“Whenever there is a conflict between customs and law, there are two outcomes of the conflict. One is when the law changes customs and society and the other is when customs and society change the law.” The purpose of making a comment on this particular case is due to the consequences of the postponement of the judgment on the South Indian public and to study the relevance and compatibility of the judgment. The document also aims to provide an alternative. Even though I support and support different views of the courts, I still believe that it would be better for the Court to adopt a harmonious approach. The judgment was based exclusively on the complaints presented by the Councils and precedents. In this article, I have briefly explained the public's hateful reactions towards the government's ruling and order. According to my observations, the government's point of view has not been sufficiently emphasized, rather, the validation of laws and ordinances has been largely concentrated. The court was too harsh towards the previous ruling so that it did not consider the sentimental feelings of the society and the benefits derived from it. There were therefore some flows that could be remedied by the court even if the sentence cannot be said to be completely irrelevant. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay India is a country with great divergences, cultures, customs and practices that have a direct influence on the ecosystem. Although these customs are sources of law, many customs cannot conform to the statute. The legislature and judiciary take measures to eradicate such practices from society. The ruling proved to be a milestone in the perseverance of culture and animal safety. The issues under consideration in the case include one, challenging the ruling of the Madras High Court on validation of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of the Jallikattu Act (hereinafter TNRJ Act) and the other, challenging the ruling of the Bombay High Court that validates the 2011 notification under which bulls were added to the prohibited list of performing animals. Jallikattu and Rekla racing is portrayed as a sport of courage using trained bulls and participants. These bulls are subjected to immense cruelty before being sent through the entrance leading to their violent behavior in the playground. The deaths and injuries during the game show its unhealthy nature. Therefore, the Madras High Court in 2006 banned the practice of Jallikattu and Rekla races, which in this case was upheld by the Supreme Court headed by Justice KS Radakrishnan. The court issued interim orders until 2014 allowing both sports, until the ruling strictly banned the sports and held that the rights guaranteed under Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (hereinafter PCA Act) and Articles 51A (g) and (h) cannot be abridged, except in the procedures provided for under sections 22 of the PCA Act, and have mandated the government to protect and safeguard the freedoms of animals. After the TNRJ Act came into force, the law was challenged under Article 32 of the constitution. Where the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Madras High Court which validated the amended TNRJ Act, 2009 and held the law to be unconstitutional and violative of the PCA Act and upheld the judgment of the Bombay High Court which validated the Ministry of Environment and Forests (hereinafter MoEF) notification of 2011 including bulls in the list of animals prohibited from training. PARTIES: In the initial petition, or in the writ of Mandamus filed withunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, v. Deputy Superintendent of Police Act 2006, the parties were 1. Appellant: K. Muniasamy Thevar, then vice-president of Karisalkulam panchayat for which L. Shaji Chellan appeared before the court 2. Respondent: Deputy Superintendent of Police for whom Government Advocate J. Viswanathan appeared. The judgment was delivered by the Madras High Court bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi and Pinki Chandra Ghose. Subsequently, in 2014, in the case SLP of Animal welfare board vs. In Nagaraja & other (2014) 7 SCC 547 the parties were 1. Appellant or appellants: Animal Welfare Board of India (hereinafter AWBI) and People for Ethical Treatment for Animals (hereinafter PETA). Sunil Kr. Jain, Aneesh Mittal, Sachin Sharma, AK Soni, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohd, LK Pandey. Doctor Adish Agarwala appeared. 2. Respondents: A. Nagaraja and 11 other petitions from 2011 to 2014 were joined together for which Additional General, A. Mariarputham, Raj Panjwani were the counsel. In the contested case, the defendant's son who participated in the game was killed during the game due to numerous injuries sustained on his body. Procedural Facts: The 2006 and 2014 application was initially filed in the Madras High Court as a writ of Mandamus[2] under Article 226 and in 2007 the division bench comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja set aside the earlier judgment against which several SLPs were filed in the Supreme Court under Article 136[3], Article 133[4], Article 142[5] and Article. 