Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
JALLIKATTU WAS
APPOSED BY THE SUPEAM COURT
Submitted
To
Prof. Mr. ANUSHMAN SING
BY:
Keerthi nesan.s
IIyear,B.Com.,
LL.B (Hons)
(Reg
no: BC0140030 )
Declaration
I, S.keerthi nesan do hereby declare that the project entitled THE
JALLIKATTU WAS APPOSED BY THE SUPEAM COURT submitted
to Tamil Nadu National law school in partial fulfillment of requirement of
award of degree in undergraduate in law is a record of original work done
by me under the supervision and guidance of Professor Mr. ANUSHMAN
SING department of JURISH PROTENCE , Tamil Nadu National law school
and has not formed basis for award of any degree or diploma or fellowship
or any other title to any candidate of any university.
KEERTHINESAN.S
B.Com.,LL.B
( Hons )
Certificate
This is to certify that the project entitled THE JALLIKATTU WAS
APPOSED BY THE SUPEAM COURT submitted to Tamil Nadu National
law school in partial fulfillment of requirement of award of degree of
under graduate in Law done by KEERTHI NESAN.S under the
supervision and guidance of Professor Mr. ANUSHMAN SING,
department of JURISH PROTENCE, Tamil Nadu National Law School.
Place :Tiruchirappalli
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research Methodology
After the central government lifted the ban on 'Jallikattu', there has been a lot of outcry
from animal rights activists. First off, I am what you call a 'vegan' (actually, I'm a wannabe
fruitarian) and I'm being one not because of religious reasons, but of moral reasons. I too
rescue, adopt animals and fight for their rights and I strongly believe that humans should not
enslave or treat them bad for any reason, yet! I support Jallikattu and am against banning it.
I know this could be quite confusing because a person with this 'animal rights activist' profile
will usually be associated with organizations like PETA, Blue Cross and would be totally
against using animals for entertainment. So allow me to first clear up some misconceptions
about Jallikattu and then I'll explain why Jallikattu should not be banned. Let me start with
the origins of this tradition. There are many theories about Jallikattu's origins, but I'm gone
tell you the one which we all learned from our history. It goes something like this: Before
tractors came and messed up our fields, we used bulls to plough the land. Before the
ploughing and seeding season starts, the bulls will be allowed to mate with the cows (only
then they would be somewhat docile. Then they'll start working hard ploughing the land.
pouch (kattu). This is how it all began. There's no cruel intentions here, no weapon, no
blood. But on the course of time, when tractors replaced our bulls, this cycle of letting the
bull free and catching it back got interrupted, and worse, both the bulls and the art of bull
catching started to go extinct. Hence, as an antidote this art of catching bulls was
transformed into a tradition (or a sport) called 'Jallikattu' which saved both the bulls & this
art from going extinct.
'Jallikattu is a cruel sport in which the bulls are tortured & killed'
First of all, this is not like the western bull 'FIGHTING' in which the objective of the sport is to
dominate, torture & kill the animal. In Jallikattu, the objective is to obtain the 'Jallikattu' a
pouch which contains the reward coins called 'Jalli' tied to the horns of the bulls. And the guy
who manages to cuddle the bull enough to remove & obtain this pouch, wins. The animal
hardly spends 20-30 seconds in the arena.
While the players are NOT allowed to carry weapons of any kind or wear protective gears,
the bulls on the other hand will not have nose rings or ropes. Plus, they're equipped with a
pair of sharp horns which can gore a human within seconds. So it's actually the bull which
has the upper hand in this match.
The objective of the bull is just to escape these players and cross the exit line, which most of
them does easily. But some of them would like to match up. They stop, turn around and
charge at the players to show who's the boss. And our players will use their experience,
skills and most of all their 'guts' to try and tackle the bull. BOTH the animal and the human
are well aware of the game and hence THIS IS A FAIR SPORT, unlike hunting or horse racing
where the animal has no idea of what's going on.
Even after all this, if these animal activists still want to ban Jallikattu, I'm all up for that too!
BUT! Here's what should get done before banning Jallikattu :
ONLY after you've done all the above, is there any right to talk to about banning Jallikattu. I
wonder how many of these 'animal activists' even know about the differences
between indigenous and western breeds., they're are just keyboard activists who are
emotionally manipulated by organizations like PETA.
In your tamil nadu peoples are waiting eagerly to continue this tradition
This interview shows negative aspects of the sport and supports the ban.
1.)What is your opinion about the Jallikattu notification, considering that the case may still
go back to court? Is the notification by the centre allowing the practice to continue legally
tenable?
There is a review petition pending in the case. The judgment by the Supreme Court invoked
Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Animal Welfare Board strongly
argued the case and the court decided that that the sport violated the law. The judgement
was well argued and detailed, taking all aspects of the arguments into consideration.
