The Supreme Court of India(SCI)on Wednesday January 13,2016 refused to vacate its order staying the Centre’s notification lifting ban on jallikattu.
The SC heard an intervention application filed by four persons said
to be affected by the apex court’s stay on Centre’s notification
allowing jallikattu.
A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana said they were
"unimpressed" by the submissions made by the affected individuals that
prohibition of jallikattu will dash to the ground pride of Tamil farmers
and leave him penniless with no other alternative but send his bulls to
Kerala to be slaughtered.
The petitioners, represented by advocate N. Rajaraman, made an urgent
mention before a Bench of Justice Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana at 2 p.m.
The argument saw Justice Misra counter why the farmer, who considered
the bull as a family member, would deem to sell it to be slaughtered if
the animal became "jobless".
"Pongal festival will happen without Jallikattu... Why do you send the bulls to Kerala for slaughter?" Justice Misra asked.
Advocate R. Rajaraman, for the intervenors, said farmers have to let
their bulls be slaughtered out of necessity if there is no jallikattu.
He even invited senior advocates Aryama Sundaram and Anand Grover to
come to Tamil Nadu as the court's commissioners to check if there is any
cruelty shown to bulls during jallikattu.
"The idea is to prevent cruelty... that is the purpose of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960," Mr. Sundaram countered.
Note
Jallikattu has in effect been prohibited by a combined reading of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA) and a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India in 2011 preventing the use of bulls as performing animals.
Though the practice continued by virtue of a State legislation that regulated it, the Supreme Court in 2014 held the law unconstitutional.
The 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court asserts that animals as sentient beings have a fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, the court reads in five freedoms for animals from the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW), a declaration currently not adopted by the United Nations and with no legally binding effect
As a result the effect of the notification revived and jallikattu was prohibited.
Note
Jallikattu has in effect been prohibited by a combined reading of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA) and a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India in 2011 preventing the use of bulls as performing animals.
Though the practice continued by virtue of a State legislation that regulated it, the Supreme Court in 2014 held the law unconstitutional.
The 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court asserts that animals as sentient beings have a fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, the court reads in five freedoms for animals from the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW), a declaration currently not adopted by the United Nations and with no legally binding effect
As a result the effect of the notification revived and jallikattu was prohibited.
No comments:
Post a Comment