Supreme Court of India

THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2018 INSC 89
Decided: 2 February 2018
Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Bench: DIPAK MISRA

Holding

The writ petitions raise substantial constitutional questions and must be decided by a Constitution Bench of five judges.

Summary

The Animal Welfare Board of India and others filed writ petitions seeking to quash a 2016 Union notification and to compel compliance with the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja. While the petitions were pending, the Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 2017 was enacted, and the petitions were amended to challenge this Act. The Court examined whether the amendment raises substantial constitutional questions concerning pith‑and‑substance, cultural heritage, and fundamental rights. Justice R.F. Nariman held that the issues are of a constitutional nature requiring a five‑judge Constitution Bench. Consequently, the papers were ordered to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting such a bench.

Issues considered

Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, falls within Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule or is colourable legislation that does not relate to any State List or Concurrent List entry.
Whether the Act, purportedly preserving cultural heritage, can be said to be part of the cultural heritage protected by Article 29 of the Constitution.
Whether the Act, aimed at the survival of native bull breeds, relates to the directive principle under Article 48.
Whether the Act contravenes Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), rendering it unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
Whether the Act is directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment in A. Nagaraja and the subsequent review judgment of 16 November 2016.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act

Subjects

Animal welfareConstitutional lawPith and substanceCultural heritageFundamental rightsArticle 29Article 48Article 14Article 21Article 51AState legislationConstitution Bench

Judgment

                         [2018] 1 S.C.R. 407                             407


     THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.                            A
                                  v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016)
                        FEBRUARY 02, 2018                                B
        [DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
       Reference to larger Bench – Writ petitions filed to quash and
set aside a notification dated 7th January, 2016 issued by Union of
India and to direct the Respondents to ensure compliance with order
                                                                         C
passed by Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja case – While the writ
petitions were pending, the 2017 Act was passed – Writ petitions
amended to include prayers to set aside the said Act – Held: Writ
petitions involve substantial questions relating to interpretation of
the Constitution of India and thus, need to be authoritatively decided
by a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges – Papers be placed before the        D
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble
Judges – Constitution of India – VIIth Schedule, List III, Entry 17
and Arts. 14, 21, 29, 48, 51A(g)(h) – The Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Doctrine of pith and
substance.
                                                                         E
      Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors.
      (2014) 7 SCC 547 : [2014] 6 SCR 646 – referred to.
                        Case Law Reference
      [2014] 6 SCR 646          referred to              Para 3
                                                                         F
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 23
of 2016.
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
                                WITH
                                                                         G
      W. P. (C) No. 24/2016, W. P. (C) No. 25/2016, W. P. (C) No.
26/2016, W. P. (C) No. 27/2016, W. P. (C) No. 88/2016, W. P. (C) No.
1011/2017, W. P. (C) No. 1059/2017, S.L.P. (C) No. 3528/2018, W. P.
(C) No. 1193/2017, S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3526-3527 of 2018, W. P. (C) No.
1188/2017
                                                                         H
                                 407
408            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A            K. K. Venugopal, AG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Sidharth Luthra,
      Anand Grover, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, V. Giri, Shekhar Naphade,
      A. Sharan, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Mr. Subramaniom Prasad,
      Shyam Divan, Senior Advocates, Balraj Dewan, Ms. Anjali Sharma,
      Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Mayank Sapra, Ms. Joshita
      Pai, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Aditya Singla,
B
      Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ajit Sharma, Ms. Shrinidhi Rao, Subodh
      S. Patil, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Shadan Farasat, Ms. Rudrakshi Deo,
      Ms. Bhumika Aggarwal, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Bhumika Aggarwal,
      Ms. Ispita Behura, Manas Gaur, Sachin Patil, Nishant Ramakantrao
      Katneshwarkar, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Sumit Attri, Karan Khanna,
C     Ms. Nikhita Shenoy, Vikash Kumar Jha, Ms. Svadha Shanker, M/s. Cyril
      Amarchand Mangaldas Balendu Shekhar, Hemant Arya, Ravi Gopal,
      Ms. Kirti Dua, Rohit Bhatt, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, R. Nedumaran,
      Gurmeet Singh Makker, Naresh Bakshi, Arpit Rai, C. K. Sasi,,
      Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Vishnu Sharma, N. Rajaraman, Ms. Uma Prasuna,
      Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, P. Soma Sundaram,
D
      Y. Arunagiri, Mayil Samy, K. Mutuhu Ganesa Pandian, Ananda Selvam,
      Ompal Shokeen, Anil Kumar Mishra-i, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Vishakha,
      Shashwat Singh, Prabu Rama Subramanian, Sabarish Subramanian,
      William Vinoth Kumar, Deepak Anand, M. Y. Deshmukh,
      C. Paramasivam, Y. Arunagiri, Rakesh K. Sharma, Vinodh Kanna B.,
E     A. Sriram, Ankur S. Kulkarni, M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., M. Yogesh
      Kanna, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Ms. Soumya, Ms. Nidhi Nagpal,
      Shashank Mangal, Anurag Pandey, Ms. Reena Pandey, Kunwar Ratnesh
      Ratn, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Mamta Singh,
      Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary,
      Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Ms, Kalyani Tulankar,
F
      Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Adv. M/s. Abhay Anturkar & Associates Advs.
      for the appearing parties.
            Applicant-In-Person
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G           R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. The present batch of writ petitions was
      originally filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union
      of India on 7th January, 2016, and to direct the Respondents to ensure
      compliance with this Court’s judgment reported as Animal Welfare
      Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547.
H
   THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. UNION OF                                409
              INDIA [ R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

       2. However, while these writ petitions were pending, The                 A
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017,
which received the Presidential assent on 31st January, 2017, was passed.
The writ petitions were then amended so as to include prayers to set
aside the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Amendment Act on several grounds.
       3. After hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents for some            B
time, we are of the view that these writ petitions need to be authoritatively
decided by a Constitution Bench of 5 learned Judges, as the writ petitions
involve substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India. The questions, which require reference to a Bench
of 5 learned Judges, apart from the other questions raised in the writ
petitions, are set out hereinbelow:                                             C

      i. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and
      substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the
      Constitution of India, or does it further and perpetuate cruelty to
      animals; and can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention
      of cruelty to animals? Is it colourable legislation which does not        D
      relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent
      List?
      ii.The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the
      cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the impugned
      Tamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural             E
      heritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive
      the protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of India?
      iii. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to
      ensure the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls? Is
      the Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article 48 of the            F
      Constitution of India?
      iv. Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles
      51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be
      unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
      of India?                                                                 G
      v.Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary
      to the judgment in A. Nagaraja (supra), and the review judgment
      dated 16th November, 2016 in the aforesaid case, and whether the
      defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be said
                                                                                H
410            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A           to have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature by enacting
            the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?
             4. Let the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice to
      constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges.

B     Divya Pandey                              Matter placed before Hon’ble CJI to
                                                      constitute a five-judge Bench.




C




D




E




F




G




H

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Animal welfare"Sign in to search