16.Protests, rallies for jallikattu
Protest
rallies and prayers were organised in Dindigul ,KANCHIPURAM Theni districts in support
of ‘jallikattu’ on Thursday.
A
section of lawyers staged a demonstration in front of the district court in
Periyakulam and took out a bike rally to the Collectorate from the court
complex, demanding removal of ban on jallikattu. They handed over a petition to
Collector N. Venkatachalam in this regard.
Similar
rallies and demonstrations were conducted by lawyers in Uthamapalayam. They
also handed over a petition to the Uthamapalayam Tahsildar pressing for their
demand.
Residents
of Chinnamanur and members of various social organisations, along with bulls,
race bullocks and race carts, took out a peace rally in Chinnamanur. Hundreds
of bull owners and race cart owners participated in the rally.
Residents
of Pillamanaickenpatti staged a protest, with their eyes covered with black
cloths. They had brought their bulls, which sported black cloths on their
horns. People took out a candle light march and participated in a mass prayer
held in a church praying for permission from the Supreme Court for conducting
jallikattu during Pongal festival.
In Kodaikanal, volunteers, traders and local people
staged a demonstration in front of the auditorium.
A
section of students of Arulmigu Palani Andavar Arts College in Palani boycotted
classes and staged a demonstration.
After hearing the
petitions which were led by the Animal Welfare Board of India challenging central government's
notification, the Supreme Court of India on 12 January ordered a stay,
issued notices to the central government and the government of Tamil Nadu and later refused to lift the stay.] Numerous Jallikattu events were
held across Tamil Nadu in protest of the ban, and hundreds of participants were
detained by police in response. The
Supreme Court has agreed to delay its verdict on Jallikattu for a week
following the Centre's request that doing so would avoid unrest. The Attorney
General Mukul Rahotgi informed the Supreme Court bench that the people of Tamil
Nadu were "passionate" about Jallikattu and that the issue was being
resolved between the Centre and the State government.
17.SC to hear Animal Welfare Board’s
petition challenging jallikattu order
A bench led by Chief Justice of India T.S.
Thakur agreed to hear the petitions on an urgent basis on January 12.
The SC on Monday agreed to hear on January
12 a batch of petitions led by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI),
seeking to quash a January 7, 2016 notification issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, allowing the exhibition and use of bulls as performing
animals for jallikattu and bullock-cart races.
The
notification circumvents a Supreme Court judgment.
With
just a few days more to go for Pongal festival to start, the petitioners made
an urgent oral mention before a Bench led by Chief Justice Tirath Singh Thakur
for an early hearing.
The
causelist for January 12 was updated in the evening to show that the batch of
petitions seeking a stay of the January 7 notification will be heard by a Bench
led by Chief Justice Thakur and Justices A.K. Sikri and R. Banumathi.
This
notification was issued despite contrary legal advice from Attorney-General
Mukul Rohatgi following a letter from the Tamil Nadu government to Prime
Minister Narendra Modi to make amendments in the law. The petitions contended
that the Centre cannot legalise a sport inherently causing pain and distress to
dumb animals by merely saying that bulls used for jallikattu (bull-taming
sport) should not be subjected to cruelty.
They
said the January 7 notification circumvents the May 7, 2014 Supreme Court
judgment by introducing several regulations meant to protect bulls, all the
while glossing over the fact that the very act of jallikattu is “inherently
cruel” and blatantly violates several provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 as interpreted by the apex court two years ago.
They
questioned the notification’s justification to allow the return of jallikattu
for cultural and traditional reasons, especially when the Supreme Court
judgment had extensively discussed and concluded that the “sport” was a gross
insult to the Tamil culture and tradition to “embrace bulls and not
over-powering the bull, to show human bravery.”
The
petitions said it was time Parliament elevated the rights of animals to that of
constitutional rights, as done by many of the countries around the world, so as
to protect their dignity and honour.
Besides
the AWBI through its counsel and senior advocate Aryama Sundaram, the other
petitioners include the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations
(FIAPO) represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) by senior advocate Anand Grover, Compassion
Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA) by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra.