This notification seeks to put some restrictions on the conduct of Jallikattu. But the issuance
of such an order is itself tenuous. The Supreme Court has given its verdict and this order by
the executive is tenuous.
Has the executive overreached in passing this order going against the
judiciary?
The legislature has powers to overturn any order of the Supreme Court. But the executive
passing an order to do it is too much. Ideally the government should have passed legislation
in Parliament citing customary practices and traditions, thereby removing issues in the
Supreme Court order. The government could have imposed much stricter regulations on
Jallikattu and allowed the sport to continue. That is called a Validation Act. That would have
been a more decent way to seek to change an order of the Supreme Court. Passing an
executive order is not.
Every institution is losing its sanctity. Why cant you do it in a proper way? There are three
options before the government if they wanted to overturn a Supreme Court order: One) file a
review petition, two) file an interlocutory application in the disposal of matter or three) get a
Validation Act passed through Parliament.
The Opposition is not making an issue of it, though. And taking the Parliament route might
have been a lengthy process.
Parliament will not do it. This is an election year. You can already see how muted the
reaction is to this order by the executive. Everyone will be happy now, even if the case goes
back to court and the court stays Jallikattu. They can always blame the court for it later.
The government can think along the lines of allowing some sports like horse racing and
dog shows are allowed with stringent restrictions. The sport of Jallikattu itself can be
modified to an extent where it can be done in a dignified way. No one will object to
modifying the way Jallikattu is conducted.There is a slightly unreal quality broken out after
the Supreme Court stayed the Centres January 7 notification lifting the ban on jallikattu
(bull-taming) and bullock cart racing. Traditionally held during the harvest season, especially
Pongal, in Tamil Nadu, these sports have been banned for the last four years as they were
deemed to be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Ironically, while the ban was in force, we did not see jallikattu become such a big issue in
Tamil Nadu. There was no talk of the affront to Tamil pride on primetime television, no
vociferous show of political unanimity in the state on the need to reinstate this longestablished, but patently cruel, cultural practice.
Dump Archaic Traditions
With the assembly polls a few months away, Jayalalitha seems to have decided that she
needs to give jallikattu as a Pongal gift to the people
Any blood sport, or a form of it involving brutality should be condemned as its a show of
violence and power
No merit in the argument that just because the sport has been practised for centuries, it
must be allowed to continue
The Supreme Court has taken the right decision by putting brakes on the governments
attempt to revoke the ban on the sport
Electoral Sop?
Indeed, the government the state and the Centre could have simply let sleeping dogs
(or, bulls) lie and not raked up the matter. But governments do strange things when
elections are near and people need to be wooed with all manner of sops. With the Tamil
Nadu assembly polls a few months away Chief Minister, J. Jayalalitha seems to have decided
that she needs to make a Pongal gift of jallikattu to her people.
Jallikattu has been known to be practiced during the Tamil classical period.It was common
among the ancient tribes who lived in the Mullai geographical division of the ancient Tamil
country. The event often results in major injuries and deaths with over 200 deaths over the
past two decades. Animal activists and PETA India have protested against the practice over
the years. Along with human injuries and fatalities, the bulls themselves often sustain
serious injuries.
Sensing a potential electoral bulls eye, the NDA government quickly chimed in, falling over
itself to facilitate the AIADMK leaders plan. And all at once, jallikattu whether to be or not
to be is at front and centre of the national discourse, with many claiming that its intrinsic
to Tamil identity. This despite the fact that the sport is practiced only in certain southern
parts of the state.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Centre's notification lifting ban on controversial
bull taming sport Jallikattu during the festival of Pongal in Tamil Nadu."As an interim
measure, we direct that there shall be stay of notification dated January 7, 2016 issued by
Ministry of Environment and Forest (Mo EF)," a bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and
NV Ramana said.
Cruelty to Animals
However, animal rights activists point out that cruelty to the animals is inherent to the sport.
The bulls are goaded and tortured they are punched and stabbed, disoriented with
alcohol, their tails twisted to get them into the arena where excited young men collect
around them, hold on to their humps and tame the terrified creatures.
Indeed, to say that tough rules are in force now to prevent animals being abused, is like
saying you can make an omelets without breaking an egg. Any blood sport, or a form of it,
involves brutality. Its a show of violence and power man over man, man over animal. The
deadly gladiatorial combats of ancient Rome, the bullfights of Spain, Portugal and parts of
Latin America, foxhunts of the UK, boar hunts of France, the bloody cockfights in many parts
of rural India, and yes, even the oh-so-bloodless jallikattu, are all occasions to experience
that frisson of thrill, danger and triumph at the spectacle of the powerful getting the better
of the one less so.
