THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 2 February 2018

407

THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.

A

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016)

B

FEBRUARY 02, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

Reference to larger Bench – Writ petitions filed to quash andset aside a notification dated 7[th] January, 2016 issued by Union ofIndia and to direct the Respondents to ensure compliance with orderCpassed by Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja case – While the writpetitions were pending, the 2017 Act was passed – Writ petitionsamended to include prayers to set aside the said Act – Held: Writpetitions involve substantial questions relating to interpretation ofthe Constitution of India and thus, need to be authoritatively decidedby a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges – Papers be placed before theDHon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’bleJudges – Constitution of India – VII[th] Schedule, List III, Entry 17and Arts. 14, 21, 29, 48, 51A(g)(h) – The Prevention of Cruelty toAnimals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Doctrine of pith andsubstance.

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 646referred toPara 3

F

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 23of 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

AK. 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. JoshitaPai, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Aditya Singla,BPurushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ajit Sharma, Ms. Shrinidhi Rao, SubodhS. 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 RamakantraoKatneshwarkar, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Sumit Attri, Karan Khanna,CMs. Nikhita Shenoy, Vikash Kumar Jha, Ms. Svadha Shanker, M/s. CyrilAmarchand 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,DY. 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.,EA. Sriram, Ankur S. Kulkarni, M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., M. YogeshKanna, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Ms. Soumya, Ms. Nidhi Nagpal,Shashank Mangal, Anurag Pandey, Ms. Reena Pandey, Kunwar RatneshRatn, 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,FDr. R. R. Deshpande, Adv. M/s. Abhay Anturkar & Associates Advs.for the appearing parties.

Applicant-In-Person

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byG

R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. The present batch of writ petitions wasoriginally filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Unionof India on 7[th] January, 2016, and to direct the Respondents to ensurecompliance with this Court’s judgment reported as Animal WelfareBoard of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547.

H

2. However, while these writ petitions were pending, ThePrevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017,which received the Presidential assent on 31[st] January, 2017, was passed.The writ petitions were then amended so as to include prayers to setaside the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Amendment Act on several grounds.

3. After hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents for sometime, we are of the view that these writ petitions need to be authoritativelydecided by a Constitution Bench of 5 learned Judges, as the writ petitionsinvolve substantial questions relating to the interpretation of theConstitution of India. The questions, which require reference to a Benchof 5 learned Judges, apart from the other questions raised in the writpetitions, are set out hereinbelow:

i. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith andsubstance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to theConstitution of India, or does it further and perpetuate cruelty toanimals; and can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of preventionof cruelty to animals? Is it colourable legislation which does notrelate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the ConcurrentList?

ii.The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve thecultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the impugnedTamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the culturalheritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receivethe protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of India?

iii. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, toensure the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls? Isthe Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article 48 of theConstitution of India?

iv. Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to beunreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitutionof India?

v.Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contraryto the judgment in A. Nagaraja (supra), and the review judgmentdated 16[th] November, 2016 in the aforesaid case, and whether thedefects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be said A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

410SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Ato have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature by enactingthe impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?

4. Let the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice toconstitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges.

BDivya Pandey

Matter placed before Hon’ble CJI to

constitute a five-judge Bench.

C

D

E

F

G

H