Does ownership of an animal justify cruelty shown to it, the Supreme Court asked the Tamil Nadu Government on Tuesday.
Appearing before a Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for Tamil Nadu, in response to the question referred to the categorisation of cruelty within the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act itself.
He said how killing an animal for food was not considered cruelty in the law.
“It is not that we will not survive without mutton or fish. Vegans do,” Mr. Dwivedi said.
He indicated that by allowing killing for food, the Act itself recognised certain prevalent cultures where meat was a traditional part of the diet. The climate, environment and long habit would have defined the culture. A law cannot be brought to suddenly stop a long prevailing habit.
Likewise, Tamil Nadu argued that jallikattu was an ancient game and followed inherent rules.
Besides, Mr. Dwivedi said the State government has also framed rules. Standard operating procedures have been laid down to supervise and regulate jallikattu. No unnecessary pain was caused to the animals.
Jallikattu was both a religious and cultural event celebrated by the people of Tamil Nadu and its influence extends beyond the confines of caste and creed, the State government argued in court.
The Bench was hearing a series of petitions by activists challenging the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017.
The statutes had reopened the gates for the conduct of the popular bull-taming sport in the name of culture and tradition despite the 2014 ban by the Supreme Court.
The petitions were referred to the Constitution Bench in February 2018.