Page No.# 1/23

GAHC010017262024

2024:GAU-AS:13103

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/466/2024

PEOPLE FOR THE EHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) INDIA

REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR, KHUSHBOO GUPTA, AGED

ABOUT 35 YEARS, WIFE OF SHUBHAM SACHDEVA, PRESENTLY WORKING

AS DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY PROJECTS IN PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL

TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA), INDIA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED

OFFICE AT F-110,1ST FLOOR, JAGDAMBA TOWER, PLOT NO. 13,

COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI- 110092.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,

BLOCK-C, 3RD FLOOR, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR- 781006,

GUWAHATI

2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

2ND FLOOR

CMS BLOCK

ASSAM SECRETARIAT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-6

3:ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA

THROUGH DR. O.P. CHAUDHARY

CHAIRMAN

AWBI AND JOINT SECRETARY

MOFAHD

42 KM STONE

DELHI-AGRA HIGHWAY

NATIONAL HIGHWAY-2 Page No.# 1/23

GAHC010017262024

2024:GAU-AS:13103

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/466/2024

PEOPLE FOR THE EHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) INDIA

REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR, KHUSHBOO GUPTA, AGED

ABOUT 35 YEARS, WIFE OF SHUBHAM SACHDEVA, PRESENTLY WORKING

AS DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY PROJECTS IN PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL

TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA), INDIA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED

OFFICE AT F-110,1ST FLOOR, JAGDAMBA TOWER, PLOT NO. 13,

COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI- 110092.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,

BLOCK-C, 3RD FLOOR, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR- 781006,

GUWAHATI

2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

2ND FLOOR

CMS BLOCK

ASSAM SECRETARIAT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-6

3:ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA

THROUGH DR. O.P. CHAUDHARY

CHAIRMAN

AWBI AND JOINT SECRETARY

MOFAHD

42 KM STONE

DELHI-AGRA HIGHWAY

NATIONAL HIGHWAY-2

Page No.# 2/23

VILLAGE- SEEKRI BALLABHGARH

FARIDABAD

HARYANA- 121004 INDI

Linked Case : WP(C)/468/2024

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS PETA INDIA

REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR

KHUSHBOO GUPTA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

WIFE OF SHUBHAM SACHDEVA

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY PROJECTS IN

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA)

INDIA

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT F-110

1ST FLOOR

JAGDAMBA TOWER

PLOT NO. 13

COMMUNITY CENTRE

PREET VIHAR

NEW DELHI- 110092

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

BLOCK-C

3RD FLOOR

ASSAM SACHIVALAYA

DISPUR- 781006

GUWAHATI

2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

2ND FLOOR

CMS BLOCK

ASSAM SECRETARIAT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-6

3:ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA

THROUGH DR. O.P. CHAUDHARY

CHAIRMAN

Page No.# 3/23

AWBI AND JOINT SECRETARY

MOFAHD

42 KM STONE

DELHI-AGRA HIGHWAY

NATIONAL HIGHWAY-2

VILLAGE- SEEKRI BALLABHGARH

FARIDABAD

HARYANA- 121004 INDIA

------------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Das, Senior Advocate

Mr. D.J. Das, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B.J. Talukdar, Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate

Date of Hearing : 17.12.2024

Date ofJudgment : 17.12.2024

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Das,

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ

petitions. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, the learned Additional Senior Government

Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. It is seen from the materials on record that service has been duly affected

upon the respondent No. 3 but none has appeared on behalf of the respondent

No. 3.

3. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the writ petitioner in

both the writ petitions. The writ petitioner claims to be a Charitable Company

incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and continues to

operate under the Companies Act, 2013. The writ petitioner further claims to be

a reputed organization working for the promotion and protection of animal

Page No.# 4/23

welfare and animal rights in India. In both the writ petitions, the writ petitioner

had challenged the Notification dated 27.12.2023 whereby the Governor of

Assam have issued an SOP/guidelines to ensure that buffalo and other

traditional birds fight are allowed to be organized in all places where it has been

traditionally organized with specific provision for regulation by the District

Administration to ensure that cruelty to animals is not allowed to be inflicted.

4. In WP(C) No. 466/2024, the Notification dated 27.12.2023 is challenged on

the aspect pertaining to the Buffalo Fight (Moh-Juj) whereas in WP(C) No.

