(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature writ of mandamus directing respondents no.3 to 7 to accord permission to conduct the rally with bulls and bullock carts by considering the petitioners application dated 02.12.2025 vide annexure-d, in the interest of justice and equity and etc.,)

Oral Order:

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction, by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to permit the conduct of a rally involving bulls and bullock carts.

2. Heard Sri Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for Sri M. S. Hallikeri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Gangadhar J. M., learned Additional Advocate General, along with Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA, for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is Akhila Karnataka Raitara Janapada Kreede Horihabba Horata Samithi (hereinafter referred to as "the Samithi" for short). The Samithi seeks permission to conduct the ‘Hori Habba’ in Haveri District.

4. When they sought permission to conduct the festival, the authorities are said to have relied on a notification dated 08.12.2022 to contend that permission would be granted only in terms of the said notification and upon fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said notification had remained in cold storage till now and is only now being sought to be implemented.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General refutes the submission, contending that the notification is still in force, and that it becomes operative whenever such requests are made.

7. The representation pertains to the ‘Hori Habba’, as is evident from the materials placed before the authorities. The State seeks to rely on the notification, which concerns bull races, bullock cart races, or any festival involving the use of animals or centered around animals. The notification indicates that non- fulfillment of any of the 18 stipulated conditions would invite action under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) and other applicable laws.

8. The issue of whether permission should be granted for such festivals need not detain this Court for long, nor does it require a detailed examination.

9. The Apex Court, while considering the issue of Jallikattu and similar festivals, has dealt with the matter in detail. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA ((2023) 9 SCC 322) , has permitted such festivals subject to certain conditions. The relevant conditions are stipulated in the following paragraphs of the said judgment, which read as follows:

                  “34. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act contains stipulation to the effect that conduct of Jallikattu subject to such Rules and Regulations as may be framed by the State Government shall be permitted. Section 38-B of the Maharashtra Act provides Rule-making power of the State consistent with the Rules made by the Central Government. Both these statutes have become part of the 1960 Act in their respective States and specifically confer Rule-making power to the States and Rules have been framed. In such circumstances, as held by this Court in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. [Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343] , our opinion is that these Rules have to be read along with the Amendment Acts for their proper interpretation. So far as the Karnataka Amendment Act is concerned, two fresh restrictions have been imposed in conducting Kambala by virtue of introduction of Section 3(2) in the main Act after amendment. These conditions ban unnecessary pain or suffering that would be caused to the animals by the person in charge of the animals conducting Kambala and make such practice subject to the conditions as may be specified by the State Government by notification. Following the same analogy which we have expressed earlier while reading the Amendment Acts of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, in our opinion the Notification issued by the State of Karnataka ought to be accorded same status as Rule and has also to be read as integral part of the statute, as amended. These Rules and the Notification ought not to be segregated from the Amendment Acts for appreciating their true scope while examining the petitioners' claim that the Amendment Acts, analysed in isolation from the said Rules and the Notification would be contrary to the findings of this Court in A. Nagaraja [Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 136] .

                  35. In our opinion, the expressions “Jallikattu, Kambala and Bull Cart Race” as introduced by the Amendment Acts of the three States have undergone substantial change in the manner they were used to be practised or performed and the factual conditions that prevailed at the time A. Nagaraja [Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 136] judgment was delivered cannot be equated with the present situation. We cannot come to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances, absolutely no pain or suffering would be inflicted upon the bulls while holding these sports. But we are satisfied that the large part of pain inflicting practices, as they prevailed in the manner these three sports were performed in the pre-amendment period have been substantially diluted by the introduction of these statutory instruments. Argument was advanced that in reality these welfare measures may not be practised and the system as it prevailed could continue. We, however, cannot proceed in exercise of our judicial power on the assumption that a law ought to be struck down on apprehension of its abuse or disobedience. All the three bovine sports, after amendment, assume different character in their performance and practice and for these reasons we do not accept the petitioners' argument that the Amendment Acts were merely a piece of colourable legislation with cosmetic change to override judicial pronouncement. Once we read the amended statutes with the respective Rules or Notification, we do not find them to encroach upon the Central legislation. The respondents have cited a large body of authorities to defend their stand that these are not cases of colourable legislation but we do not consider it necessary to refer to all these judgments individually as we have come to this conclusion after analysing various statutory instruments covering the field.