32[6] and the bench headed by Justice KS Radhakrishnan granted leave. Historical Facts: Jallikattu of Tamil Nadu and bullock cart racing of Maharashtra were practiced for over 2500 and 450 years respectively. The term Jallikattu refers to silver or gold coins tied on the horns of bulls. In Tamil Nadu, it is a sport played on the third day of Pongal. On this day a running bull is released into the crowd, where participants grab and ride the bull to stop it, or take the flag attached to the bull's horn[7]. Bulls that perform well in this game are used for breeding and fetch a high price in the market. Similarly, Maharashtra rekla race is organized after Makara Sankaranthi, on Chaitra astami. On this day various cart owners organize a bullock cart race where the bullock carts travel kilometers and the winning team is rewarded. The rollercoaster of bullfighting controversy began in 2004 with the petition filed by the South Indian Humane League and the Blue Cross of India in the Petitions Committee of the TN state legislature to ban Jallikattu and other sports using the bulls. While the judgment on such petitions upheld by Justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla allowed “sport” with a rider, the bulls used in the game should be unharmed. In 2006, the judgment delivered by the Madras High Court by Justice R. Banumathi and Pinki Chandra Ghose, widening the scope of a writ of mandamus[8] filed against a police officer for willful failure to grant permission for condonations filed from the villagers seeking permission for conducting the game from the Ramanathapuram police, the court besides rejecting the act with reference to the 1996 judgment of Panaji Bench, Bombay High Court, barred from conducting all the games that involve tough training of animals such as rekla racing, bullock racing and jallikattu. This strengthened the then PCA Act, 1960. While in 2007 the division bench[9] comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and PPS Janarthana Raja adopted a harmonious construction andallowed regulatory measures to ensure the safety of animals instead of earlier comprehensive restrictions, this order was later struck down by the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in 2008 granted permission for holding the Rekla race by limiting the distance of the competition field to a radius of 15 meters. The Government of Tamil Nadu then passed the TNRJ Act to abolish this ruling, against which AWBI and PETA filed a writ petition challenged in the Division Bench ruling on the basis of the PCA Act, MoEF Notification 2011. Another set of SLP was re-filed at Bombay High The court upheld the MoEF notification of 2011 and the corrigendum issued by the government prohibiting the display and training of animals, of which A. Nagaraja father of a participant who died while playing and others, and the AWBI and other animal welfare organizations working for the protection of animals were parties to the case, the court issued the final ruling to ban both games stating that these games as violation of articles from S. 5 to S. .11 of the PCA Act and fundamental duties, under Article 51A (g) and (h)[10] of the Constitution. Relief: The relief sought by the parties was to clarify whether 1. the TNRJ Act was abhorrent and in violation of the PCA Act 1960, 2. Jallikatt and the rekla race promote cruelty in the name of culture 3. The judgment of the Bombay High Court was justified in supporting the Central Government's 2011 notification. Arguments: From the ruling, the appellants argued on the basis of the physical and mental cruelty suffered by the bulls, the law's repugnance against the PCA Act and numerous reports, affidavits and photographs from certified authorities, which speak to the behavior of the animals before and after the game that highlights the cruelty on bulls during the games. It was further argued that the TNRJ Act does not have the effect of a law since the President did not say so. Furthermore, forcing an animal to take part in such play was contrary to Art.51A(g) and Art. 21[11] as well as being in violation of S.3 and 11 of the PCA Act. The organizers of the Jallikattu and rekla race took a break saying that the game was conducted during the days of the festival which has been practiced for years and the committee members and owners of the bulls had taken due care ensuring their safety and absence of cruelty as mentioned under S.11(1)(a) is complied with. It was further alleged that the presence of collectors, doctors, police officials, etc. on duty ensures that such cruelty does not take place and has also been asked to regulate the event rather than stop it. These apprehensions have been addressed by the TNRJ Act. In addition to this, the State argued that the non-applicability of tickets to the event excludes them from being part of S.22 of the PCA Act. The issue of previous MoEF notifications was also discussed with reference to the case of NR Nair & Others Vs UOI[12], where the court formed a committee to discuss the corrigendum of exclusion of dogs from the initial list while the same did not it was done at the time situation. The outcome of the case: The Special Leave Petition was granted and the case was disposed of, quashing the order of the Madras High Court to uphold the TNRJ Act, holding the Act to be unconstitutional and void, upholding the judgment of the Bombay High Court validating the 2011 notification according to which the bull was included in the list of animals prohibited from exhibition and training. Application: The ruling, in this case, strengthened the PCA Act, 1960 and elevated animal rights to that of Article 21 and imposed Article 51 of the Constitution as a strict obligation on.