468/2024 the Notification dated 27.12.2023 is assailed on the aspect pertaining

to Bulbuli Bird Fights.

5. Before embarking upon the adjudication as regards the legality and validity

of the Notification dated 27.12.2023, this Court finds it relevant to mention the

circumstances which led to the issuance of the impugned Notification dated

27.12.2023. It is seen from the very impugned Notification dated 27.12.2023

that the event of Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) is claimed by the Government of

Assam as an integral part of the culture and tradition of Morigaon and Nagaon

Districts etc., in Assam for centuries. It is mentioned therein that events of

Buffalo Fights were organized formerly during the Ahom Rule, especially in Rang

Ghar and it was a part of the Magh-Bihu festival. It is also mentioned that the

politico-economic relationship between the Tiwa Chief (Gobha Raja) of the then

undivided Nagaon District and Ahom Barphukan and the tradition of the Jonbeel

festival bridged the gap between the two historical kingdoms of Assam which

smoothened the road through which the tradition of Moh-Juj was transplanted

to undivided Nagaon district (Nagaon and Morigaon district) from Rang Ghar. It

also appears from the said impugned Notification that Historians believed that

Page No.# 5/23

Moh-Juj was practiced in undivided Nagaon district in a different forms

(unorganized and unprofessional) before the 17

th

century and the relationship

between the Ahom and Tiwa Chief resulted in intermixing of culture and

traditions between the people of both the kingdoms, which culminated in formal

introduction of Moh-Juj in undivided Nagaon district.

6. Furthermore, it is also seen that a writ petition was filed by an

Organization in the name and style of Oitigya Mandita Ahatguri Anchalik Moh-Juj

and Bhogali Bihu Utsav Samiti along with Another which was registered and

numbered as WP(C) No. 73/2016 whereby the petitioners therein assailed the

order dated 13.01.2015 of the Officer-in-Charge of Dharamtul Police Station as

the petitioners therein were directed not to conduct the Buffalo Fights.

7. It is further noticed that vide a judgment and order dated 10.10.2023, the

learned Coordinate Bench of this Court categorically opined that the well being

of the buffaloes were adversely affected because of certain provocative acts

being committed by the organizers of the Buffalo Fights like subjecting the

buffaloes to commotions and keeping them tied and hungry for days to make

them aggressive and also on many occasions the buffaloes were forcefully fed

local intoxicants for creating anxiety etc. The learned Coordinate Bench of this

Court had observed in the said judgment that the prevalence of Buffalo Fights

during Magh Bihu was a long standing tradition in the State of Assam. On the

basis thereof, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the

writ petition vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2023 at paragraph 15

observed as herein under:

“15. In the circumstance, the respondents in the State of Assam

Page No.# 6/23

through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam to look into the

aspect of the long standing tradition of buffalo fights being performed in

the State of Assam during the festival of Magh Bihu which is a part of

the tradition as well as the aspect of the well-being of the animals being

put to jeopardy because of any provocative acts being inflicted by the

organizers and thereupon, to take a conscious decision on the matter.

Any resultant decision that may be taken be informed to the court. For

the purpose the Chief Secretary may also take note of the provisions of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 44(ii) of the judgment rendered

in Animal Welfare Board of India-II by referring to the paragraphs as

appears in the judgment of Animal Welfare Board of India and others v.

Union of India and another reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 661.”

8. From the above quoted portion of the judgment and order dated

10.10.2023, it is seen that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was

directed to look into the aspect of long standing tradition of Buffalo Fights being

performed in the State of Assam during the festival of Magh Bihu which is a part

of the tradition by keeping in mind the well-being of the animals being put to

jeopardy on account of provocative acts being inflicted by the organizers and

thereupon to take a conscious decision on the matter. It was also observed that

while taking such decision, the Chief Secretary shall also take note of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of

India and Another Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2023),

9 SCC 322 and more particularly, to paragraph 45.2 (which corresponds to

paragraph 44(ii) in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 661).

9. It appears that basing on the said directions, a Cabinet decision was taken

on 08.12.2023 to allow the buffalo and other traditional fights to be organized in

all places where it has been done traditionally over the years and further

Page No.# 7/23

directed the Home and Political Department, Government of Assam to come up

with a comprehensive SOP to ensure that the Buffalo Fights are allowed to be

organized in all places where it had been done traditionally with specific

provisions for regulation by the District Administration to ensure that cruelty

upon the animals are not allowed to be inflicted. It is in terms with the Cabinet

decision dated 08.12.2023, the impugned Notification was issued prescribing the

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP/guideline) for Buffalo fights (Moh-Juj).

