LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (Jallikattu case)

SLP(C) · 2023 INSC 548Decided 18 May 2023
SLP(C) No. 3528 of 2018
K.M. Joseph · Ajay Rastogi · Aniruddha Bose · Hrishikesh Roy · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

In 2014, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court (A. Nagaraja case) had banned Jallikattu (bull-taming in Tamil Nadu), Bullock Cart Races (Maharashtra) and Kambala (buffalo races in Karnataka) as cruel to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. In response, the Union government issued a notification carving out an exception for these traditional sports, and the states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka amended the 1960 Act to expressly legalise these events (with safety conditions) and obtained Presidential assent. Animal welfare groups and individuals challenged these amendments as unconstitutional and as an improper attempt to override the earlier Supreme Court judgment, leading to a batch of petitions referred to a Constitution Bench.

Decision Breakdown

The Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka Amendment Acts, holding they were not "colourable legislation" designed merely to defeat the earlier judgment, but genuine legislative measures falling under Entry 17 of the Concurrent List (prevention of cruelty to animals) that significantly reduced the pain and suffering previously found objectionable. The Court held it was not for the judiciary to decide whether these sports formed part of a state's cultural heritage, that was a legislative and social question, and since the amendments (with accompanying rules) addressed the specific cruelties flagged in the earlier ruling, they did not violate Articles 14, 21, or 51-A(g)/(h) of the Constitution. All three amendment Acts were held valid, provided the safety rules and notifications are strictly enforced by district authorities, and the batch of writ petitions and connected matters was disposed of accordingly.

Lesson Learnt

Legislatures can validly amend a law to address specific defects identified by a court, even if the amendment effectively reverses the practical outcome of an earlier judgment, as long as the new law fixes the substance of what made the earlier practice unlawful, rather than merely trying to nullify the court's ruling on paper.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case