The
battery of petitions include those seeking contempt of court proceedings
against the government for issuing the notification in violation of the Supreme
Court judgment. Individual petitioners include members of the AWBI like Sowmya
Reddy, Radha Rajan and Gauri Maulekhi.
“The
court had held in 2014 that no amount of regulation can ever ensure that a
cruelty-free event involving bulls, bullocks etc. The court had also held that
when ‘culture and tradition’, such as sati, or jallikattu, or bullock cart
races are violative of laws enacted by Parliament, they must bow down before
the law of the land,” the FIAPO argued.
They
contended that the notification defeats the very purpose and spirit of the PCA
Act, a statute enacted at a time when it was noticed that in order to reap
maximum gains, the animals were being exploited by human beings, by using
coercive methods and by inflicting unnecessary pain.
“The PCA Act was, therefore, passed to prevent
infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering and for the well-being and welfare
of the animals and to preserve the natural instinct of the animal. Overpowering
the performing animal was never in the contemplation of the PCA Act,” they
argued.
The
2014 judgment has already noted that no regulations or guidelines should be
allowed to dilute or defeat the spirit of a welfare legislation like Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 and constitutional principles. If so, the
Supreme Court should strike them down without hesitation. The judgment has
already laid down the law that a court’s duty under the doctrine of parents
patriae is to take care of the rights of animals, since they are unable to take
care of themselves as against human beings. It classifies the bull as a draught
animal not meant for running but sedate walking under the Prevention of Cruelty
to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965.
18.Supreme Court stays bull taming game
Jallikattu; Jaya asks PM for an ordinance
Supreme Court of India
has stayed the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of India which had allowed the use of bull for the traditional Tamil festive event ‘Jallikattu’ and
bullock cart races in states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana,
Kerala and Gujarat.
A bench consisting of Justice Dipak
Misra and NV Ramana passed this order in a batch of four petitions challenging
the validity of the notification and a contempt petition claiming that the
notification is contrary to court’s earlier judgment.
The
petitioners were represented by senior advocates Aryama Sundaram,
Dushyant Dave, KK Venugopal, Sidharth Luthra and Anand Grover. Union of India
was represented by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and senior advocate L
Nageshwar Rao represented the state of Tamil Nadu.
Petitioners submitted
before the Court that Jallikattu caused cruelty and torture to the bulls. AG Rohatgi
however refuted the argument contending that Jallikattu was not same
as the bull fighting in Spain and is conducted in small space without any
torture to the bulls.
After
the arguments were heard, bench dictated the order issuing notice to the Union
of India and the concerned states and asked them to file their replies to the
petition. As an interim measure, court stayed the operation of the gazette
notification allowing Jallikattu and bullock car races.
The petitions were filed by Animal Welfare Board of
India, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Compassion Unlimited
plus Action (CUPA), Gauri Maulekhi, People For Ethical Treatment of Animals and
Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations (FIAPO).
After Jallikattu was stayed by
the apex court, reportedly, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has
written to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to promulgate ordinance forthwith
to enable conduct of Jallikattu.
\
19.No Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu this year
The
Supreme Court on Tuesday issued an interim stay on the >Centre's
January 2016 notification allowing Jallikattu and bullock
cart races.
The
Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana prima facie agreed with the
arguments made by a batch of petitioners, led by Animal Welfare Board of India,
that Jallikattu is
"inherently cruel" and bulls cannot be used or tortured as performing
animals for human festivity.
A
stay on the January 7 notification means that the 2014 SC judgment banning jallikattu will continue
to prevail during Pongal starting on January 15.
Admitting
the petitions, the Bench gave the Tamil Nadu Government and the Centre four weeks
to file affidavits in response to the petitions.
Earlier
in the day, Justice R. Banumathi > recused herself from hearing the jallikattu
case in the Supreme Court. She had first banned jallikattu during her
tenure as Judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
"What
is the necessity of such a festival like Jallikattu? There was no festival for four
years," Justice Misra asked in reference to the first prohibitory
notification on Jallikattu issued by the
Centre on July 11, 2011, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2014
judgment.