10. Let this Court now take up the aspect pertaining to Bulbuli Bird Fights.

The Bulbuli Birds in question are the red-vented bulbul species having the

scientific name Pycnonotus Cafer. It is relevant to take note of that the red-

vented Bulbul is mentioned at serial No. 63 of Part B of Schedule II to the

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. From the impugned Notification dated

27.12.2023, it is seen that there appears to be no documented history about

when the Bulbuli Bird Fights started. It was however mentioned that as could be

learnt the Bulbuli Bird Fights started sometime during the reign of the Great

Ahom King Swargadeo Pramatta Singha from 1744 and 1751. It is further

mentioned that it is believed that the said Ahom King saw two Bulbul birds fight

while descending the stairs of a temple. It is on the said basis now thousands of

people from Assam converge into the town of Hajo in lower Assam’s Kamrup

District to witness the famous Bulbul fight that takes place during the Bhogali

Bihu celebrations every year.

11. In view of the Cabinet decision so taken on 08.12.2023, not only the

Buffalo Fights were allowed by the Government of Assam vide the impugned

Notification dated 27.12.2023, the Bulbuli Bird Fights were also allowed subject

to certain guidelines being laid in the impugned Notification.

Page No.# 8/23

12. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the submissions

so made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

13. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned

Notification is contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Act, 1960 (for short the ‘Act of 1960’) as well as the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja and

Others reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547. Elaborating his argument, the

learned Senior Counsel submitted that by nature the buffaloes are docile and

thrive in peaceful environment. They can only be made to fight by agitating

them through physical or mental torture and in order to make these buffaloes

fight they are beaten and tortured. In that regard, the learned Senior Counsel

drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-11 to the writ petition which is an

investigative report made by the petitioner on 24.01.2024 much after the

impugned Notification. The attention of this Court was drawn to the various

photographs enclosed to the said report which evidences as to how the

buffaloes were incited to fight with another buffalo which results in egregious

torture upon the animals.

14. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel described on the basis of the

investigation report as to how the Buffalo Fights are carried out. He submitted

that the owners/handlers jabs the buffaloes with wooden sticks to force the

animal to fight. In the process of fighting, the buffaloes bleeds profusely. The

learned Senior Counsel further submitted that such torture so meted out upon

the buffaloes is in violation to Section 3 and 11 of the Act of 1960. He further

submitted that there is also a restriction imposed by the Central Government

vide a Notification dated 11.07.2011 in exercise of the powers under Section 22

Page No.# 9/23

(ii) of the Act of 1960. He drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-1 to the

writ petition which is the Notification whereby the Central Government had

specified various categories of animals which shall not be exhibited or trained as

performing animals with effect from the date of publication of the Notification

and it includes amongst other bulls. The learned Senior counsel further

submitted that the term “bulls” used in the Notification dated 11.07.2011 are

male buffaloes and this aspect would be seen from the fact that the Indian

Council for Agricultural Research-Central Coastal Agricultural Research Institute

have termed male buffaloes as bulls, bullocks as well as buffalo bulls. The

learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the impugned Notification by

which the Buffalo Fights are allowed is contrary to the Notification dated

11.07.2011.

15. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that insofar as the Bulbuli

Bird Fights are concerned, the same is contrary to the provisions of the Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972 (for short “the Act of 1972”) as well as the Act of 1960.

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the term “animal” had been defined

in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1960 to mean any living creature other than a

human being. He further submitted that these Bulbuli Birds are red-vented

bulbul species and are protected under Schedule II of Part B of the Act of 1972.

16. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to

the investigation report dated 15.01.2024 as had been enclosed to the writ

petition at Annexure-P8. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in order to

carry out these Bulbuli Bird Fights, two handlers/judges sits at the stage and

hold the birds by short ropes in order to conduct the fights. These birds are kept

hungry before the match day. Half of a banana is dangled in front of the two

Page No.# 10/23

birds by the handlers and the hungry birds peck on the banana in order to

consume, thereupon the bananas are brought closer to both the birds so that

the birds cross path. When the birds see each other pecking the banana they

attack each other. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that essentially these

two starving birds are made to attack and fight each other over food. To

demonstrate the same, the learned Senior Counsel further drew the attention of

this Court to the various photographs which were part of the report. The

learned Senior Counsel submitted that the bird’s state of health upon fighting

can be seen from the photographs. He submitted that when these birds get

tired after fighting, the handlers of the bird in question blows air inside the beak

of the birds through their mouth in order to startle them and to force them to

move and fight again. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the

manner in which the Bulbuli Bird Fights are carried out are not only in violation

to Section 3 and Section 11 of the Act of 1960, but also is in violation to Section