                  ……..   ……..   ……...

                  45.     In the light of what we have already discussed, we answer the five questions referred to us in the following terms:

                  45.1.   The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation. It relates, in pith and substance, to Schedule VII List III Entry 17 to the Constitution of India. It minimises cruelty to animals in the sports concerned and once the Amendment Act, along with their Rules and Notification is implemented, the aforesaid sports would not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.

                  45.2.   Jallikattu is a type of bovine sport and we are satisfied on the basis of materials disclosed before us, that it is going on in the State of Tamil Nadu for at least last few centuries. This event essentially involves a bull which is set free in an arena and human participants are meant to grab the hump to score in the “game”. But whether this has become integral part of Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail, which in our opinion, is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by the Judiciary. The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular State is a debatable issue which has to be concluded in the House of the People. This ought not be a part of judicial inquiry and particularly having regard to the activity in question and the materials in the form of texts cited before us by both the petitioners and the respondents, this question cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings. Since legislative exercise has already been undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be part of cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, we would not disrupt this view of the legislature. We do not accept the view reflected in A. Nagaraja [Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 136] that performance of Jallikattu is not a part of the cultural heritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu. We do not think there was sufficient material before the Court for coming to this conclusion. In the Preamble to the Amendment Act, Jallikattu has been described to be part of culture and tradition of Tamil Nadu. In A. Nagaraja [Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 136] , the Division Bench found the cultural approach unsubstantiated and referring to the manner in which the bulls are inflicted pain and suffering, the Division Bench concluded that such activities offended Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act. Even if we proceed on the basis that legislature is best suited branch of the State to determine if particular animal-sports are part of cultural tradition of a region or community, or not, if such cultural event or tradition offends the law, the penal consequence would follow. Such activities cannot be justified on the ground of being part of cultural tradition of a State. In A. Nagaraja [Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 136] , the sports were held to attract the restriction of Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act because of the manner it was practised. The Amendment Act read with the Rules seeks to substantially minimise the pain and suffering and continue with the traditional sports. The Amendment having received Presidential assent, we do not think there is any flaw in the State action. “Jallikattu” as a bovine sport has to be isolated from the manner in which it was earlier practised; and organising the sport itself would be permissible, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules.

                  45.3.   The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, to ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls. The said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India. Incidental impact of the said Amendment Act may fall upon the breed of a particular type of bulls and affect agricultural activities, but in pith and substance the Act is relatable to Schedule VII List III Entry 17 to the Constitution of India.

                  45.4.   Our answer to this question is in the negative. In our opinion, the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to Articles 51-A(g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

                  45.5.   The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act read along with the Rules framed in that behalf is not directly contrary to the ratio of the judgment in A. Nagaraja [Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 136] and the judgment of this Court delivered on 16-11-2016 dismissing the plea for review of A. Nagaraja [Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 136] judgment as we are of the opinion that the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments have been overcome by the State Amendment Act read with the Rules made in that behalf.

                  46.     Our decision on the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act would also guide the Maharashtra and the Karnataka Amendment Acts and we find all the three Amendment Acts to be valid legislations.

                  47.     However, we direct that the law contained in the Act/Rules/Notification shall be strictly enforced by the authorities. In particular, we direct that the District Magistrates/competent authorities shall be responsible for ensuring strict compliance of the law, as amended along with its Rules/Notifications.

