“Whenever there is a conflict between customs and law, the conflict has two consequences. One is when the law changes custom and society and the other is when custom and society changes the law.” The objective of commenting on this particular case is due to the aftereffects 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 propose an alternative. Although I support several of the courts' views, I still believe that it would have been better if the court had adopted a harmonious approach. The judgment was based solely on the documents presented by counsel and precedents. I have briefly explained in this article the public's unpleasant reactions to the government's judgment and order. According to my observations, the government's point of view was not sufficiently taken into account and the validation of laws and decrees was largely concentrated. The court was too strict on the previous judgment in such a way that it failed to take into account the sentimental feelings of the society and the benefits they derive from it. So there were some curable flows on the part of the court, even if the judgment cannot be considered totally irrelevant. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay India is a country with vast divergences, culture, customs and practices that have a direct influence on the ecosystem. Although these customs are sources of law, many of them cannot be consistent with the law. The legislative and judicial authorities are taking measures to eradicate these practices from society. The ruling proved to be an important step in the perseverance of the culture and the safety of the animals. The issues considered in the case include one, challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court on the validation of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act (hereinafter the TNRJ Act) and the other, challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court validating the 2011 notification by which bulls were added in the banned list of performing animals. Jallikattu and Rekla running is depicted as a bravery sport that uses bulls and trained participants. These bulls are subjected to immense cruelty before sending them through the entrance, which leads to their violent behavior on the playing field. The deaths and injuries during the match show its unhealthy character. Thus, the Madras High Court in 2006 banned the practice of Jallikattu and rekla runs, which was upheld by the Supreme Court headed by Justice KS Radakrishnan in this case. Interim orders have been issued by the court since until 2014 allowing both sports, until the judgment which strictly banned the sports and held that the rights guaranteed by Articles 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children animals (hereinafter the PCA Act) and sections 51A (g) and (h) cannot be reduced, except in accordance with the procedures provided for in section 22 of the PCA Act, and have charged the Government to protect and to safeguard the freedoms of animals. After the TNRJ Act came into force, the law was challenged under Article 32 of the constitution. When the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which validated the amended TNRJ Act, 2009 and held the Act 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) of 2011 including bulls in the list of animals prohibited for training. PARTS: Inthe original petition, i.e. in the Mandamus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2006, the parties were 1. Petitioner: K. Muniasamy Thevar , the then vice-president of Karisalkulam panchayat for whom L. Shaji Chellan appeared before the court 2. Respondent: Member of Parliament Superintendent of Police for whom Government Counsel J. Viswanathan appeared. The judgment was delivered by the Madras High Court bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi and Pinki Chandra Ghose. Later, in 2014, in the case of SLP of Animal Welfare Board vs. In Nagaraja & others (2014) 7 SCC 547, the parties were 1. Petitioner or appellant: 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. Dr. Adish Agarwala appeared. 2. Respondents: A. Nagaraja and 11 other petitions from 2011 to 2014 were consolidated for which Additional General, A. Mariarputham and Raj Panjwani constituted the counsel. In the appeal case, the son of the respondent who was participating in the game was killed during the game due to numerous injuries to his body. Procedural Facts: The 2006 and 2014 petitions were initially filed in the Madras High Court as an order of Mandamus[2] under Section 226 and in 2007, the Division Bench comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and PPS Janarthana Raja set aside the previous judgment against which several SLPs were filed before the Supreme Court under Section 136[3], Section 133[4], Section 142[5 ] and art. 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 2,500 and 450 years respectively. The term Jallikattu refers to the silver or gold coins attached to the horns of bulls. In Tamil Nadu, it is a sport practiced on the third day of Pongal. On this day, a running bull is released into a crowd, where participants either grab the bull and ride it to stop it, or take the flag attached to the bull's horn.[7] Bulls that do 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 bullock cart races where the bullock carts cover miles and the winning team is rewarded. The roller coaster of bull riding controversy began in 2004 with the petition filed by the South Indian Humanitarian League and the Blue Cross of India to the petitions committee of the state legislature of Tennessee to ban Jallikattu and other sports using bulls. Although the judgment on the said petitions delivered by Justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla allowed “sport” with a rider, the bulls used in the game are expected to be unharmed. In the 2006 judgment of the Madras High Court by Justice R. Banumathi and Pinki Chandra Ghose, in widening the scope of a writ of mandamus[8] filed against a police officer for willful failure to grant permission for the condolences filed by the villagers seeking permission to conduct the game by the Ramanathapuram police, the court dismissed the summons with reference to the 1996 judgment of the Panaji Bench, the Bombay High Court, prohibiting all games from being organized involving severe animal training like rekla racing, ox racing and jallikattu. This strengthened the PCA Act of 1960. While in 2007, the Division Bench[9] comprising Justices ElipeDharma Rao and PPS Janarthana Raja adopted harmonious construction and allowed regulatory measures to ensure safety of animals instead of earlier complete restriction, this law order was later struck down by the three judges of the Supreme Court. In 2008, the apex court granted permission to hold a rekla race by limiting the distance on the racing field to a radius of 15 m. The Tamil Nadu government subsequently passed the TNRJ Act to set aside this judgment, against which AWBI and PETA filed a petition contested in the division bench's judgment on the basis of the PCA Act, MoEF Notification 2011. Another set of SLPs was re-filed in the Bombay court. Tribunal upholding the MoEF Notification 2011 and the Corrigendum issued by the Government prohibiting the exhibition and training of animals, including A. Nagaraja, father of a participant who died during the game and others, and that the AWBI and other animal welfare organizations working for the protection of animals were parties, the court issued the final judgment banning the two games, stating that these games constituted a violation of Article 5 of the Regulation S. .11 of the CPA Act and its 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 repugnant and in violation of the PCA Act, 1960, 2. the Jallikatt and rekla race promotes cruelty in the name of culture 3. the judgment of the Bombay High Court was justified in complying with the 2011 notification of the central government. Arguments: From the judgment, the appellants have argued on the basis of the physical and mental cruelty suffered by the bulls, the repugnance of the law to the PCA Act and numerous reports, affidavits and photographs of certified authorities, which speak of the behavior of the animals before and after the game highlighting the cruelty towards the bulls during the games. It has also been argued that the TNRJ Act does not have the effect of a law since the President did not affirm it. Moreover, forcing an animal to participate in such a game was contrary to Section 51A(g) and Art. 21[11] in addition to violating sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act. The organizers of the Jallikattu race and rekla took a stand stating that the game was being held during the days of the festival which has been practiced for years and the committee members and bull owners took necessary precautions to ensure its safety and no cruelty as mentioned under paragraph 11(1)(a) is imposed. It has further been argued that the presence of collectors, doctors, police officers, etc. on duty ensures that such cruelty would not take place and also asked to regulate the event rather than stopping it. These apprehensions were satisfied by the TNRJ law. In addition to this, the State argued that the non-applicability of the event tickets excluded them from the application of Section 22 of the PCA Act. The issue of previous notifications from the MoEF 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 thing has not been done at present. situation. Outcome of the case: The application for special leave was granted and the case was disposed of, setting aside the order of the Madras High Court upholding the TNRJ Act, holding the Act unconstitutional and void, upholding the judgment of the Bombay High Court validating the 2011 notification by which Bull was included in the list of animals whose exhibition and training were prohibited. Application: The judgment in this case strengthened the PCA Act of 1960 and elevated the rights of animals to those of.