K. Muniasamythevar vs Dy. Superintendent of Police and Another

R. Banumathi, J.—The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from interfering with the conducting of Bullock

Cart Race in connection with the ''Maha Kumbhabishegam'' Festival of Sree Nondi Karuppanasamy, Sree Ayyanar, Sree Peria Karuppanasamy,

Sree Muneeswarar Kovil, Thaniankoottam Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

Case of the petitioner could briefly be stated thus:

The petitioner is the Vice President of Karisalkulam Panchayat in Ramanathapuram District. It is stated that in Sree Nondi Karuppanasamy, Sree

Ayyanar, Sree Peria Karuppanasamy, Sree Muneeswarar Kovil, Temple, ''Maha Kumbhabishegam'' Festival is conducted and the two days

Festival is scheduled on 3-4-2006 and 4-4-2006. Village people are said to have arranged for a Bullock Cart Race (Rekla Race) in connection

with the ''Maha Kumbhabishegam''.

According to the petitioner, the Rekla Race is customary and hereditary function and has deep rooted religious sentiments. The Bullock Cart

Owners from the Petitioner''s village and neighbouring villages would participate in the rare and race is said to have been conducted in the village

for more than 75 years. It is also stated that the bullocks participating in the race are given proper food and are capable of running effectively

throughout the race. It is also alleged that the Respondent Police have no authority to stop or to interfere with the Temple festival and the Cart

Race. The petitioner is said to have made representations on 20-3-2006 seeking the permission of the Respondents. But the Respondents did not

pass any orders. Hence, the petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from interfering with the conducting of the

Bullock Cart Race in connection with ''Maha Kumbhabishegam'' Festival.

The learned Counsel for petitioner has submitted that conducting of Rekla Race is customary and hereditary function and is being conducted in

the village for more than 75 years. It is further submitted that the Rekla Race is being conducted in various Districts of Tamil Nadu every year and

the Tamil Nadu Government Tourism and Development Corporation is also conducting the Bullock Cart Race every year to attract tourists. In

support of his contention, the learned Counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to a similar order passed by Justice F. M. Ibrahim

Kalifulla in W.P. MD No. 401/2004.

The learned Government Advocate has resisted the Petition and placed the Circular (dated 28-2-2006) issued by the District Police and

submitted that the Bullock Cart Races and Bull fights had been already prohibited by the Bombay High Court and hence permission cannot be

granted for conducting Rekla Race and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.

Pamphlet issued on account of ''Maha Kumbhabishgam'' Festival announces the Rekla Race - Bullock Cart Race as under:

(Vernacular text omitted.)

It is also seen from the Pamphlet that three Rekla Races are scheduled to be held as under:

(Vernacular text omitted.)

Thus it is seen that the Rekla Race is held for a long distance of 8 miles, 6 miles and 10 miles. Entry Fee of Rs. 151, Rs. 101 and Rs. 251

(respectively) is collected from each participant. Prices are also awarded separately in all the three categories. Though Rekla Race is said to be

associated with ''Maha Kumbhabishegam'' Festival, by perusal of the Pamphlet, it is seen that the Rekla Race almost amounts to race of Bullocks,

awarding prize for the best running Bullock Cart.

Rekla Race is for a distance of 8 miles, 6 miles and 10 miles. The Bullock tied to the Cart is run by the Cart man. To win the race, obviously the

Cart Man would be whipping the Bulls. Though it is represented that race will be held without cruelty, that contention is unacceptable. How could

the bull run fastly without being whipped. Let us imagine how much more would be the whipping to win the award prize and the applause from the

gathering.

It is a matter of common experience that bull/dumb animals carry load in Bullock carts and suffer silently. Bullocks are normally slow moving

animals. Even while carrying normal load, the Cart Man used to whip the bullock. To win the race and to get applause from the public, obviously,

there will be violent whipping, amounting to cruelty.

