Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday that bull-taming sport jallikattu and bullock cart races can’t be a tradition simply because a gaggle of residents calls it so and this has been adopted by the legislature.
“Mere activity or an assertion cannot be said to be culture just because the legislature has adopted it,” senior advocate Siddharth Luthra informed a five-judge bench headed by Justice KM Joseph.
Luthra mentioned that when the Constitution recognises prevention of cruelty to animals, it means the Constitution recognises the precise of animals and the amendments handed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra should be learn in consonance with Part III of the Constitution, which offers with elementary rights.
“There’s (the) doctrine or principle of necessity. That exception cannot be treated on a par or as a sport for the purpose of human enjoying. When the legislation and legislative entry talks about prevention of cruelty and amending act perpetuates cruelty, the two cannot go together,” Luthra added.
For the petitioners, senior advocate Shyam Divan added that the modification acts had been opposite to the separation of energy, and mentioned points relating to jallikattu had attained finality within the A Nagaraj judgment.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday that bull-taming sport jallikattu and bullock cart races can’t be a tradition simply because a gaggle of residents calls it so and this has been adopted by the legislature.
“Mere activity or an assertion cannot be said to be culture just because the legislature has adopted it,” senior advocate Siddharth Luthra informed a five-judge bench headed by Justice KM Joseph.
Luthra mentioned that when the Constitution recognises prevention of cruelty to animals, it means the Constitution recognises the precise of animals and the amendments handed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra should be learn in consonance with Part III of the Constitution, which offers with elementary rights.
“There’s (the) doctrine or principle of necessity. That exception cannot be treated on a par or as a sport for the purpose of human enjoying. When the legislation and legislative entry talks about prevention of cruelty and amending act perpetuates cruelty, the two cannot go together,” Luthra added.
For the petitioners, senior advocate Shyam Divan added that the modification acts had been opposite to the separation of energy, and mentioned points relating to jallikattu had attained finality within the A Nagaraj judgment.
