ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER BAN OF THE BULLTASIA IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF ESTASIA.
The Counsel would like to humbly submit that ban on the event of ‘Bulltasia’ would
amount to violation of article 25 of the constitution of Estasia, As every festival has the
root in religion and the constitution guarntees every individual fundamental right of
Religion under Article 25, Bulltasia is an event that takes place after harvest and has
religious importance and such an ethos cannot be disregarded.
Where there is issue of considering it to be a fight or cruelty against animal it is to be
made clear that “Bulltasia is not a fight between bulls and humans. It is a sort of sports
where players are required to embrace the running bulls by hanging on their hump for as
long as possible or for three jumps. The players are unarmed; the bulls are freed of the
nose rope before the event and led away by the owners afterwards. In no case the bull is
injured or killed.”1
The richest mythology book on Intus also explains the significance of Bulltasia. It clearly
suggests that -“Bulltasia is a socio-religious festival. It is purely religious act. It is an
offering/commitment to the gram devta. The conducting of Bulltasia will bring good
harvest and negate bad omens”2 The festival has been observed for more than 2500 years.
It makes the festival traditionally strong and attached to the religious sentiments of the
people of South Tancity.
Every religious practice has some significance and also a scientific temperament for
practicing that custom. The importance of Bulltasia is that it helps in preserving native
breeds. Only pure and native Bulls are allowed to mate with cows which lead to rise of
new pure natives. Thus it helps in breeding of cattle and preserving native breeds3.
In The Dawoodi Bohra Case 4 Supreme court upheld that “The first is that the protection
of these articles is not limited to matters of doctrine or belief they extend also to acts
done in pursuance of religion and therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and
observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion. The
second is that what constitutes an essential part of a religious or religious practice has to
be decided by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and include
practices which are regarded by the community as a part of its religion.”
1
Chapter 2.05. of Intus Samhita
2
Chapter 2.0.3 of Intus Samhita
3
Moot Proposition, Page no. 2
4
Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, (2005) 2 SCC 673
Being Bulltasia an essential practice of the festival celebrated over 2500 years, it can be
considered as an integral part of the religion of the people of the state of south trancity
and thus should be continued.
1.1 WHETHER VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 OF PROHIBITION OF ANIMAL
CRUELTY ACT (PACA) TOOK PLACE DURING THE EVENT OF BULLTASIA.
The Counsel would like to humbly submit that there is no violation of section 11 of
PACA, and no heed should be paid to report submitted by ISPAAR mentioning the
instances of gross violence of animal rights and section 11 of PACA, 1960 as no reliable
survey has been conducted by any authority and the one which ISPAAR conducted was
untrustworthy5 as Department of Animal protection and Welfare of Government of
Estasia in order to keep a check over and regulate NGOs conducted a site visit to the
Headquarter of ISPAR. In its visit it found that various discrepancies like there was no
proper facility for animal shelter6. The NGO failed in its very prime objectives. It put a
question mark upon the credibility and sincerity of NGO ISPAR and thus it cannot relied.
If at all some believe that there is any violation of any law then instead of banning a 2500
year old religious ritual government must create a committee to regulate the festival and
make sure no animal right enshrined in PACA, 1960 gets violated and thus protecting the
fundamental right of the people as well as rights of animal.
2. WHETHER THE STATE HAS POWER TO PROMULGATE ORDINANCE
LIFTING THE BAN ON BULLTASIA.
The Counsel would like to humbly submit the ordinance was promulgated by the state
under Article 246 of constitution of Estasia and the President’s assent was duly received
by the governor7, which allows the legislature of state to amend the existing laws. The
ordinance is a ‘State amendment’ to the Central Act. This means that in its application to
South Trancity, some provisions will be different from what they are for the rest of the
country. This means both the Centre and the States have concurrent power to enact laws
on the subject. Subject to some restrictions and a prescribed procedure, State
governments may amend central laws or have their own laws on the same subject in
which the Union government has its own law. This may be done by the Legislative
5
ANNEXURE 1
6
ANNEXURE 2
7
ESTASIA GOVERNEMNT GAZETTE no.2
Assembly in its usual course or it may be promulgated as an ordinance if circumstances
warrant such recourse.
In case of Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors8 The ordinance seeks to
address the specific grounds on which the Supreme Court held jallikattu sport illegal. In
particular, the court had held jallikattu to be violative of Sections 3, 11 and 22 of the
PCA. So, the new law amends or adds to the relevant sections. In addition, it seeks to
overcome the objection that the State law is not in conformity with the relevant central
law. An earlier Act, the Tamil Nadu Jallikattu Regulation Act, 2009 was struck down by
the Supreme Court on this ground. The present ordinance seeks to eliminate the elements
of conflict with the Centre’s prior permission.
In the case of State of Orissa vs Bhupendra kumar Bose, “the “enduring rights” which
had been applied to English descions to temporary statue was brought in while construing
the effect of ordinance which has been ceased to operate”. 9
In case Krishna Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors10. The court held that
after the governor of the state obtains assent of the president then that specific law will
prevail over that specific state.
Therefore the state has complete authority to amend the prevailing PACA 1960 changing
the definition clause and excluding the category of the domestic animals from the head
ofanimals for the application of PACA 1960.
8
Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors, (2014) 7 SCC 547
9
State of Orissa vs Bhupendra kumar Bose, 1962 Supp(2)
10
Krishna Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, (2017) 3 SCC 1
