The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.[SC 2018 FEBRUARY]

KEYWORDS:- MATTER REFERRED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH- pith and substance-

DATE:- February 2, 2018

ACT:- The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017

The Animal Welfare Board of IndiaIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass. The people of this land are Sanatan Dharmin and they always defeated invaders. Indra (10000 yrs) was the oldest deified King of this land. Manu's jurisprudence enlitened this land. Vedas have been the civilizational literature of this land. Guiding principles of this land are : सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर । स्वाध्यायान्मा प्रमदः । Read more & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

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

R.F. NARIMAN, J.

1. The present batch of writ petitions was originally filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on 7th January, 2016, and to direct the Respondents to ensure compliance with this Court’s judgmentJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order - CPC 2(9). It contains a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision - Order 20 Rule 4(2).  Section 354 of CrPC requires that every judgment shall contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Indian Supreme Court Decisions > Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts (Art 141 Indian Constitution) Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art 144) Supreme Court Network On Judiciary – Portal > Denning: “Judges do not speak, as do actors, to please. They do not speak, as do advocates, to persuade. They do not speak, as do historians, to recount the past. They speak to give Judgment. And in their judgments, you will find passages, which are worthy to rank with the greatest literature….” Law Points on Judgment Writing > The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges (State Bank of India and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Sood SC 2022) reported as Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547.

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

3. After hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents for some timeTime Where any expression of it occurs in any Rules, or any judgment, order or direction, and whenever the doing or not doing of anything at a certain time of the day or night or during a certain part of the day or night has an effect in law, that time is, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, held to be standard time as used in a particular country or state. (In Physics, time and Space never exist actually-“quantum entanglement”), we are of the view that these writ petitions need to be authoritatively decided by a Constitution Bench of 5 learned Judges, as the writ petitions involve substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution of India. The questions, which require reference to a Bench of 5 learned Judges, apart from the other questions raised in the writ petitions, are set out hereinbelow:

i. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or does it further and perpetuate cruelty to animals; and can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals? Is it colourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List?

ii. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of 4 the people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of India?

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

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

v. Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary to the judgment in A. Nagaraja (supra), and the review judgment dated 16th November, 2016 in the aforesaid case, and whether the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be said to have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature by enacting the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?

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

CJI. (Dipak Misra)

J. (R.F. Nariman)

New Delhi;

February 2, 2018.

WITH 

[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 24 of 2016] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 25 of 2016] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26 of 2016] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 27 of 2016] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 88 of 2016] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1059 of 2017] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2017] [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3528 of 2018 (Diary No. 37267/17)] [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3526-3527 of 2018 (Diary No. 39253/17)] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1188 of 2017] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1193 of 2017]