9.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.
10.Supreme Court turns down plea to allow bull-taming sport
Jallikattu before Pongal
NEW DELHI:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a plea seeking
to allow the controversial sport Jallikattu played during Pongal festival in Tamil Nadu.
A bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi told a group of lawyers, who requested for the verdict, that it is unfair to ask the bench to pass an order.
The apex court, however, said that the draft of judgement has been prepared but it was not possible to deliver it before Saturday when Jallikattu is to be organised.
The court had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging Centre's notification allowing the sport.
In 2014, the court had banned Jallikattu on grounds of animal cruelty. The order, however, didn't go down well with Tamil Nadu political parties.
Last year, SC had dismissed the plea of the state government seeking review of its 2014 judgement that banned bulls for Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu.
A bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi told a group of lawyers, who requested for the verdict, that it is unfair to ask the bench to pass an order.
The apex court, however, said that the draft of judgement has been prepared but it was not possible to deliver it before Saturday when Jallikattu is to be organised.
The court had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging Centre's notification allowing the sport.
In 2014, the court had banned Jallikattu on grounds of animal cruelty. The order, however, didn't go down well with Tamil Nadu political parties.
Last year, SC had dismissed the plea of the state government seeking review of its 2014 judgement that banned bulls for Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu.
The apex court had also earlier
declared Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 as constitutionally
void, being violative or Article 254(1) of the Constitution.
On January 8, last year the Centre had issued a notification lifting ban on Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu with certain restrictions, which was challenged in the apex court by Animal Welfare Board of India, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, a Bangalore-based NGO and others.
On January 8, last year the Centre had issued a notification lifting ban on Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu with certain restrictions, which was challenged in the apex court by Animal Welfare Board of India, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, a Bangalore-based NGO and others.
On 16 January 2016, the
World Youth Organization (WYO) protested at Chennai against the stay on the
order overturning ban on conducting Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu.
The WYO also demanded a ban on PETA in India.
No comments :
Post a Comment