Whipping, beating kicking or otherwise treating any animal cruelly is punishable under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (in short,

PCA Act).

Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, deals with the offences for treating animals cruelly. Section 11(1)(a) reads:

Treating animals cruelly: (1) If any person -

(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or

causes or, being the owner permits, any animals to be so treated ...shall be punishable.

If any person treats animals with cruelty he shall be punished for the first offence with fine up to fifty rupees and for the second or subsequent

offence committed within three years of previous offence, with fine upto one thousand rupees or with imprisonment up to three months, or with

both:

When beating, kicking or otherwise treating the animal cruelly is punishable u/s 11, PCA Act, now the Petitioner wants the Respondents/Police

to protect their act of inflicting cruelty upon the animals. What exactly is the Rekla Race. The Bullock is tied to the Cart participating in the race.

The race is organised in the open field for quite a long distance. The same is witnessed by a gathering. Even participant aims to win and get the

prize and applause of the crowd gathered. When the act of Whipping and overloading or otherwise treating any animal subjecting it to unnecessary

pain is punishable under PCA Act, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction forbearing the Respondents from interfering in the conducting of Rekla

Race.

Worse is the position with Jallikatta. During the festival seasons, crowd gather in the open field. The bull is brought and subjected to

unnecessary pain and torture. The bull is made to be aroused and the Jallikattu goes on. To agitate the bull, either its tail is twisted or other modes

are adopted inflicting pain and torture. In the process, not only the owner/trainer incites the animal, the entire crowd by making huge noise,

contribute inciting the bull. The owner/trainer tries to hold it by horn and the bull resists. It runs wild and more often than not, forces into the crowd,

mostly causing injuries to the gathering. Bull also gets injured. When the animal forces into the crowd, the crowd scrambles for safety. Jallikattu has

gained popularity since it is associated with seasonal festival viz. Pongal Festival. It is to be noted that this Jallikattu or Rekla Race could hardly be

said to be anything religious. Huge amounts are collected in the name of organizing the Jallikattu and Rekla Race mostly amounting to a game

perpetuating cruelty upon the bull. Every year, the public are passive witnesses to this cruelty, inflicted in the name of Jallikattu. In view of the

provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, this Jallikattu is no more fun or Veeravilayattu, but clearly falls within the ambit of Section 11(a)

of P.C.A. Act.

At this juncture we may usefully refer to the following passage from the Book ''Animal Laws in India'' by Menaka Gandhi and two others,

published by Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Second Edition (page 720-721).

Pain, it can be said, is the quintessence of evil. All painful events are bad and all bad events are painful. The only possible justification for evil is that

it brings a greater good, and the only justification for pain is that it creates a greater pleasure - a greater joy or happiness.

The dispute lies first in whether or not any pain will actually bring about a real benefit, and secondly whether such benefit, if it does occur, will

outweigh the pain that accompanies its creation.

Can the entertainment of gathering be a justification for inflicting such pain upon the Bullocks is the question to be posed to the consciousness

of the Society.

Why should we allow such in human act on dumb animals, causing pain, when there is statutory protection to protect them?

We have become insensitive to vialence and cruelty. We do not give a thought or a second glance, although we see it every day around us.

Once one becomes inured to cruelty, the form it takes becomes irrelevant - cruelty to animals can easily be replicated towards people, we cannot

talk about culture and civilisation if we do not uphold the dignity of life. J. Edgar Hoover, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(USA), make a study of people convicted of violent crimes such as assault and murder. He found that, in every case, the convict had a childhood

history of cruelty to animals.

When the human beings are protected by the Fundamental Rights, why not such protection to the God''s creations - dumb animals. Man may

have dominion over the animals, but that dominion should not extend to causing cruelty tinder the guise of conducting Jallikattu, Rekla Race and

Oxen Race.

