SC allows Maharashtra’s bullock cart racing: ‘We need to have uniformity’
The apex court bench said, “If it is a traditional sport and going on all across the country except Maharashtra, it does not appeal to common sense.”
3 min read
However, though Maharashtra too amended the PCA Act in 2017 to allow the race, the Bombay HC did not agree and stayed their holding.
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Maharashtra to hold the traditional bullock cart racing event, saying there was no reason to disallow it in the state when similar sports were going on in other places across the country.
“One country, one race, we need to have uniformity and there has to be one rule. If the races are going on in other states, why should it not be allowed by Maharashtra,” Justice Khanwilkar heading a two-judge bench, observed, allowing the state’s application seeking permission to conduct the race.
‘It is a traditional sport going on for several years. Judgment came and it was stopped. Then amendment came and allowed in a regulated manner. If it is a traditional sport and going on all across the country except Maharashtra, it does not appeal to common sense,” he added.
The judgment referred to is the 2014 verdict of the Supreme Court in the A Nagaraja vs Union of India case, in which it banned Jallikattu, holding that it amounted to cruelty to bulls under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act.
On Thursday, the bench, also comprising Justice C T Ravikumar, noted that states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka had brought in amendments to the PCA Act post the 2014 SC ruling to enable them to allow jallikattu and bullock cart races. Though these were also challenged in the SC, the apex court did not pass any order and instead referred the matter to a Constitution bench.
However, though Maharashtra too amended the PCA Act in 2017 to allow the race, the Bombay HC did not agree and stayed their holding.
The bench remarked Thursday that the “same dispensation must apply to the provisions of the State of Maharashtra which are similar to the amendments carried out in other states” and added that the changes enacted will continue to operate during the pendency of the matter, given that the SC had not passed any order against the changes made by TN and Karnataka.
Appearing for Maharashtra, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi prayed that TN and and Karnataka have been holding their events every year on the basis of their amendments, but Maharashtra has not been able to.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organization (FIAPO), opposed Maharashtra’s request, saying that the state cannot claim parity with TN and Karnataka as in the case of their amendments, the SC had not passed any order, but the HC had applied its mind to the Maharashtra amendments and stayed them.
You May Like