Attorney
General Mukul Rohatgi said Jallikattu is not the "bull fight of Spain" and care
had been taken to include provisions in the 2016 notification to prevent
cruelty to the animals.
Pon. Radhakrishnan for taking legal measures
Reacting
to the stay issued by the Supreme Court on jallikattu, Union Minister Pon.
Radhakrishnan urged the Centre and State to take all legal measures to allow
jallikattu this year and lift the stay.
20.Supreme Court refuses to vacate stay
on jallikattu order
The court heard an intervention
application filed by four persons said to be affected by the apex court’s stay
on Centre’s notification allowing jallikattu.
Merely
24 hours after it stood up for the bull's right to life and dignity by staying
a government notification allowing Jallikattu, an "unimpressed"
Supreme Court refused to alter its stand despite fresh interventions on
Wednesday blaming the court for being influenced by the “fogged vision” of
city-dwellers at the cost of hurting the traditions of pastoral Tamil Nadu.
A
Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra held that the stay was granted in accordance
with one of the highest of principles enshrined in the Constitution, that is,
compassion for living creatures.
It
referred to the Supreme Court judgment of 2014, which held that Jallikattu
caused “considerable pain and distress to the bulls”.
“The
2014 judgment enshrines the concept of Article 51A (g) and (h) of the
Constitution. There cannot be a scintilla of doubt that the Constitution is an
organic and compassionate document. We are unimpressed... and do not alter our
stay order,” Justice Misra held, adding Pongal will happen even without
Jallikattu.
The
drama, a sequel to the Jallikattu hearing on January 12, started when certain
individuals, who claimed to be “affected” by the Supreme Court stay of the
January 7, 2016 notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
allowing the sport, made an urgent mention before Chief Justice of India T.S.
Thakur on Wednesday morning. They sought to intervene in the Supreme Court to
voice the concern of rural Tamil Nadu about the stay.
The
petitioners, led by A. Ramakrishnan, a Chennai resident, was referred by the
CJI court to the Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana, who had ordered
the stay the previous day.
Justice
Misra's Bench took up the matter at 3 p.m.. Arguing for the petitioners,
advocate N. Rajaraman spoke for the rural farmers who “rear bulls like children
and brothers”, in that order.
“The
2014 judgment of the Supreme Court did not ban Jallikattu. It only said to stop
the cruelty. It only asked for safe play not ban declaring Jallikattu as cruelty,”
Mr. Rajaraman argued.
He
contended that a ban on Jallikattu has a sociological impact and has a
devastating effect on indigenous breeding.
“The
stay order is a result of the fogged vision of the city-dweller about what
happens at Jallikattu. We worship bulls... The farmer, with his moustache
twirled, breeds bulls as a matter of pride,” Mr. Rajaraman submitted.
He
warned that the prohibition would only force farmers now to send their bulls to
Kerala to be slaughtered.
To
this, Justice Misra asked: “You say you treat these bulls like family members.
So now the bull has no purpose, you send them to Kerala for slaughter?”
“It
is our necessity. No Jallikattu means poverty. Economy will collapse,” Mr.
Rajaraman responded.
Mr.
Rajaraman, at one point, even asked the court to send Animal Welfare Board of
India counsel and senior advocate Aryama Sundaram and PETA counsel Anand Grover
to visit Jallikattu arenas in the capacity of the apex court's commissioners to
check whether bulls are cruelly treated.
“The idea of the
Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960 is to prevent cruelty. Nothing has
changed in the time between yesterday's stay order and today. No new fact has
been introduced in this petition,” Mr. Sundaram countered.
On
a personal note, Mr. Sundaram pointed to how he and senior advocate K.K.
Venugopal for Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations also hail
from Tamil Nadu and continue to object to the conduct of Jallikattu.
“So, not all of
Tamil Nadu speaks the same language... not all of the State wants Jallikattu,”
Mr. Sundaram said.
No comments :
Post a Comment