On the Jallikattu judgment

[Guest guest]

http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2008/01/jallikattu-ramar-setu-understandin\

g.html

Friday, January 18, 2008

Jallikattu & Ramar Setu: understanding Supreme Court's

confusion<http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2008/01/jallikattu-ramar-setu-un\

derstanding.html>

 

The Supreme Court's reversal

<http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp>of its own order refusing

to vacate the stay on the holding of the traditional village sport in Tamil

Nadu, Jallikattu has caused quite a consternation. (*Animal Welfare Board

vs. A.Nagaraja*) A sample of readers reactions as carried in The Hindu are

here <http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/15/stories/2008011554360802.htm>, here

<http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/17/stories/2008011753561001.htm>and

here.<http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/17/stories/2008011753561002.htm>The

three Judge Bench first refused to vacate the stay on the ground that

the sport is barbaric, and later when pointed out by the Tamil Nadu

Government, that the sport is part of religious festival of Pongal, the

Bench relented, on certain conditions, to rule out cruelty to the bulls, and

injuries to participants and spectators. The SC's refusal to vacate the stay

was greeted by The

Hindu<http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/14/stories/2008011454261000.htm>,

but criticised by Mail

Today.<http://mailtoday.in/epaperpdf/1412008/1412008-md-hr-10.pdf>

 

The Supreme Court also orally expressed its surprise that Tamil Nadu

Government invoked the religious ground. The Court, according to

reports,<http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/17/stories/2008011759191000.htm>alluded

that the State opined in the Ramar Setu case, following its ideology

of rationalism, that the religious feelings did not matter in the

construction of the Sethusamudram project. Not just the DMK Government, any

Government under the Indian Constitution has to inculcate scientific temper.

The Bench said it did not agree with all the reasons cited by the State for

lifting the stay. But the Supreme Court's lack of explanation for reversing

its own decision is astounding. Does the Supreme Court signal that religious

ground is sufficient enough a reason for review of its decisions? The

implications are ominous, even if the vacation of the stay is only for this

year, till the Supreme Court hears the appeal against the Madras High

Court's verdict permitting Jallikattu.

 

There is an inescapable feeling that the Supreme Court came under pressure

to review its decision not to vacate the stay, faced with the prospect of

defiance of its order by a determined local population in Alanganallur

village in Madurai. True, people's sentiments rooted in culture and

tradition were involved, and would have been hurt, if the SC refused to

vacate its stay. But religion? Did the TN Government confuse religion with

the local culture and tradition? Does the SC suggest that while religious

sentiments cannot be hurt by a Court-inspired ban on a rural sport, similar

immunity cannot bestowed on local culture and tradition, ableit followed by

a small minority of villagers in Madurai?

 

It may be worthwhile to read the Madras High Court's Division Bench's

judgment in the case of *K.Muniasamy Thevar vs. Deputy Superintendent of

Police *(MANU TN/8256/2007) delivered by Justices Dharma Rao Elipe and

P.P.S.Janarthana Raja on March 9, 2007.

 

The case had its origin when the appellant felt aggrieved by the

interference by the police in the holding of the traditional sports events,

such as jallikattu, manjuvirattu, Rekla Race (bullock cart race)and sought

an end to such interference. The Single Judge, Justice R.Banumathi, not only

rejected his petition, but went beyond the scope of the petition, by

imposing a ban on all the three village sports events, including Jallikattu,

assuming that there was cruelty to the animals. (MANU/TN/9319/2006). The

appeal was heard by the Division Bench. The Animal Welfare Board impleaded

as a party.

 

The Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, told the Division

Bench that not only the Hindus, but also persons belonging to other

religious faiths take part in these sports-events, which indirectly promote

religious harmony in the State. He appealed to the Bench to consider the

religious, cultural rights involved, giving due respect to the feelings,

sentiment and religious practices of the people. The sport events are part

and parcel of Tamil Culture and religion, he said. Here, you may notice that

the Tamil Nadu Government used Tamil Culture and religion almost

synonymously, that is, religion ought to be understood in the cultural

sense, and not in the sense of organised religion - a phenomenon of

contemporary times.

 

Therefore, for the Supreme Court to read in the Tamil Nadu Government's

claim that religious sentiments would be hurt if the stay was not vacated,

something similar to the claim of those opposing the Sethusamudram Project

would be a distortion of Tamil Nadu Government's intent and its declaration

before the Madras High Court Division Bench. True, the Tamil Nadu Government

may not have had the opportunity to explain its stand better, as it was

thrust with the responsibility of vacating the stay to avoid a law and order

problem, but should the SC ignore the Madras High Court's judgment, before

refusing to vacate, and later doing so, by seemingly imposing some

conditions? The Madras High Court judgment, in fact, lays down similar

conditions. But these conditions could not be tried, because of the SC's

stay.

 

The Madras High Court did not even consider the " religious sentiment " as the

core issue in this case, despite the clarification of the AAG. The core

issue, according to it, was only with reference to the " treatment of the

animals " during the said events, and whether such treatment would amount to

" cruelty " within the meaning of S.11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to the

Animals Act, 1960. The Bench had noted in its judgment: " It is more or the

less the exhibition of the performance of a trained bull by its owner before

the villagers. The exhibition of performance of trained animals is permitted

under Chapter V of the Act, of course, subject to certain restrictions

mentioned therein. "

 

The Bench further noted: " There can be no second opinion of the fact that

the said sport-events are part and parcel of the Tamil village culture and

are closely wedded to the life-style of the villagers. The imagination or

visualisation of the harvest season of villages in the State of Tamil Nadu

would be imcomplete without " Jallikattu " , " Manjuvirattu " , " Reklarace " , etc.

When our traditional and cultural life-style of India, more particularly the

life-style of the villagers, is being rabbidly effaced by the influence of

the Western culture, it is imperative that our village traditional and

cultural events are preserved and maintained. "

 

To conclude, the SC's refusal to vacate the stay on Jan.11 was flawed. Its

insufficient explanation for later vacating it on Jan.15 is even more flawed

than the previous one.