5>\n
                \n
              1. \n
                Cultural Legitimacy Restored: Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra can still hold traditional events as long as they follow the rules.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              2. \n
                Strengthening of Federal Balance: The Court made it clear again that States have the right to define and protect their own culture within the limits of the Constitution.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              3. \n
                Better animal welfare: The ruling requires strict rules, veterinary care, and punishments for cruelty.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              4. \n
                There may be future legal scrutiny: If new evidence comes to light that shows systemic cruelty, the Court still has the power to review or strike down the laws again.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                So, the ruling doesn’t mean full approval; it means that it will continue as long as the rules are followed.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                Important Thoughts<\/b><\/h5>\n
                The Supreme Court’s ruling is a smart way to balance different constitutional needs. It shows that the law is getting more mature and prefers conversation to dogma. Instead of enforcing moral absolutism, the Court put the responsibility on society and lawmakers to make sure that compassion and culture can live together.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                Critics, on the other hand, say that the ruling could weaken the precedent set by Nagaraja (2014) by putting cultural preservation ahead of animal rights. They say that symbolic regulation might not work in real life unless enforcement is strict and clear.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                Still, the ruling asks India to rethink culture as something that changes, not something that stays the same. It should be able to adapt to new values without losing its authenticity<\/span>.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                Ethical and Philosophical Aspects<\/b><\/h5>\n
                This case compels society to reevaluate its relationship with animals at a fundamental level. Can compassion and celebration exist together? Is it possible for heritage to change without being cruel?<\/span><\/h5>\n
                Indian philosophy, encompassing Ahimsa in Jainism and Sarvodaya in Gandhian ethics, advocates for coexistence rather than domination. The Supreme Court’s decision tries to bring back this balance by saying that real cultural pride should come from being kind, not from winning.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                Final\u00a0Thoughts<\/b><\/h5>\n
                The Jallikattu verdict is more than just a legal decision; it is a constitutional discussion about what India is all about, where diversity, empathy, and dignity must all come together. It understands that traditions don’t have to be thrown out to be kind; they can be changed and improved.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                The Court said that the duty of compassion under Article 51A(g) does not go away just because it’s tradition. They must both do well together in peace. It is possible that events like Jallikattu, Kambala, and others will continue, but they will only survive if ethics change.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                Now, it’s not the courts’ job to protect people from cruelty; it’s society’s job to make sure that heritage never becomes a shield for cruelty.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                Conclusion<\/b><\/h5>\n
                The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Jallikattu shows that law and culture can move forward together. It doesn’t praise the past or ignore moral duties. It instead sets a standard for how to balance India’s living traditions with its moral obligations.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                The message is deep: keeping traditions alive should never mean allowing cruelty. The Constitution says that compassion should be the basis of culture, where people and animals live together with respect.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                By accepting this vision, India moves closer to a future that is kind and respectful of its past without losing its humanity.<\/span><\/h5>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                Author:  Adv. Yogesh, pursuing my LL.M at Dayananda Sagar University, Bengaluru. Introduction:\u00a0 The debate over Jallikattu is one of the most heated legal issues in India. For millions of people in Tamil Nadu, it is a proud symbol of Tamil heritage, bravery, and identity. It is a cultural symbol that has been passed down through […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5033,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[85],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5918"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5918"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5918\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5923,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5918\/revisions\/5923"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5033"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}