Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja

Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bullock-cart races in Maharashtra were challenged as cruel to bulls. The Supreme Court examined the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009. It held that these events violate the Act and that bulls cannot be used as performing animals. It also struck down the Tamil Nadu Act as repugnant to the Central Act.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Indian Kanoon (unofficial copy)

Parties

Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) — appellant; a statutory Board set up under Section 4 of the PCA Act to promote animal welfare and protect animals from unnecessary pain or suffering.

A. Nagaraja and others — respondents; para 5 speaks of the organisers of Jallikattu and bullock-cart races.

PETA — petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 145 of 2011; challenged the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009. The judgment calls it an organisation called PETA.

State of Tamil Nadu — respondent; defended the TNRJ Act and regulated Jallikattu.

State of Maharashtra — respondent; banned bullock-cart races and did not challenge the Bombay High Court judgment.

Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and Union of India — issued the notification of 11 July 2011 under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act.

Procedural History

1. MoEF issued a notification on 2 March 1991 under Section 22 of the PCA Act banning training and exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs. The Indian Circus Organization challenged it in the Delhi High Court, and a corrigendum then excluded dogs (para 7).
2. On the Delhi High Court's direction, a Committee was formed. A notification dated 14 October 1998 excluded dogs, and this Court upheld it in N.R. Nair v. Union of India ((2001) 6 SCC 84) (para 7).
3. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai gave judgment on 9 March 2007. AWBI appealed against it (SLP (C) No. 11686 of 2007) (para 3).
4. The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 was enacted. PETA challenged it in Writ Petition (C) No. 145 of 2011. Other writ petitions from the Madras High Court challenged or enforced the MoEF notification and were transferred (paras 2-3).
5. MoEF issued a fresh notification on 11 July 2011 including Bulls, while this Court was seized of the matter (para 7).
6. The Maharashtra Government issued a notification on 24 August 2011 and a corrigendum on 12 September 2011 banning bullock-cart races. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the MoEF notification and the corrigendum on 12 March 2012 (paras 3, 22).
7. Review Petition No. 57 of 2012 against the Bombay High Court judgment was dismissed on 26 November 2012. SLP No. 4598 of 2013 was filed against that (para 3).
8. Maharashtra issued a Government decision of 20 April 2012 prohibiting bull and bullock-cart races. It has not been challenged (paras 22-23).
9. MoEF later said it proposed to exempt Jallikattu bulls in Tamil Nadu from the 2011 notification, subject to guidelines (para 8).
10. This Court decided the appeals, transferred cases and writ petition on 7 May 2014 (para 78).

Facts

1. Jallikattu (bull taming) and bullock-cart races take place in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu, Vadamadu, Erudhu, Vadam and Vadi (paras 2, 16).
2. The word Jallikattu comes from Callikattu: Calli means coins and Kattu means a package. Silver or gold coins were once tied to the bulls' horns, and people fought to get them, as an act of bravery (para 16).
3. Later it became a sport for entertainment, and a fast-moving bull was corralled with ropes around its neck. It has taken different forms, all based on the concept of flight or fight (para 16).
4. AWBI filed three reports with an affidavit of 7 September 2013 on the Jallikattu events at Avaniapuram (14 January 2013), Palamedu (15 January 2013) and Alanganallur (16 January 2013) (para 17).
5. The observers of the reports were Dr. Manilal Vallyate and Mr. Abhishek Raje. The reports tied each practice to PCA Act clauses (para 17).
   • Ear cutting and tail twisting: Section 11(1)(a) and (l).
   • Irritants and forced liquids: Section 11(1)(a) and (c).
   • Cramped standing: Section 11(1)(a) and (f).
   • Sideways walking: Section 11(1)(a) and (d).
   • No food, water or shelter: Section 11(1)(a) and (h).
6. Injuries by venue: at Avaniapuram 55 (26 tamers hurt, 5 seriously; 24 spectators including a police constable; 5 hurt when a gallery collapsed), at Palamedu 21 (11 tamers, 10 spectators), and at Alanganallur 38 (21 tamers) (para 17).
7. A nose-rope study found 47% lacerations and ulcerations, 56% pus and 57% severe nose injuries. Bulls lacked the AWBI JK number registration on their horns. At Palamedu a bull's anus was injured on purpose, and a bull with a fractured leg waited 90 minutes for medical care. Police hit bulls with lathis and sticks (para 17).
8. At Alanganallur two bulls fell into wells even though the collection yard followed the Supreme Court guidelines. The report concluded that the flight response is exploited (para 17).
9. The Manoj Oswal report says 200 to 400 bulls come to a venue and the pens hold at most 10-12. It says registered bulls were marked at 5 of 6 venues, alcohol testing was symbolic except at Previyasuriya, and double barricades were less porous except at Siravayal (para 17).
10. It lists seven continuing problems: queuing; abuse in enclosed areas; yards that are really streets, groves and canals; animals straying into village streets; punctured or open barricades; parallel Jallikattu, notably in Sivagangai; and yards where bulls are tortured most (para 17).
11. The reports say one bull died and many were injured. Bulls were forced to participate, taunted, tormented, mutilated, stabbed, beaten and chased, and denied food, water and sanitation (para 17).
12. They record cruel practices. At least 80 per cent of bulls had their ears cut. Tails were bitten, twisted, dislocated or amputated. Bulls were poked with knives and sticks, and irritants were rubbed in their eyes and noses (para 17).
13. They also record other cruelty. Nose ropes were yanked, and bulls were packed in cramped lines for over eight hours without shade, food or water. They were forced to move sideways, forced to drink liquids likely to be liquor, and made to stand in their own waste (para 17).
14. They record spectators beating and agitating bulls in a parallel Jallikattu, and rough restraining and roping. A total of 58 participants and 56 spectators were injured across the three events (para 17).
15. Guidelines were flouted. Barricades were as low as 5-1/2 feet against the 8 feet required, and double barricading and the half-acre collection yard were missing. A bull died in a collision with a bus, and two bulls fell into wells (para 17).
16. A second interim report of 25 January 2012 by Manoj Oswal, Animal Welfare Officer to the Board, said it is not possible to conduct such a sport without causing trauma and cruelty. Abuse had been hidden away from the main arena (para 17).
17. AWBI's affidavit of 7 April 2014 gave more details. The details for Maharashtra, filed by the 2nd respondent in I.A. No. 5/2014 on 20 January 2014, showed a cruel, barbaric, inhuman and savage state of affairs (paras 18-19).
18. Bullock-cart races in Maharashtra include Bailgada Sharyat, where bullocks are brought blindfolded by truck and let loose down a ghat. Bullocks are beaten, whipped, have tails twisted and bitten, and are poked with spiked instruments and given electric shocks (para 20).
19. The Committee to Monitor Animal Welfare Laws in Maharashtra wrote on 1 August 2011 asking that races be stopped after the 2011 notification (para 22).
20. Organisers in Tamil Nadu said the events take place at the end of the harvest (January and February) and sometimes during temple festivals. Maharashtra organisers said the races had gone on for over three hundred years (para 5).

