Introduction

India is a land of varied cultures with its more diversified and astonishing traditions or customs. Many a time it is seen that the customs or traditions have collided with the very basic structure of the Constitution.

The collision of customs and the Constitution was witness in the case of Jallikattu. It is typically practice as a part of the Pongal celebrations.

Jallikattu is a traditional event in which a bull (bos indicus) mainly of the Pulikulam or Kangayam breeds is released into a huge gathering of people. Many men who participate, make an effort to grab the huge hump on the bull’s back with both arms. And hang on to it and make an attempt to bring the bull to a stop.

When this traditional practice is challenge in the Supreme Court, out of many questions, one very important question rise that whether the practice of Jallikattu is Cultural Rights and thus be protect under Constitution. 

Jallikattu is a traditional practice. According to Article 29(1) of the Constitution, any sections of the citizens residing in the country or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. However in that case another conflict or confusion arises, if Jallikattu is upheld by the Constitution as part of cultural rights of Tamilnadu as guaranteed under Article 29(1), provisions of other laws like Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960 might be under the risk of being struck down.

The Jallikattu Issue

Jallikattu which is also known as “Eruzuthazhuvuthal” is an event place in Tamil Nadu. It is a part of the Pongal celebrations. People breed the bulls especially for this event. Also prizes are announced for the winner of this event. According to literature it is a 2000-year-old practice where a bull is hugged or embraced as a rite of passage for a man asking a girl’s hand in marriage.

As mentioned earlier, a man needs to hang on to the hump of the bull. It is to bring it to a stop. In this process many bulls and a lot of people have been injured. Also many lost their lives. Bulls getting injured or dying led to the violation of several laws relating to the rights of animals.

The ban on “sports activities including bulls” was commence back in 2006. A petition was file before the Madras High Court seeking permission to conduct Jallikattu. The Single Bench, considering the cruelty related to the sport banned the event. An appeal was made before the Division bench was the decision was overturned. It grant the order to conduct Jallikattu under certain given conditions. Quite naturally, Jallikattu continued in its form without any respect for the conditions provided. Thus the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) put up a notification barring the exhibition or training of bulls as performing animals.

Court’s view

In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) v. A. Nagaraja &Ors.; the petitioners approach the Supreme Court with an appeal against the order of the division bench of Madras High Court. The petitioners claimed that the bulls were subject to cruelty. The practice violated Section 3, 11 (a) and (m) read with Article 51A (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court pronounce a landmark judgment banning the use of bulls. It is ban either in Jallikattu of Tamilnadu or Bullock Cart races of Maharashtra. The court analyze the position of bulls in such conditions. Then says that the bulls have a right to life and a life with dignity. Animals also have a right against human beings. The right of not being torture or any unnecessary harm being inflict on them.

In 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea of the State of Tamilnadu to conduct the event in 2017. The ban of the event hurt the sentiments of the people of the state. There were state-wide massive protests against the ban of the event. To handle the situation, the then State Government proposed for an ordinance to the Centre to bring a State Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The ordinance promulgate hence allowing the conducting of the event.

Custom and Constitution: A Clash

Custom is one of the major sources of law in India. Indian courts have recognized Custom as a law, if the custom is ancient enough or in other words immemorial in origin, a custom should be reasonable and should be in continuous use. A custom should also be certain, which means that a custom should be invariable to become a law.

Constitution is also one of the major sources of laws in India, also all the laws and acts need to be in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. However the constitution can be amend according to the needs of the society from time to time.

Now, the question is, do the various customs stand in the way of the constitution? In my opinion they come in the way of the constitution, however, it is a very debatable topic. We can understand it by the following points in reference to Jallikattu:

Important Part of Tamil Culture:

The fight for Jallikattu is a fight for Tamil pride and also for the men to showcase their masculinity. This sport has been carried on for thousands of years thus the Tamilnadu state. The supporters argue that it should be allow as a part of Cultural practice.

The Supreme Court said that “the mere presence of practice cannot justify a tradition” in response to the State’s plea that it should be allowed as part of custom or tradition.

A cruel sport:

Every living being has the right to live peacefully and in a dignified manner. The sport of Jallikattu is a cruel sport of bull-taming, where the bull is tortured and even alcohol is given to them to make them more ferocious. Many people thus opposed the sport on the grounds of cruelty while others supported the cause and said bull-taming was just as normal as we pet a dog.

Our Constitution grants us the right to life under Article 21 and the same expands to animals as well. This observation had been sought in the analysis of the judgment delivered by Radhakrishnan J. and Ghosh J. in the landmark case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja &Ors. [(2014)7 SCC 547].  Thus, customs like Jallikattu curb the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and also violate several other laws.

The Sabarimala temple case and many other such cases depict the clash between customs and the Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Conclusion

Custom is one of the major sources of law in the Indian Legal System. Also all the laws derive from the Constitution. Therefore a clash or conflict is inevitable.

We live in the 21^st century, an age recognized for technological advancements or technological revolution, somehow we are still backward in case of our mindset and practices. It is high time that we do away with the customs and traditions which are detrimental to the environment and society at large.

However, as mention already, our culture and tradition are our pride. Thus we should keep those traditions alive which do are not baleful to any other living being or even their self. If need they are to be keep alive with certain amendments.