Unfortunately, the thrill comes at a cost. It involves killing or brutalizing the animals who
must submit themselves to satisfying mans bloodlust, his lust for making a statement of his
valor and machismo.
Sports Versus Brutalization
As early as 1835, the British banned bearbaiting, cockfighting, and dog fighting. It was felt
that these three blood sports were bad for the people as they excited their worst instincts
and spurred them to drink and violence. It wasnt until 2004 that foxhunts, that elite sport
of the British gentry, was finally banned in the UK. In 2010, bullfights were banned in the
Catalonia region of Spain. I had an occasion to witness a bullfight in Madrid some years ago.
No doubt I am ignorant of the arcane skills of Matadors but to me, the entire spectacle
seemed less a fight and more a bloody and ruthless slaughter of the bulls
Banning a traditional sport that brutalizes animals is always a fraught issue. It took years of
campaigning and a furious nationwide debate to get foxhunts outlawed in Britain. Spain is
river in two over bullfights, with Catalonia banning it, and the rest of the country clinging on
to what it considers to be its iconic sport. So it is natural that jallikattu will be similarly
debated.
However, there is no merit in the argument that just because the sport has been practised
for centuries, it must be allowed to continue. By that token, no unjust or abhorrent social
custom could ever be done away with. Our laws recognize the rights of animals. Jallikattu, no
matter how hallowed a tradition in some areas of Tamil Nadu, is a violation of those rights.
The Supreme Court has taken the right decision by putting the brakes on the governments
attempt to revoke the ban on the sport. Instead of trying to whip it up into an electoral issue,
J.Jayalalithaa should back off and allow jallikattu to pass into history.
The following paper shows the jurisprudential aspects of this case. Its called Animals and
Law: Property, Cruelty and Rights. It is therefore important for all people who are affected by
animals- which is, of course, virtually everyone- to know something about how the law treats
animals. If the law precludes appropriate ways of thinking about animals, we ought to know
about it so that the law can be changed. On the other hand, if the law's general approach to
animals is sound, the existing legal apparatus may provide a useful foundation for treating
animals fairly.
His information is placed in historical context. Some readers will find this history surprising,
even if they (wisely) begin with the view that the law can work in strange ways and does not
always reflect reason, morality, or common sense.
decent treatment of animals. Some blame the law for much of what they consider to be
unethical behavior toward animals.
The law's view of animals is not hopelessly manipulative and heartless. Indeed, fundamental
legal con cepts relating to animals provide considerable moral space.1 This space allows for
some inappropriate treatment of animals, but it is also consistent with excellent treatment of
animals. If people have too often treated animals poorly, that is usually not the law's fault,
but their own. To blame fundamental legal concepts relating to animals for bad treatment of
animals will therefore prove as unproductive as it is historically inaccurate.
ANIMALS AS PROPERTY
The Popular Definition of pear to understand by the term in ordinary discourse. Many people
seem to conceive of property as something that belongs to one and over which one has
complete control, to the absolute exclusion of anyone else
Blackstone applied this notion of absolute and exclusive control to the concept of "chattel"
or personal property. He listed typical forms of such chattel over which their owners
supposedly have absolute dominion. Included in this list are animals.
In Tamil nadu peoples opinion the supreme court want to allow permission to contact the
bull claiming game in Tamil nadu , your young blood is in very high blood boiling we are
waiting eagerly ,
And in my point of you I also 18 ago to wait for eagerly to participate the Tamil tradition
game , I also so my brothers braveness show to my mother land .
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court judgment is wrong to judge they were not analyzed properly , hind
feelings of the jallikattu celebration , The but peta was won the case with out thinking of
human feelings and they dont know about the jallikattu. The parliament frame the law only for
tamilnadu to do jallikattu on respected day with certain rules because it is traditional to Tamil history it 4 to 5
thousands of year . the Supreme Court permitted the Goverment of Tamilnadu to allow Jallikattu for on that month
in a year and directed the District collectors to make sure that the animals that participate in Jallikattu are registered
to the Animal Welfare Board and in return the Board would send its representative to monitor over the event. An age
old tradition cannot be banned citing some odd cases. Steps must be taken to enforce strict rules and regulate the
event. With over 4000 years of recorded history, it is one of the oldest sport in the world. The farmer is based on this
jallikattu banning is has sale his bull in very cheap for beef. The 5000 years old tradition sports has ban it against
the cultural rights. Where the animal welfare board of India only focused the bull sport but they left the horse race,
elephant cruelty they not banned it. Where banning jallikattu it affect the milk production. So the SC have to redo
the judgement give life to culture.