The right to life and the habitat and the corresponding duty to protect it, is universal but limited, within the domain of the human species. The

difficulty is that there is no such corresponding right to life and habitat acknowledged for the rest of the existing species. Hence, in the absence of

such rights we are left only with duties of the human species towards the other species. Considering the scheme of the said Act and the provisions

contained in Article 51A of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including

forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. Therefore, an individual who seeks to protect animals and their

habitat is not exercising his right, but acting in furtherance of his duties, though on occasions, when this duty is pursued vigorously by an individual

or a group of individuals, it is erroneously labelled as a right.

On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that Rekla Race is held for nearly 75 years. It is also contended that the Tamil Nadu Government

Tourism Development Corporation is also conducting the Bullock Cart Race every year to attract Tourists and that the Government offers cash

awards to the winners of the race. Perhaps this long tradition of conducting the Bullock Cart Race, Oxen Race etc. and Jallikattu has made

everyone in allowing the perpetuation of cruelty on the animals. It is high time that the State Government shoulders greater responsibility in taking

up the cause of animals and preventing the cruelty to animals by effective implementation of the provisions of PCA Act. Equally, it is high time that

the Police share responsibility in boldly declining permission for conducting of such Races and Jallikattu and see that there is effective

implementation of Section 11 of PCA Act. It is stated that the Director General of Police had also issued a Circular in RC No.

237562/A&R/2006 dated 15-1-2006 with reference to Indian Board of Animal Welfare in Letter No. 9-1 /2005-PCA dated 21-9-2005 and

with reference to the Judgment of the Bombay High Court banning Bullock cart races and bull fights. The State Police must make earnest

endeavour to strictly implement the circular of the Director General of Police in Re. No. 237562/A&E/2006 dated 15-1-2006.

There is a increasing cruelty to animals particularly during festival season under the guise of Rekla Race and Jallikattu. General public also must

be made aware of being kind to the animals rather than harassing and causing cruelty to the dumb animals. People need to be made more aware of

provisions of the PCA Act and they must be motivated to show more concern towards the animals which are ill-treated and slaughtered for the

sake of food and for religious rituals.

In preventing cruelty to animals, the Courts also have great responsibility. In such matters, Courts must shoulder greater responsibilities, in

taking up local issues of which they can have closer awareness, such as cruelty to animals and ecological matters in the light of the laws laid down

by the Supreme Court. In Pomal Kanji Govindji and Others Vs. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit and Others, , it was held as under:

The law must respond and be responsible to be felt and discernible compulsions of circumstances that would be equitable, fair and just and unless

there is anything to the contrary in the statute, Court must take cognizance of that fact and act accordingly.

On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that earlier in W.P. No. 401/2004 dated 12-8-2004 Justice F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla has passed the

order for a similar Rekla Race to be conducted on 13-8-2004 held in Pillaiyarnatham Village, Vilathikulam (Taluk), Tuticorin District and has

issued direction forbearing the Police not to interfere with conducting the Temple festival with Bullock Cart race; and directing the organisers to

ensure that no harm would be caused to the animals. The learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that similar order may be passed.

With due respect, I respectfully disagree with the above order. Law of the past does not fit in the present context. The Court should evolve

Law to suit the present need. This is all the more so, when people need to be made more aware of the Provisions of P.C.A. Act and prevention of

cruelty to animals and to show more concern towards the animals.

Law must respond to the needs of the changing society. In National Textile Workers'' Union and Others Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Others, ,

the Supreme Court has held an follows:

If the law fails to respond to the needs of the changing society, then either it will stifle the growth of the society and choke its progress or if the

society is vigorous enough, it will cast away the law which stands in the way of its growth. Law must therefore constantly be on the move adopting

itself to the fast changing society and not lag behind. It must shake off the inhibiting legacy of its colonial past and assume a dynamic role in the

process of social transformation.

