Skip to main content

Animal welfare board of India VS A. Nagaraja and Ors

 Animal welfare board of India VS A. Nagaraja and Ors.

In Tamil Nadu, a traditional sport known as Jallikattu exists. In this sport, the bull is released in public / in front of a crowd, and then individuals attempt to seize the bull and perch on top of it, where they must remain until the bull attempts to flee. This sport has resulted in numerous fatalities among those who are part of the crowd. There were also numerous women and children present, and this circumstance and cause of death prompted major concern about animal welfare.

Due to the fact that the bull was tortured with sharp sticks. Their tails are severely bowed to the point of fracture in the base of their spinal cord, and they are thrashed with sticks. rubber belt and are also bitten prior to release to enrage the bull, causing him to rush quickly and destroy whatever in his path. As a result of the anger created to torture him, the bull also murdered a number of people. Additionally, there were numerous accounts of bulls being made to consume alcohol in order to disorient and agitate them they also employed chilly powder in their eyes to increase their craziness and wildness, and occasionally in their anus. These factors also contributed to the deaths of numerous bulls during the festival. In 2010, the Animal Welfare Board of India filed a complaint in the Supreme Court against this traditional sport, requesting that it be banned for the safety of the animal and the people who die each year as a result of this activity's harm to both. In 2011, the Ministry of Environment and Forests prohibited the use of bulls as performing animals, however the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act maintained the sport.


Tamil Nadu's high court upheld the continuation of this customary practise under the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu statute. The AWBI then petitioned the government to issue a notification prohibiting the use of bulls in this sport, training, and display. The supreme court of India acknowledged the magna carta of animal rights under article 51A(g). The supreme court ruled in favour of the animal protection board of India and banned this sport for being too cruel to the bulls and also to the crowd members who attempted to jump on it. Both the and humans sustain major injuries and, in some cases, die. And this had an effect on the fundamental right guaranteed by article 21, namely the right of animals to life. Thus, the supreme court's ruling was extremely beneficial for bulls and extremely well-reasoned, as it was extremely difficult to choose between ancient practises and newly upgraded laws and society. Customs that violate people's and animals' fundamental rights cannot be continued and must be abolished. Nobody can be harmed in such a way. It is a direct violation of the right to life.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more