THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 407, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Matter referred to larger bench
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 02, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
Reference to larger Bench – Writ petitions filed to quash and
set aside a notification dated 7th January, 2016 issued by Union of
India and to direct the Respondents to ensure compliance with order
passed by Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja case – While the writ
petitions were pending, the 2017 Act was passed – Writ petitions
amended to include prayers to set aside the said Act – Held: Writ
petitions involve substantial questions relating to interpretation of
the Constitution of India and thus, need to be authoritatively decided
by a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges – Papers be placed before the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble
Judges – Constitution of India – VIIth  Schedule, List III, Entry 17
and Arts. 14, 21, 29, 48, 51A(g)(h) – The Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Doctrine of pith and
substance.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors.
(2014) 7 SCC 547 : [2014] 6 SCR 646 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 6 SCR 646
referred to
Para 3
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 23
of 2016.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
W. P. (C) No. 24/2016, W. P. (C) No. 25/2016,  W. P. (C) No.
26/2016, W. P. (C) No. 27/2016, W. P. (C) No. 88/2016, W. P. (C) No.
1011/2017, W. P. (C) No. 1059/2017,
S.L.P.  (C)  No.  3528/2018, W. P.
(C)  No. 1193/2017, S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3526-3527 of 2018, W. P. (C) No.
1188/2017
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 407
407
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
K. K. Venugopal, AG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Sidharth Luthra,
Anand Grover, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, V. Giri, Shekhar Naphade,
A. Sharan, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Mr. Subramaniom Prasad,
Shyam Divan, Senior Advocates, Balraj Dewan, Ms. Anjali Sharma,
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Mayank Sapra, Ms. Joshita
Pai, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Aditya Singla,
Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ajit Sharma, Ms. Shrinidhi Rao, Subodh
S. Patil, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Shadan Farasat, Ms. Rudrakshi Deo,
Ms. Bhumika Aggarwal, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Bhumika Aggarwal,
Ms. Ispita Behura, Manas Gaur, Sachin Patil, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Sumit Attri, Karan Khanna,
Ms. Nikhita Shenoy, Vikash Kumar Jha, Ms. Svadha Shanker, M/s. Cyril
Amarchand Mangaldas 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, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Ms. Soumya,   Ms. Nidhi Nagpal,
Shashank Mangal, Anurag Pandey, Ms. Reena Pandey, Kunwar Ratnesh
Ratn, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Mamta Singh,
Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary,
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Ms, Kalyani Tulankar,
Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Adv. M/s. Abhay Anturkar & Associates Advs.
for the appearing parties.
Applicant-In-Person
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. The present batch of writ petitions was
originally filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union
of India on 7th January, 2016, and to direct the Respondents to ensure
compliance with this Court’s judgment reported as Animal Welfare
Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
2. However, while these writ petitions were pending, The
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017,
which received the Presidential assent on 31st January, 2017, was passed.
The writ petitions were then amended so as to include prayers to set
aside the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Amendment Act on several grounds.
3. After hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents for some
time, we are of the view that these writ petitions need to be authoritatively
decided by a Constitution Bench of 5 learned Judges, as the writ petitions
involve substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India. The questions, which require reference to a Bench
of 5 learned Judges, apart from the other questions raised in the writ
petitions, are set out hereinbelow:
i. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and
substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India, or does it further and perpetuate cruelty to
animals; and can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention
of cruelty to animals?   Is it colourable legislation which does not
relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent
List?
ii.The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the
cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu.  Can the impugned
Tamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural
heritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive
the protection of
Article 29 of the Constitution of India?
iii. Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to
ensure the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls?  Is
the Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article 48 of the
Constitution of India?
iv. Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles
51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be
unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India?
v.Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary
to the judgment in A. Nagaraja (supra), and the review judgment
dated 16th November, 2016 in the aforesaid case, and whether the
defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be said
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA v. UNION OF
INDIA [ R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
to have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu Legislature by enacting
the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?
4. Let the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice to
constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges.
Divya Pandey
                 Matter placed before Hon’ble CJI to
            constitute a five-judge Bench.