9 of the Act of 1972 inasmuch as there is a prohibition of hunting any wild

animal specified in Schedule I and Schedule II, except as provided in Sections

11 and 12 of the Act of 1972. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the

term “hunting” has been specifically defined in Section 2(16) of the Act of 1972,

which includes amongst others capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or

baiting any wild or captive animal and every attempt to do so. The learned

Senior Counsel therefore submitted that an act which is otherwise prohibited

under law had been sought to be legalized by the impugned Notification. He

therefore submitted that the impugned Notification insofar as permitting the

Buffalo Fights as well as the Bulbuli Bird Fights are required to be interfered

with.

17. The materials on record do not show that there is any affidavit-in-

Page No.# 11/23

opposition filed by the Respondent Authorities justifying the impugned

Notification. However, there is an affidavit filed on 02.09.2024, by the Joint

Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department. A

perusal of the said affidavit only shows that the Respondent Authorities have

permitted the carrying out of the Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) as well as the Bulbuli

Bird Fights in terms of the impugned Notification.

18. Be that as it may, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, the learned Additional Senior

Government Advocate submitted that both the Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) as well

as the Bulbuli Bird Fights are long standing traditions being performed in the

State of Assam during the Magh Bihu and the Bohag Bihu Festival respectively.

The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submitted that this aspect

of the matter was duly recognized by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court

vide the judgment and order dated 10.10.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 73/2016.

The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further submitted that

taking into account the directions which were passed in the judgment and order

dated 10.10.2023 in WP(C) No. 73/2016, the Cabinet of the Government of

Assam had taken a decision on 08.12.2023, to permit the Buffalo Fights (Moh-

Juj) as well as the Bulbuli Bird Fights subject to following the guidelines so that

the Buffaloes as well as the Bulbuli Birds are not inflicted with any physical

cruelty. On the basis of the said Cabinet decision, the impugned Notification

dated 27.12.2023 was been issued. He further submitted that the perusal of the

guidelines mentioned in the impugned Notification would show that due care

has been taken so that no physical torture and cruelty is made upon the

Buffaloes as well as the Bulbuli Birds. He therefore submitted that taking into

account that the Buffalo Fights and the Bulbuli Bird Fights have been in

existence for ages and taking into consideration that the impugned Notification

Page No.# 12/23

duly takes care of the animals and birds, this Court ought not to interfere with

the impugned Notification.

19. This Court heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as

well as the respondents at length and have perused the materials on record.

20. The points for determination which arises in both the writ petitions are as

herein under:

(i) Whether the Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) as well as the Bulbuli

Bird Fights can be permitted to be carried out as per the provisions

of law on the ground that the same have been in existence since

ages and being a part of the culture and tradition?

(ii) Whether the impugned Notification dated 27.12.2023 is liable

to be interfered with?

21. To answer the first point for determination, it is relevant to observe that

the Respondent Authorities have not placed any materials that the Buffalo

Fights (Moh-Juj) as well as the Bulbuli Bird Fights are long standing traditions in

the State of Assam. It is only in the impugned Notification as observed in the

previous segments of the instant judgment that the Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) and

the Bulbuli Bird Fights have been stated to be long standing traditions in the

State of Assam.

22. This Court further takes notice of the fact that in the judgment and order

dated 10.10.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 73/2016, the learned Coordinate Bench

of this Court had given certain indications to the effect that the Buffalo Fights

Page No.# 13/23

(Moh-Juj) is a long standing tradition in the State of Assam. Therefore, the

question which arises is even assuming that the Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) as well

as the Bulbuli Bird Fights are long standing traditions, can the said be permitted

if the provisions of law stipulate otherwise. The answer to the same can be

found from the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the

case of Animal Welfare Board of India and Other (supra) and more

particularly at paragraph 32 of the said judgment which is reproduced herein

below:

“32. In order to come to a definitive conclusion on this question, some

kind of trial on evidence would have been necessary. It is also not Court’s

jurisdiction to decide if a particular event or activity or ritual forms

culture or tradition of a community or region. But if a long-lasting

tradition goes against the law, the law courts obviously would have to

enforce the law. The learned counsel appearing for the parties, however,

have cited different ancient texts and modern literature to justify their

respective stands. In public interest litigations, this Court has developed

the practice of arriving at a conclusion on subjects of this nature without

insisting on proper trial to appreciate certain social or economic

conditions going by available reliable literature. In paras 53 and 73 in A.

