Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- Dipak Misra, CJI
- R. F. Nariman, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2018-02-02
- Court Decision / Holding
- Let the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions referred to Constitution Bench of five Hon’ble Judges.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Animal Welfare Board of India
Respondents
- Union of India
- Ors.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Applicant appeared in person
Counsels for Respondents
- • A K. Venugopal, AG
- • Pinky Anand, ASG
- • Sidharth Luthra
- • Anand Grover
- • Meenakshi Arora
- • V. Giri
- • Shekhar Naphade
- • A. Sharan
- • Mukul Rohatgi
- • Rakesh Dwivedi
- • Subramaniam Prasad
- • Shyam Divan
- • Balraj Dewan
- • Anjali Sharma
- • Sujeeta Srivastava
- • Aparna Bhat
- • Mayank Sapra
- • Joshita Pai
- • Sujata Juneja
- • Drishti Harpalani
- • Aditya Singla
- • Purushottam Sharma Tripathi
- • Ajit Sharma
- • Shri nidhi Rao
- • Subodh S. Patil
- • Nitya Ramakrishnan
- • Shadan Farasat
- • Rudrakshi Deo
- • Bhumika Aggarwal
- • Sumita Hazarika
- • Ispita Behura
- • Manas Gaur
- • Sachin Patil
- • Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
- • Gauri Rasgotra
- • Sumit Attri
- • Karan Khanna
- • Ms. Nikhita Shenoy
- • Vikash Kumar Jha
- • Ms. Svadha Shanker
- • 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
- • Y. 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.
- • A. Sriram
- • Ankur S. Kulkarni
- • M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co.
- • M. Yogesh Kanna
- • Manisha T. Karia
- • Soumya
- • Nidhi Nagpal
- • Shashank Mangal
- • Anurag Pandey
- • Reena Pandey
- • Kunwar Ratnesh Ratn
- • Hemantika Wahi
- • Jesal Wahi
- • Mamta Singh
- • Shodhika Sharma
- • Uttara Babbar
- • Akanksha Choudhary
- • Bhavana Duhoon
- • Abhay Anil Anturkar
- • Kalyani Tulankar
- • Dr. R. R. Deshpande
Case Synopsis & Summary
These writ petitions were filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India challenging a Union of India notification dated 7 January 2016 and seeking compliance with the Supreme Court's Nagaraja judgment (2014) 7 SCC 547. While petitions were pending, the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017 was enacted, and the petitions were amended to challenge its validity. After hearing the petitioners and respondents for some time, the Court held that the petitions raise substantial questions concerning constitutional interpretation and thus require a Constitution Bench of five Judges. The Court directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice to constitute such a bench, with issues framed for detailed adjudication: whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is referable to Entry 17, List III, or constitutes colourable legislation; whether it seeks to protect cultural heritage under Article 29; whether it aims to preserve native bulls and relates to Article 48; whether it conflicts with Articles 51A(g) and (h) and thereby with Articles 14 and 21; and whether the Act is directly contrary to Nagaraja and its review judgment. The order effectively pauses final resolution of the petitions and invites authoritative constitutional pronouncement on the Act and related questions. The judgment sets the stage for a five-judge Constitution Bench to resolve these profound constitutional questions and the relationship between cultural heritage, animal welfare, and constitutional rights.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Doctrine of pith and substance
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants contend that the 7 January 2016 notification should be quashed and the Union of India must ensure compliance with this Court’s Nagaraja judgment. With the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017, in question, they challenge whether it is referable to Entry 17, List III or is colorable legislation, and whether it intrudes upon cultural rights, animal welfare, and constitutional rights (Articles 14, 21, 29, 48) and whether it contravenes Articles 51A(g) and (h). They argue the Act’s compatibility with Nagaraja and the review judgment requires definitive constitutional interpretation, hence the necessity of a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act serves to protect cultural heritage and the native breed of bulls, within the state's powers under Entry 17 and/or the Concurrent List, and thus does not violate Part III or fundamental rights. They contend that the Act is aimed at animal welfare within a cultural context and should be examined in light of Nagaraja and the 2016 review judgments, with a view to obtaining authoritative constitutional clarification by a five-judge bench rather than outright quashing the Act.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. | 7 SCC 547; [2014] 6 SCR 646 | Positive | Cited as controlling precedent; the petitions seek compliance with Nagaraja and a constitutional interpretation by a five-judge bench. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.