New Delhi: In order to avoid the possibility of an adverse verdict, the Centre on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it has decided to withdraw the notification, dated January 7, 2016 by which it allowed the use of bulls and their exhibition and training as performing animals in jallikattu.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi on Tuesday made a “mention” before a Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra that the Centre has decided to withdraw last year’s notification in the light of the Bill passed by the state Assembly. The Centre apparently wants to make the notification infructuous as any possible adverse verdict will have serious ramifications in Tamil Nadu, notwithstanding the passing of the Bill.
Centre cancels order to end jallikattu case in Supreme Court
The court, after a detailed hearing on December 7, 2016, had reserved judgement on the legal validity of the notification which permitted jallikattu with certain conditions and the verdict is yet to be pronounced.
In May 2014, the apex court banned jallikattu by quashing the Tamil Nadu Jallikattu Regulation Act. The court also took into consideration a notification issued by the Centre dated July 11, 2011 specifically including “Bulls” also in the ‘list of performing animals’ so as to ban their exhibition or training as performing animals. Previously, the list had included only bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs.
The court said jallikattu is legally impermissible as the event has inherent cruelty to the animal. The court noted that the very act of “taming a bull” to perform in an event runs counter to the concept of welfare of the animal, which is the basic foundation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
On January 7, 2016 the Centre, without removing the basis of the 2014 verdict, issued a notification allowing jallikattu even as bulls remained in the ‘list of performing animals’. The court had stayed the order and restrained TN from conducting Jallikattu. The court, while reserving the verdict, cited the anomaly in the Centre’s stand and said the notification was liable to be struck down.