Issues Raised

1. Do Jallikattu, bullock-cart races and similar events violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m), 21 and 22 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) and (h) and the notification of 11 July 2011 (para 24)?
2. Are bulls performing animals, and does Section 22 apply when no tickets are sold (paras 6, 34-36)?
3. Can culture and tradition save these events (paras 41-46)?
4. Is the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 repugnant to the PCA Act under Article 254 (para 65)?

Arguments Contended

For the appellant AWBI and the petitioner PETA (Mr. Raj Panjwani, senior counsel):

• Jallikattu and bull or bullock-cart races inherently violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) and 22 of the PCA Act. It relied on reports, affidavits and photographs (para 4).
• They have no historical, cultural or religious significance. Even if they had, the welfare legislation, being a Parliamentary law, would supersede it (para 4).
• The bulls are not performing animals under Sections 21 and 22. MoEF was justified in the 11 July 2011 notification (para 4).
• The TNRJ Act is repugnant to the PCA Act and cannot operate without Presidential assent under Article 254 (para 4).
• The bulls suffer considerable pain, violating Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) with Article 51A(g) and Article 21 (para 4).
• Even if held under the TNRJ Act, Jallikattu would violate Section 11(1)(a). It causes pain and suffering and cannot be free from cruelty. The bulls show a flight response indicating fear and pain (para 9).
• He stressed the words or otherwise in Section 11(1)(a). Any act causing unnecessary pain is prohibited unless a provision of the Act or rules permits it (para 9).
• Since the event is an offence under Section 11(1)(a), a State Act can neither permit nor regulate it. The State Act is void under Article 245(1), without Presidential assent (para 9).

For the respondents (organisers and the State of Tamil Nadu):

• Organisers: the events are traditionally linked to village life. They take extreme care not to cause injury, they generate revenue and enjoyment, and no cruelty is meted out (para 5).
• Organisers: the District Collector and police officials are always on duty to prevent cruelty to animals (para 5).
• Organisers: the events can only be regulated and not prohibited, and the TNRJ Act meets the Board's fears (para 5).
• State of Tamil Nadu: every effort will be made to prevent cruelty, and the sport can be regulated by the TNRJ Act (para 6).
• State of Tamil Nadu: the bulls are identified, trained and nourished, and owners spend considerable money. It said the bulls are performing animals, and as no tickets are sold, Section 22 and the notification do not apply (para 6).
• State of Tamil Nadu: a complete ban would not be in the public interest (para 6).
• Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, for Tamil Nadu: Section 11(3) shows the Act does not prohibit all pain. The words unnecessary pain or suffering are not in Section 11(1)(a), (g), (h), (j), (m) and (n). So events causing less pain can only be regulated (para 10).
• Mr. Bali, for the organisers: the events have historical and cultural importance and do not cause unnecessary pain. The regulations, State safeguards and MoEF guidelines can regulate them (para 11).
• Mr. Bali added that some violations do not justify banning the whole event, and that such events are held world-over with precautions (para 11).
• The Court took it that the State of Maharashtra, having not challenged the Bombay High Court judgment, favours banning the exhibition or training of Bulls, castrated or otherwise, as performing animals (para 6).
• MoEF, in its later stand, proposed to exempt Jallikattu bulls in Tamil Nadu from the 2011 notification for historical, cultural and religious significance, subject to guidelines (para 8).

Court's Reasoning

The judgment is by Radhakrishnan, J. for the Bench of K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ. Paragraph numbers are those of the judgment.

Radhakrishnan, J. (for the Bench)

The issue and the approach

1. Noted: Leave is granted. The cases raise an issue of seminal importance on the rights of animals under the Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion and ethology. (paras 1-2)
2. Noted: The Court sets out the two sets of cases and the parties' stands. (paras 3-11)
3. Held: The issues are examined primarily keeping in mind the welfare and well-being of the animals. The Court does not take the standpoint of organisers, bull tamers, spectators or Governments. (para 12)
4. Held: The case concerns a welfare legislation for a sentient being over which humans have domination. The standard is the "Species Best Interest", subject to just exceptions out of human necessity. (para 12)

