K. Muniasamythevar Vs Dy. Superintendent of Police and ... On 29 March, 2006

K. Muniasamythevar vs Dy. Superintendent Of Police And ...
on 29 March, 2006
Madras High Court

K. Muniasamythevar vs Dy. Superintendent Of Police And ... on 29 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Mad 255
Author: R Banumathi
Bench: R Banumathi
ORDER R. Banumathi, J.
1. 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.
2. 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'.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95533060/ 1

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Whipping, beating kicking or otherwise treating any animal cruelly is punishable under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (in short, PCA Act).
10. Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, deals with the offences for treating
animals cruelly. Section 11(1)(a) reads:
11. 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:
11. When beating, kicking or otherwise treating the animal cruelly is punishable under Section 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Why should we allow such in human act on dumb animals, causing pain, when there is statutory
protection to protect them?
16. 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.

17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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 v. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit, 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Law must respond to the needs of the changing society. In (National Textile Workers Union v.
P.R. Ramakrishnan, 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.

27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. For the offence of cruelty to Animals under Section 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 under
Section 11 of the Act.
32. 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:
1. 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;

2. 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.
3. 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.
33. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.
No. 3237/2006 is closed.

K. Muniasamythevar Vs Dy. Superintendent of Police and ... On 29 March, 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

K. Muniasamythevar Vs Dy. Superintendent of Police and ... On 29 March, 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

K. Muniasamythevar vs Dy. Superintendent Of Police And ...

Madras High Court

2. Case of the petitioner could briefly be stated thus:

The petitioner is the Vice President of Karisalkulam Panchayat in Ramanathapuram District. It is

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95533060/ 1

11. Treating animals cruelly: (1) If any person -

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95533060/ 2

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95533060/ 3

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95533060/ 4

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95533060/ 5

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95533060/ 6

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95533060/ 7

You might also like