                  48.     All the IAs for intervention are allowed in the above terms. As we have answered the referred questions, we do not think any purpose would be served in keeping the writ petitions pending. All the writ petitions shall stand dismissed. The appeal and the transferred case shall also stand disposed of in the above terms. Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

                  (Emphasis supplied)

10. Prior to the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 10530 of 2021, decided on 01.09.2021, had considered the issue of bullock cart races and permitted them subject to certain conditions. In the said Public Interest Litigation, the Division Bench, has held as follows:

                  “5. The State of Karnataka has filed a reply and it has been stated that Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Amendment Act of 2017' for short) was amended and as per Sections 2 and 28A of the Amendment Act of 2017, bullock cart race is now permissible in the State of Karnataka and the same does not amount to an offence under the Amendment Act of 2017. It has also been stated that it is a custom in the State of Karnataka and all the necessary steps are being taken by the State of Karnataka to ensure that animals are not subjected to cruelty. It has also been stated that permission was granted in respect of race which had to be conducted on 07.03.2021. However, keeping in view the Covid- 19 pandemic and other factors, the permission was withdrawn.

                  6. Karnataka Act 2 of 2018 i.e. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017, provides for conducting bullock cart race. The statement of objects and reasons to the said Act of 2017 is reproduced as under:

                  STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

                  Act 02 of 2018. -The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (Central Act 59 of 1960) was enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary cruelty and suffering on animals. The Act also recognizes the need to exempt the application of its provisions in certain circumstances.

                  Considering the significant role played by the traditional sports event of “Kambala” or “Bulls race” or "Bullock cart race" in preserving and promoting tradition and culture among the people in the State of Karnataka and also considering the vital role of “Kambala” or “Bulls race or "Bullock cart race" in ensuring survival and continuance of native breeds of cattle, the Government of Karnataka have decided to exempt the conduct of “Kambala” or “Bulls race” or "Bullock cart race” in the state.

                  Government of India suggested certain modifications in the Karnataka Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Amendment) Bill, 2017 (LA Bill No. 02 of 2017) Government of Karnataka has considered those changes. Accordingly by adopting the changes proposed by Government of India and as the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly was not in session and was not likely to meet in the near future, the Hon’ble Governor was pleased to promulgate the Karnataka Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 on 20th July, 2017 with previous instructions of the President as required under the proviso to Article 213 of the Constitution.

                  This Bill seeks to replace the said ordinance. Hence, the Bill.

                  [L.A. Bill No.42 of 2017, File No. Samvyashae 42 Shasana 2017] [entry 15 of list-II and entry 17 of list III of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India.

                  7. The Amendment Act of 2017 came into force on 20.02.2018 and the relevant provision under Section 6 of the Amendment Act of 2017 is reproduced as under:

                  6. Amendment of section 27.- In section 27 of the principal Act, after clause (b), the following shall be inserted, namely:-

                  “(c) the conduct of “Kambala” with a view to follow and promote tradition and culture and ensure survival and continuance of native breeds of buffaloes.

                  (d) the conduct of “Bulls race or Bullock cart race” with a view to follow and promote tradition and culture and ensure survival and continuance of native breeds of cattle.”

                  8. Meaning thereby that the Amendment Act of 2017 does permit holding of the bullock cart races with a view to follow and promote tradition and culture involving the bullocks. The constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 2017 is not under challenge in the present public interest litigation.

                  9. Another important aspect of the matter is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the case of SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, TAMIL NADU VS. JALLIKATTU PERAVAI AND OTHERS in Transfer Petition No.68/2013, while passing an order on 15.02.2013, has held as under:

                  "Heard learned counsel on either side including learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, who has taken stand that the State Government has no objection in permitting the performance of Bullock/Bullock Cart races in the State of Maharashtra. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, referred to paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit filed by them, annexed in IA No.3 in SLP(C)No.4598 of 2013, wherein certain conditions have been enumerated, which, according to the State, have to be followed. We are, therefore, inclined to grant permission to conduct the Bullock/Bullock cart races in the State of Maharashtra subject to the conditions that :

                  i) At every event, where bullock cart races are to be held, a separate track for each bullock cart will have to be provided.

                  ii) No whipping of the bull would be permitted and the cartman would only be permitted to swirl it in the air and hit it on the ground, but in no manner whatsoever would the cartman be permitted to whip the bull or induce pain or cause any injury while conducting bullock cart races.