Bulls, Jallikattu and the reports

1. Noted: Bulls (Bos Indicus) are herbivores and prey animals. When threatened, they adopt a flight response, and they may use horns, legs or force to protect themselves. (para 13)
2. Noted: Bulls are herd animals. An individual bull shows immense anxiety if separated from the herd, and vocalisation is an indicator of stress. Bulls flee more than they fight. (para 13)
3. Noted: Bulls graze and rest in set patterns, avoid noise and disturbance, and have long memories. These are their natural instincts. (para 14)
4. Noted: This flight instinct is what Jallikattu and bullock-cart races exploit. Bulls try to run from the enclosed arena but cannot. Abusive handling increases their fear. (para 15)
5. Noted: The origin of the word Jallikattu, the coins tied to bulls' horns and the later change into an entertainment sport are described. (para 16)
6. Noted: AWBI's three reports on the January 2013 events, and the interim report of 25 January 2012, show cruelty and violations of guidelines, as listed in Facts. (para 17)
7. Noted: The 2012 interim report says the bulls queue from 1 a.m. to 4 p.m. without shelter, food or water. It says the bulls are prodded and tortured in the enclosure to make them run, and that mental torture equals shock and terror in a hostage situation. (para 17)
8. Noted: The report says visible cruelty had been moved out of public view. Parallel Jallikattu continues in the crowd and the bull yards, and animals stray onto streets from the yards. (para 17)
9. Noted: The Court has also perused the affidavit of Smt. Uma Rani, Secretary AWBI, of 7 April 2014, and the Maharashtra material. The situation is the same in Maharashtra, and it is cruel, barbaric, inhuman and savage. (paras 18-19)
10. Noted: Bullock-cart races vary in Maharashtra. Races such as Ghoda Bail Sharyat pair a horse and a bull, and a bigger bullock with a smaller one. (para 20)
11. Noted: The Court is sorry to note that despite this Court's directions, the TNRJ Act regulations and the Maharashtra restrictions, the situation is the same. District Collectors and police have taken no effective action, and the animals suffer in silence. (para 21)
12. Noted: The Maharashtra monitoring committee wrote on 1 August 2011 that bullock-cart races become illegal after the notification. Maharashtra issued its notification of 24 August 2011. (para 22)
13. Noted: A corrigendum of 12 September 2011 read Bull as covering both castrated and uncastrated animals. The Government decision of 20 April 2012 imposed a total prohibition on bull and bullock-cart races, bull fights and training for such sport. (para 22)
14. Noted: The decision extended the prohibition, through a letter of 7 October 2011, to bamboo carts, oxen, cows and calves. It puts enforcement on the District Collectors and Superintendents of Police. (para 22)
15. Noted: Maharashtra has accepted the High Court judgment, and its decision of 20 April 2012 is not under challenge. (para 23)
16. Noted: The Court will examine whether the events violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m), 21 and 22 of the PCA Act with Article 51A(g) and (h) and the notification of 11 July 2011. (para 24)

The PCA Act and its approach

1. Noted: The PCA Act was enacted after the British Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1890. The Act of 1890 treated animals as existing for human benefit. A Committee found deficiencies, and the PCA Act, 1960 was enacted to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering. The source calls the addition of Part IV-A the Constitutional 47th Amendment Act, 1956. (para 25)
2. Held: The PCA Act is welfare legislation, construed with its purpose and the Directive Principles. Welfare law is liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm. (para 26)
3. Held: The Court must be vigilant that subtle devices do not defeat welfare benefits. It can pierce the veil to see whether guidelines or regulations serve some other purpose than animal welfare, and can strike them down if they dilute the law. (para 26)
4. Held: The Court also has a duty under the doctrine of parens patriae (the State's power to protect those who cannot protect themselves) to take care of the rights of animals, who cannot care for themselves against humans. (para 26)

Section 3 of the PCA Act

1. Held: Section 3 is mandatory and confers corresponding rights on animals. Rights so conferred are the antithesis of a duty, and the law will enforce them with legal sanction. (para 27)
2. Noted: Section 3 makes it the duty of every person in charge of an animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure its well-being and to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering. It has two limbs, and both must be cumulatively satisfied. (para 27)
3. Held: Well-being means the state of being comfortable, healthy or happy. Keeping bulls in the waiting area for hours in the sun, forcing them through the vadi vassal and overpowering them in the arena are not for their well-being. (para 27)
4. Held: The organisers deprive the bulls of their rights under Section 3. Sadism and perversity are writ large, and the event is for the pleasure of humans. Organisers see the bulls as having only instrumental value, forgetting their intrinsic worth. (para 27)
5. Held: Jallikattu and bullock-cart races are not for the well-being of the animal. The organisers clearly violate the first limb of Section 3. (para 27)
6. Noted: For the second limb, relevant considerations on unnecessary suffering include whether it could reasonably have been avoided or reduced, and whether the conduct complied with any enactment. (para 28)
7. Noted: Another consideration is whether the conduct was for a legitimate purpose, such as benefiting the animal or protecting a person, property or another animal. (para 28)
8. Held: The duty is to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering, so no right is conferred to inflict necessary or unnecessary pain or suffering. The corresponding rights run against persons in charge as well as AWBI. Section 3 is a preventive provision that gives the organisers no right and only duties. They are inflicting suffering they are legally obliged to prevent. (para 28)
9. Held: Both limbs of Section 3 are violated in conducting Jallikattu and bullock-cart races. (para 28)

Section 11: cruelty to animals

1. Held: Section 11 confers no right on organisers to conduct these events. It is beneficial and penal, and confers rights on animals and obligations on all persons, including persons in charge and AWBI. (para 29)
2. Noted: The Court sets out Section 11(1)(a) (beating, kicking, over-riding, over-driving, over-loading, torturing or otherwise treating an animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering). It also sets out clauses (c), (e), (f), (h) and (l), sub-section (2) on owners' liability and the proviso on imprisonment. (para 29)
3. Noted: AWBI says the words or otherwise take in Jallikattu and bullock-cart races. Tamil Nadu says the doctrine of ejusdem generis (words of a general kind take the sense of the specific words before them) limits it. (para 29)
4. Held: The words or otherwise are not words of limitation. The legislature intended to cover all situations in which animals are subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, so Jallikattu and bullock-cart races fall under Section 11(1)(a). (para 29)
5. Noted: Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay (1957 SCR 721) held that the words or otherwise cover other cases that may not come within the preceding clause. The principle applies to Section 11(1)(a). (para 29)
6. Noted: Pain and suffering are biological traits. Professor D.M. Broom says it is reasonable to suppose the pain felt by animals is similar to that felt by man. An animal suffers if it is in pain, distress or acute or unduly prolonged discomfort. (para 30)
7. Held: AWBI's reports show bulls being treated with extreme cruelty, violating Section 11(1). Clauses (b) to (o) also confer duties on those in charge and corresponding rights on animals, punishable under the proviso. (para 30)