Nagaraja, there is judicial determination about the practice being

offensive to the provisions of the Central statute. It would be trite to

repeat that provisions of a statue cannot be overridden by a traditional or

cultural event. This, we accept the argument of the petitioners that at

the relevant point of time when the decision in A. Nagaraja was

delivered, the manner in which Jallikattu was performed did breach the

aforesaid provisions of the 1960 Act and hence conducting such sports

was impermissible.”

(emphasis supplied on the underlined portion)

Page No.# 14/23

23. It is seen from the above quoted paragraph of the judgment of the

Supreme Court that a long lasting tradition cannot be permitted if it goes

against the law and it is the bounden duty of the law Courts to enforce the law.

In view of the above, the question therefore arises is as to whether the Buffalo

Fights (Moh-Juj) as well as the Bulbuli Bird Fights are contrary to any statute.

24. This Court finds it relevant at this stage to take note of that vide the

Constitution of India (42

nd

Amendment) Act, 1976, Article 48A and Article 51A

were inserted to the Constitution of India. A reading of Article 48A, cast a duty

upon the State to make an endeavor to protect and improve the environment

and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51A (g) imposes a

duty upon every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural

environment, including forests, lakes, river and wildlife and to have compassion

for living creatures. It would therefore be seen that vide Article 48A, which

comes within the ambit of the Directive Principles of State Policy, a duty is cast

upon the State to apply the said principles in making laws. Similarly, every

citizen of India is endowed with the duty to protect and improve amongst others

the wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. In addition to the

above, Article 48 of the Constitution also casts a duty upon the State to take

steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of

cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. Therefore, a duty is cast

upon the State to safeguard the Buffaloes as well as the Bulbuli Birds. Similarly

a duty is cast upon every citizen of India to have compassion towards the

Buffaloes as well as the Bulbuli Birds.

25. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the

investigative reports enclosed to both the writ petitions as already referred to

Page No.# 15/23

herein above. The photographs enclosed to those investigative reports, however,

portrays a very sorry state of affairs in respect to the performance of the duty of

the State to safeguard the wildlife of the country as well as in performance of

the duties by each citizen of India.

26. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the various

provisions of the Act of 1960 as well as the Act of 1972.

27. Entry 17 of List III of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India empowers

both the Union as well as the State Government to frame laws for Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals. On the basis of the said power, the Act of 1960 was enacted

by the Parliament. The Preambular object of the Act of 1960 is to prevent the

infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to

amend the law relating to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. A perusal of the

provisions of the said Act of 1960 would show that the said Act is a welfare

legislation which has to be construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of

the said Act.

28. It is well settled that in matters of welfare legislation the provisions of law

should be liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm and the Court

should be vigilant to see that benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare

legislations are not defeated by subtle devices. It is also trite that in every case

where ingenuity is expanded to avoid welfare legislations a duty is cast upon the

Court to lift the veil and discover the true state of affairs. In the judgment of the

Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja (supra), it was categorically observed that the

Court can go behind the form and see the substance of the device and examine

whether the guidelines or the regulations so framed are to achieve some other

Page No.# 16/23

purpose than the welfare of the animals. It was further observed that

regulations or guidelines, whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport to

dilute or defeat the welfare legislation and the constitutional principles, the

Court should not hesitate to strike them down so as to achieve the ultimate

object and purpose of the welfare legislation.