                  iii) A veterinary Doctor who is attached to the village Dispensary shall first inspect all the bulls that participate in the bullock cart races to ensure that they are in good physical condition and they are not intoxicated and that there is no application of chilly powder or mud to the genitals of the bull to make it more aggressive or ferocious, so that it runs at a faster speed. In the event of any unfortunate injury that may occur to a bull during the race, immediate adequate medical facility would be provided by the Veterinary Doctor.

                  iv) In the even of any bull is subjected to cruelty by any person or persons during the bullock cart races, penal action would be initiated against him/them under the Prevention of Animal Cruelties Act, 1960.

                  v) The Veterinary Doctor in association with NGOs espousing the cause of animal welfare would video graph the bullock cart races from vintage position so as to enable the authorities to find out that there is an infraction of law or of the aforesaid guidelines during the course of the races.

                  vi) If the Committee to Monitor Animal Welfare Laws in Maharashtra constituted by the High Court desires to video graph the bullock cart races, then they would be entitled to do so and necessary safeguards and assistance would be provided to them by the Government.

                  vii) Any organization seeking to conduct bullock cart races would have to inform the District administration/District Collector and the concerned police station in writing at least ten days prior to holding of such race, which in turn would immediately intimate the same to the said Committee.

                  viii)     We are inclined to further direct that the District administration shall take all precautions to ensure that the animals are not tortured or subjected to cruel treatment. They shall also take necessary steps for the safety of the spectators and participants. The District Collector will give due intimation to the aforesaid Committee. The Collector shall ensure that the aforesaid conditions imposed in regard to participation of the animals shall be implemented and followed. The District Collector will submit Report within three weeks after completion of the Festival events.

                  ix)      With the aforesaid directions, the interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while granting permission to conduct bullock/bullock cart races in the State of Maharastra, has laid down certain parameters. The parameters imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of bullock/bullock cart race are required to be enforced in the State of Karnataka also. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the State of Karnataka can certainly accord permission for holding bullock cart races subject to the aforesaid terms and conditions which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SHIVAJIRAO ADHALRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA, which was the case clubbed along with Jallikattu's case (supra), no further orders are required as the said conditions already in existence under the statutory provisions in the State of Karnataka for grant of permission for holding the bullock cart race. The State of Karnataka shall certainly be free to accord permission in accordance with keeping in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”

(Emphasis supplied)

11. In light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court and that of the Division Bench of this Court, any permission to conduct the race shall be in strict consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, and not merely on the conditions stipulated in the notification. However, it is made clear, as held by the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench, that any untoward incident occurring during the festival would undoubtedly attract action under the Act and other applicable laws.

12. In light of the issue having been conclusively answered by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the permission to be granted shall strictly conform to the conditions stipulated by the Apex Court regarding safety measures and the participation or use of animals, which in any event shall not run contrary to the provisions of the Act.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to the State Government to permit the ‘Hori Habba’ to be conducted on the scheduled date, in consonance with the observations made hereinabove.

14. In the communication addressed by the petitioners to the respondent–State, it was indicated that they would hold a protest since two months had passed without any action being taken on their representations seeking relaxation of the conditions stipulated in the notification dated 08.12.2022. Now that the present order has been passed, learned counsel Sri Sandeep Patil submits that no protest would be necessary, and that if the ‘Hori Habba’ is permitted in accordance with law, the petitioners will abide by the same. The said submission is placed on record.

15. In that light, consideration of Annexure–D is unnecessary. The request in Annexure–D to hold a protest involving the use of animals also does not survive for consideration.

16. The Police and the District Authorities of Haveri District shall ensure that no untoward incidents occur during the festival.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Clause 15 of the notification dated 08.12.2022, the onus is on the petitioner to communicate to every department whose permission would be required to conduct the festival.

18. Learned AAG submits that once the permission is granted by the deputy commissioner, the office shall electronically transmit the grant of such permission. The submission is placed on record.

19. Except the aforesaid, it is needless to observe that the State shall not traverse beyond the observation as stipulated by the Apex Court in the judgment quoted supra, which is subsequent to the Act and which notices the Act, the subsequent Amendment and the Notification as well.

Ordered accordingly.