The doctrine of necessity

1. Noted: Section 11(3) excludes five categories: dehorning, castration, branding or nose-roping in the prescribed manner; destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers; destruction under a law; matters in Chapter IV; and killing as food. (para 31)
2. Held: These exceptions rest on the doctrine of necessity. Clause (b) covers stray dogs, which would otherwise harm humans. Clause (d) covers experiments useful for saving life or combating disease. Clause (e) allows killing for food without unnecessary pain. (para 31)
3. Noted: Experimenting on animals and eating their flesh are stated to be two major forms of speciesism. Section 28 also saves killing in a manner required by a community's religion. (para 31)
4. Held: Entertainment, exhibition or amusement do not fall under these exempted categories and cannot be claimed as of right under the doctrine of necessity. (para 31)
5. Held: Sections 3 and 11 confer no right on the organisers but only duties, and confer corresponding rights on animals. They must be read with Article 51A(g), the fundamental duty of compassion for living creatures. (para 32)
6. Held: All living creatures have inherent dignity, and a right to live peacefully and protect their well-being. The view that human life is unlike animal existence has an anthropocentric bias. Animals have intrinsic worth and value. (para 32)

Performing animals

1. Held: All animals are not anatomically designed to be performing animals. Bulls are draught and pack animals, used for ploughing and transport, as recognised in the Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965. (para 33)
2. Noted: A large bullock is one over 350 kg. Bulls have a barrel-shaped body, limited flexion of joints and cloven feet suited to walking and not running. Rule 11 of the Transportation of Animals on Foot Rules, 2001 bars a whip or stick to hasten their walk. (para 33)
3. Noted: A horse, unlike a bull, has an anatomy that makes use of speed, and can be used for horse racing. (para 33)
4. Held: Bulls cannot be performing animals as they are not anatomically designed for it. They are forced to perform, in violation of Sections 3 and 11(1). (para 34)
5. Noted: Chapter V deals with performing animals. Section 22 says no person shall exhibit or train a performing animal unless registered, or any animal the Central Government specifies by notification. (para 34)
6. Noted: Section 21 defines exhibit and train by reference to entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets. Sections 23 to 27 cover registration, court powers, entry powers, offences and exemptions. (paras 35-36)
7. Noted: The Performing Animals Rules, 1973 define a performing animal as one used for entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets. It was argued that Section 22 and the notification do not apply as no tickets are sold. (para 36)
8. Held: The Court finds no substance or logic in that submission. When a Bull is specifically prohibited to be exhibited or trained, whether tickets are sold is irrelevant to Sections 3 and 11(1). (para 36)
9. Noted: Section 11(1)(m) makes it an offence, solely with a view to providing entertainment, to confine an animal as prey or to incite any animal to fight or bait another animal. (para 37)
10. Held: In Jallikattu, the bull is expected to fight bull tamers and is incited to provide entertainment. Inciting a bull to fight an animal or a human is cruelty. The events violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) and 22 and the 11 July 2011 notification. (para 37)
11. Noted: Rule 8(v) of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 requires the owner to ensure no unnecessary pain before, during or after training or exhibition. Rule 8(vii) requires training in accordance with the animal's natural instinct. (para 38)
12. Held: Bulls are not trained in accordance with their natural instinct for these events. Their flight response, from fear and distress, is being exploited. (para 38)
13. Noted: The Animal Welfare Division of MoEF sent a note on 27 January 2011 to the Minister, citing AWBI's affidavit in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2011. It recommended that all such events be stopped, especially Bulls as performing animals under Section 22, like the ban on Bears and Tigers. (para 39)
14. Noted: The note also referred to the Madras High Court judgment. That judgment said Jallikattu and related events are exhibition of performance of trained animals, permitted under Chapter V of the PCA Act. (para 39)
15. Noted: AWBI's affidavit calls Jallikattu an extremely cruel and barbaric sport. It says regulating a barbaric event cannot legalise it and that the TNRJ Act is ultra vires and repugnant to the PCA Act. (para 39)
16. Noted: AWBI's affidavit says bulls are beaten and kicked, chilli powder is rubbed in their eyes, and humps and horns are seized and twisted, causing injuries, tears and bleeding. Tails are routinely pulled and twisted. It calls the event a barbaric, pre-historic event masquerading under the guise of sport, and says the bulls cannot be termed performing animals or trained for the sport. (para 39)
17. Held: The Central Government accepted the stand of MoEF's Animal Welfare Division and AWBI, and issued the 11 July 2011 notification under Section 22(ii). This was a conscious decision on relevant materials, while this Court was seized of the matter. (para 40)
18. Held: AWBI's advice under Sections 9(a) and (l) was accepted and acted on. The Central Government cannot now take a contrary stand without consulting AWBI. (para 40)
19. Noted: The notification of 11 July 2011 was gazetted on the same day. (para 40)
20. Noted: The 2011 notification stands. MoEF does not recognise that bullock-cart racing is part of Maharashtra's tradition or has cultural, historical or religious significance. Maharashtra's 20 April 2012 order called such sports violence to dumb animals. (para 41)
21. Noted: For Tamil Nadu, a proposal was made to exempt Jallikattu from the notification on grounds of historic, cultural and religious significance. (para 41)

