On December 7, the Supreme Court's constitutional bench resumed hearings on the constitutionality of laws allowing Jalikattu, Kambala, and bull-cart races in states such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C. T. Ravi Kumar were on the bench “Take the example of degradation of forest or wildlife conservation. The Preservation of Trees Act, you have in every state, the trees cannot be cut. Can a human not come and say that this has been happening, that a lot of people are violating the law? Your duty to not do a certain act can be enforced by a mandamus?”

The current batch of petitions was originally filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on January 7, 2016, and to direct the concerned States to comply with the Apex Court's decision in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 was passed while the case was pending. Following that, the writ petitions were amended to seek the repeal of the aforementioned Amendment Act. The Supreme Court then referred the case to a constitutional bench to decide whether Tamil Nadu can retain Jallikattu as a cultural right under Article 29(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens' cultural rights protection. A division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Nariman felt the writ petition revolving around Jallikattu raised significant questions relating to constitutional interpretation and referred the matter to the constitution bench with five questions to decide on in addition to those brought up in the writ petitions.

KEY ISSUES
1.    Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment violate Entry 17 of the Concurrent List in the Indian Constitution by perpetuating animal cruelty?
2.    Is the Jallikattu sport protected as a cultural right under Article 29 of the Indian Constitution?
3.    Is Jallikattu required to ensure the survival and well-being of the sport's indigenous bulls?
4.    Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act a violation of Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Indian Constitution, which impose the duty of environmental protection and the development of a "scientific temper" on all citizens, because it promotes a bull taming sport?
5.    Can the Act be said to be unreasonable and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
6.    Is the contested Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contradictory to the A. Nagaraja decision?
7.    Can the Tamil Nadu Legislature amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?

Case Title: Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India and others
Citation: W.P.(C) No.-23 / 2016