The new Tamil Nadu legislation enacted after popular demand to allow bull-taming sport of Jallikattu during Pongal festival was today challenged by the Animal Welfare Board of India and rights bodies in Supreme Court, which is likely to hear the matter on January 30.
Those challenging the bill, passed by the state assembly on Monday, are contending that it was against the mandate of the Supreme Court judgement which has held that the "sport is inherently cruel" towards animals and this real issue has not been addressed by the lawmakers.
The pleas were mentioned for urgent listing before the bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra which asked the Board and animal rights activists to file their applications which will be taken up for hearing with the Centre's plea for withdrawing the January 6, 2016 notification allowing Tamil Nadu to allow holding of the popular bull-taming sport.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Anand Grover mentioned the matter on behalf of those opposing Jallikattu, which was banned by apex court in 2014.
In their applications, the animal rights group has said that the new law passed by Tamil Nadu Assembly to allow Jallikattu has over-reached the earlier verdict of apex court.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had yesterday informed the apex court that the Centre has decided to withdraw its notification allowing Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu.
The apex court, which had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the notification, had said that the concerned bench would take a decision on when the application of the Centre would come up for its consideration.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment), Act, 2017 piloted by Chief Minister O Panneerselvam, was unanimously adopted on January 23 by a voice vote in the assembly after a brief debate.
Nearly 70 caveats have been filed in the Supreme Court seeking prior hearing if pleas challenging the new legislation allowing Jallikattu in the state come up for consideration.
The caveats were filed a day after the AIADMK government moved the apex court seeking a prior hearing before any order is proposed to be passed in the matter.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