Culture and tradition

1. Noted: The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the TNRJ Act refers to ancient culture and tradition and does not say the event has religious significance. (para 42)
2. Held: Even ancient culture and tradition do not support Jallikattu and bullock-cart races in their present form. Welfare of the bull is Tamil culture. Tamil tradition worships the bull as the vehicle of Lord Shiva. (para 42)
3. Noted: Yeru Thazhuvu, in Tamil tradition, is to embrace bulls, not overpower them to show human bravery. In olden days, those who got the money on the bulls' horns married the owner's daughter. (para 42)
4. Held: The events, as now practised, "have no support of Tamil tradition or culture". (para 43)
5. Held: The PCA Act, a welfare legislation, overrides the so-called tradition and culture. Even if these events have been in vogue for some time, they should give way to the welfare legislation. (para 43)
6. Noted: The history of society shows evil practices being done away with, even if they were supported by custom. Professor Salmond says custom embodies the principles that have commended themselves to the national conscience as justice and public utility. (para 43)
7. Noted: N. Adithayan v. Travancore Dewaswom Board ((2002) 8 SCC 106) decided under Articles 25(1), 2(a), 26(b), 17, 14 and 21. It held that a custom that violates human rights, dignity or the Constitution cannot be a source of law. Usage opposed to public policy or social decency cannot be upheld. (para 43)
8. Noted: Of late, some quarters try to reap maximum gains by exploiting animals through coercive methods and inflicting unnecessary pain for pleasure, amusement and enjoyment. (para 43)
9. Noted: The Isha Upanishad, of 1500-600 BC, says "The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land". It adds that no creature is superior to another, and no species should encroach on the rights of other species. (para 44)
10. Held: This is the culture and tradition of the country, particularly Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. (para 45)
11. Held: The PCA Act was enacted to safeguard animal welfare and to reform age-old practices, on eco-centric principles that recognise the intrinsic value of animals. It still respects religious practice in killing an animal under Section 28. (para 46)

International approach to animal welfare

1. Noted: There is no international agreement ensuring animal welfare. The United Nations has safeguarded only human rights. There has been a slow shift from an anthropocentric approach to a nature's-rights approach. (para 47)
2. Noted: International environmental law has three stages. The first is human self-interest, in instruments such as the 1875 Declaration on Birds Useful to Agriculture, the 1900 Convention on Wild Animals and the 1931 Whaling Convention. (para 47)
3. Noted: The second is international equity, including future generations, as in the 1946 Whaling Convention and the Stockholm Declaration, and later sustainability and sustainable development. (para 47)
4. Noted: The third is nature's own rights. The UNEP Biodiversity Convention (1992) recognises intrinsic value, and the World Charter for Nature says every form of life is unique and warrants respect regardless of its worth to man. (para 47)
5. Noted: In the first stage, the treaties assumed an unlimited sovereign right to exploit natural resources, and the 1931 Whaling Convention aimed at the health of the whaling industry. The Stockholm Declaration speaks of a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. The World Charter uses nature rather than environment, a non-anthropocentric term. (para 47)
6. Noted: The Court says the United Nations has safeguarded only human rights, though animals, including bulls, sacrifice their lives for human suffering, disease research and food. It says the international community should hang its head in shame for not recognising these rights. (para 47)
7. Noted: The Court has applied eco-centric principles in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India ((2012) 3 SCC 277 and (2012) 4 SCC 362) and Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund - India v. Union of India ((2013) 8 SCC 234). (para 48)
8. Noted: Germany amended its Constitution in 2002 to add the animals to its provision requiring the State to respect animal dignity. Article 3 of the German Animal Welfare Law protects animals from fights. Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia have added animal welfare to their Constitutions. (para 49)
9. Noted: Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia included animal welfare in their Constitutions to balance owners' property rights against animals' interest in freedom from unnecessary suffering, pain, damage and fear. (para 49)
10. Noted: The UK Animal Welfare Act, 2006 and the Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act protect animals. Norway's Animal Welfare Act, 2010 says animals have intrinsic value irrespective of use to man, and Section 26 bars training animals to fight people. (para 50)
11. Noted: Section 26(d) of the Norwegian Act bars training or using animals in fights with other animals or people. The Austrian Act aims at protecting the life and well-being of animals, and the Norwegian Act says animals must be protected from the danger of unnecessary stress and strain. (para 50)
12. Held: Nationally and internationally, every species has an inherent right to live and shall be protected by law, subject to exceptions out of necessity. An animal has honour and dignity that cannot be arbitrarily taken away. (para 51)
13. Noted: The Court adds that an animal's rights and privacy have to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks. (para 51)
14. Noted: The Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) is a campaign led by the World Society for the Protection of Animals with support from countries including India. Its five freedoms find support in the PCA Act and rules. (para 52)
15. Noted: WSPA believes the world should look to the success of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for what the UDAW can achieve. (para 52)
16. Noted: The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), of which India is a member, says an animal is in good welfare if it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and not suffering pain, fear and distress. (para 53)
17. Noted: The OIE is recognised as a reference organisation by the WTO, had 178 member countries in 2013, and is the international reference organisation for animal health and welfare. (para 53)

