Is jallikattu necessary to preserve native breeds, SC asks State

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, which is hearing a challenge to a Tamil Nadu law allowing jallikattu, on Thursday asked the state government how is the bull-taming sport necessary for preserving the native breed of bulls.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph also asked the state whether an animal can be used, as in jallikattu, for the entertainment of humans.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tamil Nadu, told the top court that jallikattu is not per se entertainment and the person who showcases his bull treats the animal with great care and compassion.

The bench, also comprising justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, asked should the animal, for whom one is supposed to have “compassion” as a constitutional value, be subjected like this for the entertainment of humans and can a state allow this on the basis of its perception of cultural rights.

“What is the basis of saying it is pure entertainment? Look at it from a historical perspective,” Sibal said, adding, a person feeds the bull every day for this event in January and he does it with great care and compassion.

The bench asked, “What he get out of this?”. The senior advocate responded, saying the price of the bull goes up in the market.

When Sibal said the sport in not about entertainment, the bench shot back, asking “Not entertainment? Then why are people gathering there?”

He responded, contending it is to demonstrate the vigour of the bull, how you have brought it up and also how strong it is. “The whole concept that this is for entertainment is not the case at all,” Sibal insisted.

During the day-long hearing on Thursday, the bench asked, “The point is how is the holding of ‘jallikattu’ necessary for preservation of the native breed”. It said arguments have been advanced from the petitioners’ side that in spite of whatever prohibitions are there to prevent cruelty, at the implementation level, these are not being followed.

The bench also wanted to know about the evidence to support the claim that it is a cultural practice. The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on December 6.