Section 11 provides various instances which would constitute offences under the said Act. Accordingly, no person is entitled to beat, kick,

torture or otherwise treat any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering. No person can offer for sale or, without any reasonable

cause, possess any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment. No person can

solely with the view to provide entertainment confine or cause to be confined any animal so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal or

to incite any other animal to fight or bait any other animal. No person is entitled to mutilate any animal in any unnecessary cruel manner. Likewise

no person can keep, use or act in the management of any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permit or offer any

place to be so used for any such purpose the person contravening any of the provisions contained in Section 11 is liable to be punished in the first

instance with fine and for subsequent offences within three years with fine or imprisonment upto three months or with both.

This Court is not trying to make any law on the provisions of cruelty to animals. All that is emphasized is the effective implementation of Section

11 of PCA Act. It is the duty of the State to see to it that the said Act is duly implemented in letter and spirit to fulfil the object with which the said

Act has been enacted and, therefore, further to see to it that no cruelty is caused to the animals and no offence is committed under the said Act and

if there is indication that offence under the said Act will be committed, then to take preventive measures to avoid cruelty to the animals.

The enactment of the law to prevent cruelty to the animals is not an end in itself. What is more important is the implementation of that Act and

to see to it that the activities which are prohibited under the said Act do not take place in the State and in case of infringement of the provisions of

the said Act, to take strict action against the offenders. Likewise it is also obligatory upon the Authorities to see to it that the provisions dealing with

the prohibition of certain activities are effectively enforced by preventing such activities. Failure on the part of the Authorities to take preventive

measures will certainly amount to tolerance of violation of the provisions of the said Act and such tolerance will render legal provisions contained in

the said Act nugatory and also will encourage lawlessness.

Since the Government authorities and the police are not showing enough concern in preventing such cruelty to animals inflicted under the guise

of Jallikattu, Rekla Race, Oxen Race and other races under the guise of performing religious festivals, this Court is focussing the attention on the

problem. Considering the fact that Jallikattu and Rekla Race and Oxen Race result in injuries to the animal and consequently cruelty to the animals

as well as sometimes to the human beings, it is the paramount duty of the authorities to take prevention action to avoid such Rekla Race, Jallikattu

and such other races involving games. Positive action of Government Authorities and Police in preventing such cruelty is the need of the hour. It is

high time that Rekla Race, Oxen Race and Jallikattu are banned.

In a Public Interest Litigation filed by the People For Animals and another, the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 37/1996 dated 20-12-1996

has issued direction to take immediate steps to ban all types of animal fights including bull fights and ''dhirios'' in the State of Goa and to see to it

that the direction is fully complied with in letter and spirit which the Act seeks to achieve.

The G.O.R.T. No. 194, F & A & F Department, dated 6-3-1986 was issued by the Andhra Pradesh Government, granting permission for Ox

Racing. Challenging the same, Writ Petition W.P. No. 4414/1987 was filed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court by the judgment dated 5-12-1989

has quashed the Government Order finding that it is violative of Article 51-A of the Constitution of India r/w Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Act r/w Rules framed thereunder.

For the offence of cruelty to Animals u/s 11, first offence is punishable with a meagre fine of only Rs. 50/- and for the second or subsequent

offence committed within three years of the previous offence with fine up to one thousand rupees or with imprisonment up to three months or with

both. There is an urgent need to increase the fine amount and stringent punishment u/s 11 of the Act.

For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the Petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the

following direction:

It is the duty of the State to see to it that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is duly implemented in letter and spirit to fulfil the

object with which the said Act has been enacted;

The State and the Authorities concerned are directed to take immediate steps to ban all types of Jallikattu, Rekla Race (Bullock Cart Race);

Oxen Race or any other entertainment involving causing cruelty to animals in the State of Tamil Nadu and to see to it that the direction is fully

complied with in letter and spirit which the Act seeks to achieve.

The Respondent Police and the State Police are directed to ensure prevention of cruelty to animals inflicted under the guise of Rekla Race or

Oxen Race and Jallikattu or any other, entertainment causing cruelty to animals, and strictly implementing the provisions.

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 3237/2006 is closed.