Freedoms, rights and duties

1. Noted: Chapter 7.1.2 of the OIE guidelines gives five freedoms: from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; from fear and distress; from physical and thermal discomfort; from pain, injury and disease; and to express normal patterns of behaviour. (para 54)
2. Held: These five freedoms find a place in Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act, for animals as Part III rights are for citizens. (para 54)
3. Noted: The FAO paper Legislative and Regulatory Options for Animal Welfare says the five freedoms found a place in the Farm Welfare Council 2009 (UK) and are also called Brambell's Five Freedoms. The Court calls them the fundamental principles of animal welfare. (para 54)
4. Noted: Animals are legally recognised as property. After Article 19(1)(f) was deleted, the right to property is only a legal right, which gives Parliament leeway to protect animals. (para 55)
5. Held: The rights of animals under Sections 3 and 11 are only statutory rights. They have to be elevated to fundamental rights, as a few countries have done. Read with Article 51A(g) and (h), they form the "magna carta of animal rights". (para 56)
6. Noted: Article 51A(g) makes it a duty to have compassion for living creatures. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat ((2005) 8 SCC 534) said Parliament's object was to ensure Articles 48 and 48A are honoured as a fundamental duty. (para 57)
7. Held: Compassion means concern for suffering, sympathy and kindliness. It must be read with Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) and 22 of the PCA Act. (para 57)
8. Held: Article 51A(h) makes it a duty to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Humanism includes benevolence, compassion and mercy. Both clauses (g) and (h) are read into the PCA Act, especially Sections 3 and 11. (para 58)
9. Noted: The duty of humanism is also reflected in the Preamble of the PCA Act, with Sections 3 and 11. Humanism increasingly designates an inclusive sensibility for our species, and the duty to prevent pain highlights its principles. (para 58)
10. Noted: Speciesism was coined by Richard Ryder. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as assuming human superiority over other creatures, leading to exploitation of animals. It is compared with racism and sexism. (para 59)
11. Noted: One school of thought says castism, racism and sexism rest on biological classifications, such as caste, creed, colour and reproductive role, and not on physical properties such as the capacity to be harmed or benefited. Speciesism is a prejudice in favour of one's own species. (para 59)
12. Held: Constitutional and statutory amendments, such as Articles 14 to 17, 19 and 29, have overcome castism, racism and sexism. Parliament has recognised animals' rights through the PCA Act, without sacrificing human interests under the doctrine of necessity. (para 60)
13. Held: Section 28 and the exceptions are reasonable restrictions on the rights of animals, and the unavoidable pain in using bulls and cows for farming is permitted by the rules. (para 60)
14. Noted: The Court treats the necessity exceptions and Section 28 as direct and inevitable consequences the legislature contemplated for human benefit. An enlightened society condemned slavery, racism, castism and sexism through amendments and laws. (para 60)
15. Held: But there are many avoidable non-essential human activities, like bullock-cart race and Jallikattu, which ignore the bulls' welfare solely for human pleasure. They violate rights under Sections 3 and 11. (para 61)
16. Noted: AWBI, the expert statutory body, says these events inherently involve physical and mental pain, including fear and distress. Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson say fear may be worse for animals than pain. (para 61)
17. Noted: Both anxiety and fear play an important role in the suffering of animals in these events. (para 61)
18. Held: "Every species has a right to life and security", subject to the law of the land, which includes taking life out of human necessity. (para 62)
19. Held: Under Article 21, life means more than survival for animals. It means a life with intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. Animals have a right to a healthy and clean atmosphere, food and shelter, especially when they are domesticated, and protection from unnecessary pain. (para 62)
20. Held: The rights not to be beaten, kicked, over-ridden or over-loaded are recognised by Section 11 read with Section 3. Penalties are insignificant and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, so disciplinary action is needed against officers who fail to protect these rights. (para 62)
21. Held: Article 21's expanded meaning of life covers any disturbance from the basic environment, which includes all forms of life, including animal life, necessary for human life. The right to dignity and fair treatment is not confined to human beings alone. (para 62)
22. Noted: The penalties are insignificant, since laws are made by humans, and Section 11(1) punishment is not commensurate with the offence. The rights are violated with impunity. (para 62)
23. Noted: The reports show considerable pain, stress and strain on bulls. Bulls move their heads to show they do not want to go to the arena. They are exhausted, injured and humiliated, and their frustration can be seen. (para 63)
24. Held: Sections 21 and 22 must be read with the rights under Section 3 and Section 11(1)(a) and (o) and Articles 51A(g) and (h). So read, bulls cannot be used as performing animals for Jallikattu and bullock-cart races. (para 64)

Repugnancy

1. Noted: The TNRJ Act and the PCA Act both fall under Entry 17 of the Concurrent List. Repugnancy arises where legislations overlap or conflict, or where two laws on the same concurrent matter conflict. (para 65)
2. Noted: In both, the Parliamentary law predominates, by the non-obstante clause in Article 246(1) and by Article 254(1). The Court cites Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka ((1990) 2 SCC 562). (para 65)
3. Noted: State law may be inconsistent where one cannot be obeyed without disobeying the other. If the Parliamentary law is a complete and exhaustive code, the State law may be inoperative. (para 66)
4. Noted: Repugnancy also arises where a competent legislature of superior efficacy expresses an intention to cover the whole field. (para 66)
5. Noted: M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 898) says repugnancy needs inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions. There is no repugnancy where both statutes can operate without collision, or where the second creates distinct offences. (para 67)
6. Noted: There is no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the statutes. (para 67)
7. Noted: Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram ((2000) 5 SCC 231) says repugnancy may arise even if both can be obeyed, when the legislature evinces a clear intention to cover the whole field. (para 68)
8. Noted: The Court asks whether there is repugnancy between the two Acts, both being made under Entry 17, List III, Prevention of Cruelty to animals. (para 69)
9. Noted: The Court must see if Parliament evinced an intention to cover the whole field. It refers to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which the Court sets out. (para 70)
10. Noted: The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the 1890 Act was restricted. It applied only to urban areas, covered domestic or captured animals, covered only specified cruelty and had inadequate penalties. The Bill also provides for an Animal Welfare Board and a Committee to control experimentation. It provides for licensing and regulating the training and performance of animals for entertainment with sale of tickets. (para 70)
11. Held: The well-being and welfare of animals is the paramount intention of the PCA Act. It confers duties on persons in charge and corresponding rights on animals. Section 11 places obligations on all persons, and exemptions rest on necessity. (para 71)
12. Held: Section 22 is read with Sections 3, 11(1) and 11(3). It expects only the animal to perform, and bull tamers have no role, unlike in the TNRJ Act. Sections 21 and 22 do not cover training to withstand bull tamers. (para 71)
13. Held: Sections 3, 11 and 22 confer no right on humans to overpower animals. Under Section 11(m), inciting an animal to fight is an offence. (para 71)
14. Noted: Section 38 confers rule-making power. The Central Government made the Performing Animals Rules, 1973 and the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001. Their thrust is welfare, and Rule 8(vii) protects the animals' basic natural instinct. (para 72)
15. Held: The TNRJ Act is an anthropocentric law, not for animals' welfare, unlike the eco-centric PCA Act. It basically safeguards the interest of organisers and spectators. It has no Preamble, and its Statement of Objects speaks of a tradition of more than 400 years. (para 73)
16. Noted: Section 4(3) of the TNRJ Act provides double barricades to avoid injuries to spectators, and not to animals. Section 4(iv) fixes the gallery for spectators. Section 4(vi) allows the Animal Husbandry Department to test bulls for performance enhancing drugs. (para 73)
17. Noted: Section 5 of the TNRJ Act makes the District Collector ensure spectator safety and that bulls are free of disease and not intoxicated or given any substance like nicotine or cocaine to make them more aggressive. Sections 5(ix) and (x) allow publicity and the presence of AWBI activists. (para 73)
18. Held: Section 7 of the TNRJ Act punishes with imprisonment up to one year or fine up to Rs. 10,000 or both. Section 11 of the PCA Act gives a maximum of three months, so there is inconsistency. (para 73)
19. Noted: Section 2(d) of the PCA Act speaks of domestic animals. Taming a domestic animal for use is different from taming it for entertainment. (para 74)
20. Held: Section 2(c) of the TNRJ Act, on taming of bulls, is inconsistent with Chapter V of the PCA Act. Sections 4(vii), 4(viii) and 5(viii) of the TNRJ Act also speak of Bull tamers. Taming in the arena causes strain, stress, pain and suffering, and goes against the bulls' basic natural instinct. (para 74)
21. Held: The PCA Act does not speak of taming animals, that is, over-powering them. Section 22 covers exhibition and training only for performance. Taming a domestic animal for use and taming it for entertainment are entirely different. (para 74)
22. Held: Section 5 of the TNRJ Act envisages a fight between a bull and bull tamers. That fight is prohibited by Section 11(1)(m)(ii) with Section 3 of the PCA Act, so the two provisions are inconsistent. (para 75)
23. Held: Overpowering the performing animal was never in the contemplation of the PCA Act. The TNRJ Act takes away the animals' rights by conferring rights on organisers and bull tamers. It is in direct collision with Sections 3, 11(1)(a), 11(1)(m)(ii) and 22 read with Articles 51A(g) and (h). (para 76)
24. Held: The TNRJ Act is repugnant to the PCA Act, unconstitutional and void, being violative of Article 254(1). (para 76)
25. Noted: The Objects of the TNRJ Act speak of ancient culture and of the safety of animals, participants and spectators. The PCA Act was passed when animals were exploited by coercive methods to reap maximum gains, and it aims to preserve the natural instinct of the animal. (para 76)

Conclusion

1. Held: AWBI is right that Jallikattu, bullock-cart races and such events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of the PCA Act. The Court upholds the notification of 11 July 2011. (para 77)
2. Held: Bulls cannot be used as performing animals, either for Jallikattu or bullock-cart races, in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country. The Court gives the declarations and directions in the Judgement below. (para 77)
3. Held: The appeals, transferred cases and the writ petition are disposed of. The Madras High Court judgment is set aside, the Bombay High Court judgment and the 11 July 2011 notification are upheld, and there is no order as to costs. (para 78)

Authorities

• N.R. Nair v. Union of India ((2001) 6 SCC 84): upheld the notification of 14 October 1998 on performing animals (para 7).
• Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay (1957 SCR 721): the words or otherwise cover other cases; applied to Section 11(1)(a) (para 29).
• N. Adithayan v. Travancore Dewaswom Board ((2002) 8 SCC 106): a custom that violates human rights, dignity or the Constitution cannot be upheld (para 43).
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India ((2012) 3 SCC 277 and (2012) 4 SCC 362) and Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund - India v. Union of India ((2013) 8 SCC 234): eco-centric principles applied (para 48).
• State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat ((2005) 8 SCC 534): Article 51A(g) as a fundamental duty (para 57).
• Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka ((1990) 2 SCC 562): repugnancy (para 65).
• M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 898) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department ((2000) 5 SCC 231): tests of repugnancy (paras 67-68).
• Other sources referred to:
  • Professor D.M. Broom, Animal Welfare and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 1989) (para 30).
  • Professor Salmond on custom (para 43).
  • The Isha Upanishad (para 44).
  • Richard Ryder on speciesism (para 59).
  • Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson, Animals in Translation (para 61).
  • International instruments and foreign laws (paras 47-53).
• Names as spelt in the source text: Adithayan v. Thravancore Dewaswom Board and Others (for N. Adithayan v. Travancore Dewaswom Board); ABWI (for AWBI); N. R. Nair Others v. Union of India and Others; Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and Another.

Provisions mentioned

• Section 3, PCA Act, 1960: duty of persons in charge of animals to ensure well-being and prevent unnecessary pain or suffering.
• Section 4, PCA Act: establishes the Animal Welfare Board.
• Section 9(a), (k) and (l), PCA Act: functions of the Board, including advice to the Government and promoting education on humane treatment.
• Section 11, PCA Act: treating animals cruelly; clauses (1)(a), (c), (e), (f), (h), (l) and (m); sub-sections (2) and (3). Clause (1)(o) is cited in paras 32 and 64 without its text.
• Section 2(c), TNRJ Act and Section 2(d), PCA Act: taming of bulls, and domestic animal.
• Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, PCA Act: performing animals: definitions, restriction, registration, court powers, entry, offences and exemptions.
• Section 28, PCA Act: saves killing an animal in the manner required by a community's religion.
• Section 38, PCA Act: rule-making power.
• Chapters IV and V, PCA Act: experiments on animals, and performing animals.
• Sections 4(iv), 4(vi), 4(vii), 4(viii), 5, 5(viii) and 7, Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009: organisers' responsibility, District Collector's duties and penalty.
• Performing Animals Rules, 1973; Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 (Rule 8(v) and (vii)); Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001 (Rule 11): rules on performing, draught and pack animals.
• Notifications of 2 March 1991, 14 October 1998 and 11 July 2011 (Section 22(ii)): bans on exhibiting or training listed animals.
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890: the earlier Act, with restricted scope (paras 25, 70).
• Articles 21, 51A(g) and 51A(h), Constitution: life with dignity; compassion for living creatures; humanism.
• Articles 245(1), 246(1) and 254(1), Constitution; Entry 17, List III: repugnancy of a State law to a Central law on prevention of cruelty to animals.
• Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 29, 48 and 48A; deleted Article 19(1)(f): referred to on equality, property and directive principles (paras 55, 57, 60).
• Part IV-A, Constitution: fundamental duties, which the source describes as inserted by the Constitutional 47th Amendment Act, 1956 (para 25).

Judgement

1. The rights guaranteed to the bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act, read with Articles 51A(g) and (h), cannot be taken away or curtailed, except under Sections 11(3) and 28. Their rights have been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11 (para 77).
2. The five freedoms are to be read into Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act. They must be protected and safeguarded by the States, the Central Government, Union Territories (the Governments), MoEF and AWBI (para 77).
3. AWBI and the Governments must take steps to see that persons in charge or care of animals take reasonable measures to ensure the animals' well-being (para 77).
4. AWBI and the Governments must take steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals (para 77).
5. AWBI must ensure that Section 11(1)(m)(ii) is scrupulously followed. A person in charge must not incite any animal to fight against a human being or another animal (para 77).
6. AWBI and the Governments must see that even where Section 11(3) is involved, animals are not put to unnecessary pain and suffering, and adequate and scientific methods are adopted (para 77).
7. AWBI and the Governments should educate on humane treatment of animals under Section 9(k), inculcating the spirit of Articles 51A(g) and (h) (para 77).
8. Parliament is expected to amend the PCA Act to provide an effective deterrent, with adequate penalties for violation of Section 11 (para 77).
9. Parliament is expected to elevate the rights of animals to constitutional rights, as many countries have done, to protect their dignity and honour (para 77).
10. The Governments must take disciplinary action against erring officials if the PCA Act and the Court's declarations and directions are not properly and effectively complied with (para 77).
11. The TNRJ Act is repugnant to the PCA Act and is constitutionally void, being violative of Article 254(1) (para 77).
12. AWBI must take effective and speedy steps to implement the PCA Act in consultation with the SPCAs and make periodical reports to the Governments. If any violation is noticed, the Governments must remedy it, including follow-up action (para 77).
13. The notification of 11 July 2011 is upheld. Bulls cannot be used as performing animals for Jallikattu or bullock-cart races in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country (para 77).
14. The appeals, transferred cases and writ petition are disposed of. The Madras High Court judgment is set aside and the Bombay High Court judgment is upheld. There is no order as to costs (para 78).

Legal Principle / Ratio

Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act confer rights on animals and impose duties on those in charge of them. Jallikattu and bullock-cart races per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii), and bulls cannot be performing animals. Culture and tradition cannot override the welfare legislation, and a State Act that confers rights on organisers is repugnant to it. In the Court's words, "Section 3 is a preventive provision casting no right on the organizers, but only duties and obligations".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

The rights of animals are statutory, and the Court says so. It holds that the rights under Sections 3 and 11 are only statutory rights. It asks Parliament to raise them to fundamental rights. So the judgment gives animals strong protection under the Act, without saying that the Constitution itself gives them justiciable rights.

The Court reads Section 21 and 22 beyond ticketed entertainment. The definition of exhibit refers to entertainment with sale of tickets. The Court holds that whether tickets are sold is irrelevant once a Bull is specifically prohibited from being exhibited or trained, and finds no substance in the contrary argument.

The Court treats tradition as a matter of what the tradition actually is. It finds that Tamil tradition does not support Jallikattu in its present form, and that the Act overrides tradition in any case. The judgment does not decide what test applies if a practice were shown to be an essential religious practice.

Significance

• The Court held that Jallikattu and bullock-cart races violate the PCA Act and banned the use of bulls as performing animals.
• It held that Sections 3 and 11 confer rights on animals, and read the five freedoms into those sections.
• It read Article 51A(g) and (h) into the PCA Act and used the eco-centric approach.
• It struck down the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 under Article 254(1).
• It asked Parliament to increase penalties and to raise animals' rights to constitutional rights.

Exam-Important Points

• Facts in one line: AWBI challenged Jallikattu and bullock-cart races as cruel. The Supreme Court held they violate the PCA Act and struck down the Tamil Nadu Act.
• Rule: Section 3 has two limbs, well-being and prevention of unnecessary pain, and both must be met. It confers rights on animals and duties on those in charge.
• Section 11(1)(a): the Court held that the words or otherwise are not words of limitation.
• Trap: exceptions in Section 11(3) rest on the doctrine of necessity. Entertainment and amusement are not exceptions.
• Trap: bulls are draught and pack animals and cannot be performing animals. The absence of ticket sales does not matter.
• Repugnancy: the TNRJ Act is anthropocentric and the PCA Act is eco-centric. The TNRJ Act conflicts with Sections 3, 11(1)(a), 11(1)(m)(ii) and 22 and is void under Article 254(1).
• Five freedoms: freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; from fear and distress; from physical and thermal discomfort; from pain, injury and disease; and to express normal behaviour.
• Costs: no order as to costs.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the official Supreme Court judgment text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.