29. Section 3 of the Act of 1960 would show that a duty is cast upon every

person having the care or charge of an animal to take all reasonable measures

to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such

animal of unnecessary pain or suffering. The imposition of the duty upon every

person having the care or charge of an animal confers a corresponding right

upon the animal that the person having the care or charge of the animal shall

take reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and also that

the animal would not be inflicted with unnecessary pain or suffering. In the case

of A. Nagaraja (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the term “well-

being” means state of being comfortable, healthy or happy. The question

therefore arises as to whether the persons who are in charge of the Buffaloes as

well as the Bulbuli Birds have taken due care and have ensured the well-being

of the animal which is a statutory mandate. The investigative reports enclosed

to the writ petitions as well as the pictures forming part of the investigative

report show a dismal state of affairs insofar as the well-being of the animals and

the birds in question. Under such circumstances, the manner in which the

Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) and Bulbuli Bird Fights are being conducted as would

be seen from the investigative reports appears to be contrary to the mandate of

Section 3 of the Act of 1960.

30. Moving forward, let this Court now take note of Section 11 of the Act of

Page No.# 17/23

1960. Section 11 generally deals with the cruelty to animals. The said Section in

no manner confers any right on the organizers to conduct Buffalo Fights (Moh-

Juj) or Bulbuli Bird Fights. Rather it is a beneficial legislation enacted for the

welfare and protection of the animals and it is also penal in nature.

31. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to

Clauses (m) and (n) of Section 11(1) of the Act of 1960. The said provisions are

reproduced here in below:

“11. Treating animals cruelly.- (1) if any person-

(a)…….

(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment-

(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal

(including tying of an animal as a bait in a tier or other sanctuary) so

as to make it an object of prey for any other animal; or

(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or

(n) organizes, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any

place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or

permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the

admission of any other person too any place kept or used for any such

purposes;”

32. A perusal of the above quoted provisions would show that if any person

solely with a view to providing entertainment confines or causes to be confined

any animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary)

so as to make it an object of prey for another animal; or incites any animal to

Page No.# 18/23

fight or bait any other animal, the same is a penal offence. In terms with Clause

(n) if a person organizes, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any place

for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal, or permits or offers

any place to be so used, or receives money for admission of any other person to

any place kept or used for any such purpose, the same is also a penal offence.

The investigative reports enclosed to the writ petitions clearly shows that the

Buffaloes as well as the Bulbuli Birds are incited to fight each other. The

Buffaloes are starved, forcefully intoxicated as well as beaten up to fight against

each other. Similarly the Bulbuli Birds are starved and lured to a piece of

banana/fruit to incite the birds to fight.

33. In the opinion of this Court the Buffalo Fights and the Bulbuli Birds Fights

plays foul to the provisions of Section 11(1) (m) and (n) and under such

circumstances, as the State is the custodian of law, it is the bounden duty of the

State to protect and prevent such actions of cruelty upon the animals. However,

vide the impugned Notification, the State have permitted to go ahead with the

Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) as well as the Bulbuli Bird Fights thereby aiding to a

violation of statutory provisions of law.

34. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Section 21 and 22 of

the Act of 1960. Section 21 defines the terms“exhibit” and “train”. The word

“exhibit” has been defined to mean exhibit at any entertainment to which the

public are admitted through sale of tickets and “train” means trained for the

purpose of any such exhibition and the expression exhibitor and trainer have

respectively the corresponding meanings. Section 22 empowers the Central

Government to specify an animal which shall not be exhibited or trained as a

performing animal by issuance of a Notification in the Official Gazette.

Page No.# 19/23

35. This Court therefore finds it relevant to take note of the Notification dated

11.07.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of

India, whereby in exercise of the powers under Section 22 of the Act of 1960,

the Central Government specified the various animals mentioned therein which

shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals with effect from the date

of publication of the Notification. Amongst the various animals the “bulls” finds

place in the said Notification.

36. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner had submitted that the Indian Council for Agricultural Research-

Central Coastal Agricultural Research Institute identifies male buffaloes as bulls,

bullocks as well as buffalo bulls. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted

that in the Oxford English Dictionary “bulls” are referred to as male bovines

including male buffaloes.

37. No materials have been placed by the respondents to show that the bulls

are not male buffaloes. In the opinion of this Court, the question of exhibiting or

training a male buffalo is therefore forbidden in terms with the Notification

dated 11.07.2011 or in other words, the male buffaloes in terms with the

Notification dated 11.07.2011 cannot be used for Buffalo Fights. At this stage,

this Court further finds it relevant to mention that the another Notification dated

07.01.2016 was issued whereby certain exceptions were made in respect to

events of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bullock cart races in Maharashtra,

Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat. However, the said Notification

dated 07.01.2016 was withdrawn as would be seen from the order dated

31.01.2017 in the case of Compassion Unlimited Plus Action Vs. Union of India

(WP(C) No. 24/2016) of the Supreme Court.

