The Supreme Court on Wednesday kept intact the ban on Jallikattu despite residents from the State seeking a reconsideration citing age-old tradition, religious belief and the State’s preparedness to deal with any instance of cruelty meted to the bulls participating in the event.
The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and NV Ramana maintained its order passed on January 12 and said it was “unimpressed” by the arguments presented by the petition filed by a group of lawyers hailing from the State.
Advocate N Rajaraman who argued the petition submitted that the Court while staying the notification issued by Centre allowing Jallikattu at the instance of NGOs and Animal Welfare Board failed to account the religious aspirations of poor villagers where Jallikattu is organised with religious fervor. He said the sport involves no cruelty on bull as the villagers consider it a deity.
The bulls participating in the event are fed, nourished over the year and treated just as a family member, Rajaraman submitted. He asked the Court to impose any conditions while permitting the sport this year as all arrangements were put in place by State administration. Rajaraman suspected various interest groups responsible to get Jallikattu banned as he alleged that if the bulls are not used in Jallikattu, they will be sold across border into Kerala to fetch high grade beef.
For the Animal Welfare Board and other NGOs opposing Jallikattu, senior advocates CA Sundaram and Anand Grover told the Court that all these points were put forth by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and other senior advocates who appeared for Tamil Nadu. The Court considered and dismissed the same by its order on Monday and since then, no new development has taken place.
The bench asked the petitioner on why they waited for four years since the notification issued by Centre on July 11, 2011 which banned Jallikattu. Further, the bench wondered that if bulls were revered and loved as a family member, why they were treated as “outsider” by selling them off for slaughter to Kerala to which the petitioner had no answer. Refusing to pass any interim order, the Court allowed the petitioners to join the proceedings in the main case to be taken up in March this year.