Page No.# 20/23

38. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the Act of 1972, which

was enacted with an object for the conservation, protection and management of

wildlife and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. It

is further seen from the Statements of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1972

that the said Act was enacted in order to stop the rapid decline of India's wild

animals and birds, which have become a cause of great concern inasmuch as

some of the wild animals and birds have already become extinct in the country

and others are in the danger of being so. The said Act prohibits hunting, as

would be seen in Section 9 of the said Act. A perusal of Section 9 would show

that no person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedule I and II, except

as provided under Section 11 and 12 of the Act of 1972.

39. This Court finds it relevant to take note of Section 2(16) of the Act of

1972 which defines the term “hunting”.The same being relevant is reproduced

here in under:

“(16) “hunting”, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions,

includes,-

(a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every

attempt to do so;

(b) capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or baiting any wild or

captive animal and every attempt to do so;

(c) injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal

or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or

reptiles, or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles;”

40. A perusal of the above quoted provision would show that “hunting”

Page No.# 21/23

includes capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or baiting any wild or

captive animal and every attempt to do so. It also includes injuring. This Court

has also taken note of that the Bulbuli Birds who are being made to fight are

red-vented Bulbul which appears at Serial No. 63 of Part B of Schedule II. Under

such circumstances, there is a prohibition of capturing, coursing, snaring,

trapping, driving or baiting, including causing injury to the Bulbuli Birds. In the

opinion of this Court, the State of Assam therefore ought not to have permitted

the Bullbuli Bird Fights that too when even capturing of a Bulbuli Bird is

prohibited and is an offence under Section 51 of the Act of 1972.

41. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the

Constitution Bench in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India (supra), in

view of the fact that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the

Chief Secretary to arrive at a conscious decision taking into account the said

judgment. A perusal of the said judgment would show that after the judgment

was rendered in the case of A. Nagaraja (supra) and the dismissal of the

review petition, the three States of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka

made amendments to the Act of 1960 and such amendment had also received

the Presidential assent. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the said

judgment held that the amendments which were carried out with the

Presidential assent minimized the cruelty to animals in the sports concerned and

once the amendment Act along with the Rules are implemented, the sports

would not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Section 3, 11(1)

(a) (m) and (n) of the Act of 1960. In the instant case, it is relevant to take note

of that for the State of Assam there is no such amendment being made to the

Act of 1960 or even to the provisions of the Act of 1972. By way of an

impugned Notification the State of Assam have permitted carrying out of the

Page No.# 22/23

Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) as well as the Bulbuli Bird Fights that too contrary to

the provisions of Sections 3, 11(m) and (n) and 22 of the Act of 1960; the

Notification dated 11.07.2011 as well as the provision of Section 9 of the Act of

1972. In that view of the matter, this Court answers the two points for

determination as formulated above as herein under:

(a) The Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj) as well as Bulbuli Bird Fights,

irrespective of being long traditions and practiced in the State of

Assam cannot be permitted as it offends the statutory provisions of

the Act of 1960 as well as the Act of 1972.

(b) The impugned Notification permitting Buffalo Fights (Moh-Juj)

and Bulbuli Bird Fights is contrary to the Act of 1960 and the Act of

1972 and accordingly interfered with.

42. The writ petitions stands disposed of with the following observations and

directions:

(i) The impugned Notification dated 27.12.2023 is set

aside and quashed.

(ii) This Court directs the State of Assam to ensure

that the provisions of the Act of 1960 and more particularly,

Section 3, Section 11 (m) and (n) and Section 22 is strictly

enforced. In addition to that, the State of Assam is further

directed to take steps for enforcing Section 9 of the Act of

1972.

(iii) This Court further observes and directs that the

Order downloaded on 24-12-2024 05:31:23 PMPage No.# 23/23

judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja (supra), as well as

the Animal Welfare Board of India (supra), are law

within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of

India. The State of Assam is bound to confirm with the law

laid down in the said judgments.

43. Before parting with the record, this Court finds it relevant to observe as

regards a submission made by the learned Additional Senior Government

Advocate, Assam to the effect that the judgment passed herein should not

preclude the State of Assam to take appropriate actions similar to what the

States of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka had taken. This Court would

not like to make any comment on the said submission as it relates to something

which is absolutely within the domain of the State Legislature.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant