TEAM CODE- 122P

SUO MOTO WRIT (C) NO. ____/2024

CLUBBED WITH
IN THE MATTER OF

PEOPLE FOR ANIMAL…………………………………...………...…….......

PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF INDICA ………………………………………………....…….…...
RESPONDENT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. I

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ................................................................................. III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................................... VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................................... VIII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................ X

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................. XI

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................... 1

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE RANTHARA BULL SPORTS REGULATIONS ACT, 2024 AND THE

DHARMAJA CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2023, WHICH REGULATE VARDHANI BULL RACES,
GOVISHYA TRAMPLING RITUAL, AND YUVATTA BULL TAMING RITUAL, VIOLATE THE

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1960, AND VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDICA. ...................................................................................................... 1

[1.1] The impugned legislations are in violation with the provisions of the Prevention of
Cruelty of animals Act, 1960 therefore repugnant in nature. ............................................. 1

1.1.1 Impugned Legislations are violating Section 3 of the PCA Act, 1960. ........... 2
1.1.2 Impugned Legislations are violating Section 11(1)(a) (h) (i) (m(ii)) of the PCA
Act, 1960. ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.1.3 The impugned legislations are repugnant in nature ......................................... 4
[1.2] The impugned legislations are inconsistent with the Fundamental rights ................. 6

ISSUE II: CAN THE BULL RITUALS IN THESE STATES BE PROTECTED AS

CULTURAL RIGHTS, AND DO THESE RIGHTS OVERRIDE THE DUTY TO PREVENT
ANIMAL CRUELTY UNDER ARTICLE 21? .................................................................... 14

[ 2.1] THE BULL RITUALS CANNOT BE PROTECTED AS CULTURAL RIGHTS AS

THEY ARE NOT ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES .......................................... 14

[2.2] THE BULL RITUALS GROSSLY VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE
BULL THEREFORE THE CULTURAL RIGHTS CANT OVERRIDE ARTICLE 21
WHEN IN CONFLICT .................................................................................................... 17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER I

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE III: WAS THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S DECISION TO IMPOSE INTERNET

BANS, CENSOR VIRAL VIDEOS AND INVOKE SECTION 163 INSS IN THE
AFFECTED REGIONS OF RANTHARA AND DHARMAJA JUSTIFIABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 19(2) ON THE GROUNDS OF MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER, OR DID IT
CONSTITUTE A DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE AMOUNTING TO AN ABUSE OF
POWER BY SUPRESSING LEGITIMATE DISSENT AND FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION? .................................................................................................................... 19

[ 3.1] IMPOSING BAN ON INTERNET VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER ARTICLE 19 AND 21 ...................................................... 19

[3.2] INVOKING SECTION 163 INSS IN THE AFFECTED REGIONS AMOUNT TO

DIPROPORTIONATE RESPONE AMOUNTING TO ABUSE OF POWER BY THE
STATE. ............................................................................................................................. 22

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PCA ACT, 1960 IS SUFFICIENT TO
ADDRESS THE CRUELTY ON THE ANIMALS AND PROVIDES SUFFICIENT
PUNISHMENT AND REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT? ..................................................... 24

PRAYER ..................................................................................................................... 25

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER II

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

Abbreviated Form Full-Form

& And
¶ Paragraph
§ Section
Art. Article
AA Advocates Act, 1961
A.I.R. All India Reporter
BNSS Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Const. Constitution
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
P. Page
Para Paragraph
PCA Prevention to Cruelty to Animals Act
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UOI Union of India
U.S. United States
V. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER III

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Constitutional Provisions
1. India Const. art. 19.
2. India Const. art. 19(6).
3. India Const. art. 21.
4. India Const. art. 25.
5. India Const. art. 32.
6. India Const. art. 142.
7. India Const. art. 254.
8. India Const. art. 256.

Statutes
1. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, No. 59 of 1960, § 3, India Code (1960).
2. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, No. 59 of 1960, § 11, India Code (1960).
3. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, § 11(1)(a) (India).
4. BNSS § 163 (India) (previously cited as § 144, CrPC).

Cases
1. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India).
2. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., (2014) 7 S.C.C. 547 (India).
3. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 884 (India).
4. Chief Secretary to the Government, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and Others v. Animal
Welfare Board and Another, (2017) 2 S.C.C. 144 (India).
5. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 648 (India).
6. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 S.C.R. 88, 253-54 (India).
7. Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kaun, Delhi & Anr. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1960
S.C. 554 (India).
8. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, J.T. 1996 (4) S.C. 263
(India).
9. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 S.C.C. 1 (India).
10. Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Sec’y to Gov’t Higher Educ. Dep’t,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State & Anr., (2000) 5 S.C.C. 231 (India).
11. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

12. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

13. Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., MANU/UC/0202/2016 (Uttaranchal
High Court, Dec. 2, 2016).
14. M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 898 (India).
15. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597 (India).
16. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625 (India).
17. Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., A.I.R. 1959 All 540 (India).
18. Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, (2018) SCC OnLine Utt 645 (India).
19. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 S.C.C. 106 (India).
20. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 194 (India).
21. People for Animals through Mrs. Norma Alvares & Another v. The State of Goa
through its Chief Secretary & Others, 1996 SCC OnLine Bom 566 (India).
22. People’s Charioteer Organization & Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 6
S.C.C. 720 (India).
23. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 9 S.C.C. 681 (India).
24. Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 101 (India).
25. Raj Narain v. State of U.P., (1975) 4 S.C.C. 428 (India).
26. Raveendran P.T. v. The State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 237 (India).
27. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).
28. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan & Ors., (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574 (India).
29. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 853
(India).
30. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others, (2005) 8 S.C.C.
534 (India).
31. State of Karnataka v. M/s Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2375 (India).
32. State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2375 (India).
33. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Home v. Mahaveer Bishnoi
S/o Shri Patram Bishnoi, 2017 0 Supreme (Raj) 1257 (India).
34. Subhas Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 441 (India).
35. T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, (2012) 3 S.C.C. 277 (India).
36. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) S.C.R. 1005 (India).
37. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, [2002] 5 S.C.C. 294 (India).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER V

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Articles, Reports, and Online Sources

1. Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, Nature as a Legal Person: Recent Judicial Developments,
available at https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/17.pdf.
2. Kartik Piyush Panchal, The Essential Religious Practice Test/Doctrine of Essentiality,
PEN ACCLAIMS, (2020), available at http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Kartik-Panchal.pdf.
3. Harshima Vijaivergia, Status of Animal Laws in India: Strict Implementation or a
Tribute Suffices?, J.C.L.J. (2021) 338.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER VI

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Suo-Moto Writ (C) No. ____/2024

The Petitioners have invoked the PIL jurisdiction under Article 321 of the Constitution of
Indica. The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Indica.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 1422 of the Constitution of Indica has consolidated
all the PIL’s pending before the different High Courts with the present PIL.

1
India Const. art. 32
2
India Const. art. 142

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER VII

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
Indica, known for its secular and diverse cultural heritage, holds respect for all religions and
their unique practices. In certain regions, animals are revered as divine symbols. Among these
traditions, the bull is a powerful symbol of strength, fertility, and prosperity, especially in the
states of Ranthara and Dharmaja. These states celebrate ancient festivals, such as the Vardhani
Bull Races and Govishaya Trampling Ritual, where bulls play a central role in rituals meant to
honour deities and bless the land for abundant crops and strong communities.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The vardhani bull races, a 500-year-old tradition in ranthara, originated as an offering to the
rain gods after harvest. In this event, buffaloes race through flooded fields, driven by jockeys
on wooden sledges. Over the years, however, concerns have grown about the treatment of
animals, as bulls are often beaten to provoke aggression, leading to injuries and even fatalities.
Similarly, in dharmaja, the govishaya trampling ritual is held the day after diwali. During this
ritual, participants lay on the ground to be trampled by bulls, a symbolic act believed to purify
sins. The ritual has become controversial due to the injuries it causes to both humans and
animals.
In velakum, a village within dharmaja, the yuvatta bull-taming ritual (similar to tamil nadu’s
jallikattu) is another event where bulls are released into an arena and young men attempt to
tame them. Bulls are often made more aggressive with irritants and sharp objects, which has
led to frequent injuries and fatalities. While locals view this as a test of bravery, animal rights
activists condemn it as cruel.

PUBLIC OUTCRY AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

In 2024, journalist Arun Deshmukh released a documentary, "Bulls of Sorrow," showing the
mistreatment of animals behind the scenes of these festivals. This sparked a public outcry on
social media, with the hashtag #TraditionOrTorture gaining momentum. Animal rights activists
demanded a ban on these events, while locals defended them as integral to their culture. Protests
erupted, leading to violent clashes, injuries, and property damage. In response, the governments
of Ranthara and Dharmaja enacted Section 163 of the Indica Nya Surakhya Sahinta (INSS),

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER VIII

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

which banned public gatherings and imposed internet shutdowns to prevent further escalation.
Civil liberties groups criticized these measures as infringements on free speech.

LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
To preserve these traditions under a regulated framework, the state governments introduced the
Ranthara Bull Sports Regulation Act, 2024, and the Dharmaja Cultural Heritage Act, 2023.
These laws sought to allow the festivals while implementing safety measures to address animal
cruelty concerns.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The release of the documentary led to multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the High
Courts of Ranthara, Dharmaja, and Velakum. Petitioners argued that these rituals violated the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and constitutional provisions, including the Right
to Life under Article 21 and the duty to show compassion toward animals under Article 51A(g).
Cultural defenders filed counter-petitions, asserting that banning these rituals would erode their
cultural identity and religious practices.
In addition, an NGO named People for Animals filed a PIL with the Supreme Court of Indica,
seeking amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. They argued that the existing
provisions were insufficient to address and deter cruelty effectively.
Current status
In light of the mounting public pressure and the multiple PILs, the Attorney General of Indica
requested the Supreme Court to take Suo motu cognizance of the matter and consolidate the
cases. The Supreme Court agreed, forming a seven-judge Constitutional Bench to evaluate the
constitutionality of these rituals, focusing on the balance between animal rights, cultural
preservation, and freedom of expression.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IX

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Following issues have been raised for adjudication before the Seven- Judge Constitutional
bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica:

ISSUE I: Whether the Ranthara Bull Sports Regulations Act, 2024 and the Dharmaja Cultural
Heritage Act 2023, which regulate Vardhani Bull Races, Govishya Trampling Ritual, and
Yuvatta Bull Taming Ritual, violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, and
violates the provisions of Constitution of Indica.

ISSUE II: Can the bull rituals in these states be protected as cultural rights and do these rights
override the duty to prevent animal cruelty under Article 21?

ISSUE III: Was the State Government’s decision to impose internet bans, censor viral videos
and invoke Section 163 INSS in the affected regions of Ranthara and Dharmaja justifiable
under Article 19(2) on the grounds of maintaining public order, or did it constitute a
disproportionate response amounting to an abuse of power by suppressing legitimate dissent
and freedom of expression?

ISSUE IV: Whether the provisions of the PCA Act, 1960 is sufficient to address the cruelty
on the animals and provides sufficient punishment and require an amendment?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER X

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1) Whether the Ranthara Bull Sports Regulations Act, 2024 and the Dharmaja Cultural
Heritage Act 2023, which regulate Vardhani Bull Races, Govishya Trampling Ritual, and
Yuvatta Bull Taming Ritual, violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, and
violates the provisions of Constitution of Indica.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER XI

DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER XII

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE RANTHARA BULL SPORTS REGULATIONS ACT, 2024 AND THE

DHARMAJA CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2023, WHICH REGULATE VARDHANI BULL RACES,
GOVISHYA TRAMPLING RITUAL, AND YUVATTA BULL TAMING RITUAL, VIOLATE THE

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1960, AND VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDICA.

[1.1] The impugned legislations are in violation with the provisions of the Prevention of
Cruelty of animals Act, 1960 therefore repugnant in nature.
¶1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of
Indica states that: If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant
to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or
to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament,
whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case
may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State
shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void 3.
¶2. It is humbly submitted by the petitioner that ‘Prevention of cruelty to animals’ falls under
Item 17, Concurrent list of 7th schedule. Therefore, according to Article 246 of the
constitution the State is eligible to make laws present in the concurrent list i.e. List III.
¶3. It is humbly submitted by the respondent that the Centre as well as the State both are eligible
to make laws regulating prevention of cruelty towards animals according to the Article
246 4 of the constitution Item 17, Concurrent list of 7 th schedule therefore Doctrine
of repugnancy will be applicable here.
¶4. It is humbly submitted that The Ranthara Bull Sports Regulation Act, 2024, and The
Dharmaja Cultural Heritage Act, 2023 were passed by the legislatures to provide enough

3
India Const. art. 254
4
India Const. art. 256

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

safeguards to prevent cruelty towards animals and regulate these events while ensuring the
continuation of their centuries-old practices.
¶5. It is humbly submitted that the impugned acts violate the provisions of PCA Act, especially
Section 115(1)(a) (h) (i) (m(ii)) and Section 36 of the Act.

1.1.1 Impugned Legislations are violating Section 3 of the PCA Act, 1960.

¶6. It is humbly submitted that The PCA Act was enacted to prevent the infliction of
unnecessary pain, suffering or cruelty on animals. Section 3 of the Act deals with duties of
persons having charge of animals, which is mandatory in nature and hence confer
corresponding rights on animals.
¶7. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Section 3 incorporates - Duties of
persons having charge of animals. - It shall be the duty of every person having the care or
charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such
animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.
Section 3 of the Act has got two limbs, which are as follows:
i) Duty cast on persons-in-charge or care to take all reasonable measures to ensure
the well-being of the animal;
ii) ii) Duty to take reasonable measures to prevent the infliction upon such animal
of unnecessary pain and suffering.
¶8. It is humbly submitted that ‘Well-being’7 means state of being comfortable, healthy or
happy. Forcing the Bull and keeping the same in the waiting area for a number of hours
and subjecting it to scorching sun, is not for the well- being of the animal.
¶9. It is humbly submitted that duty is to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering,
meaning thereby, no right is conferred to inflict necessary/unnecessary pain or suffering on
the animals. By organizing Jallikattu and Bullock-cart race, the organizers are not
preventing the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, but they are inflicting pain and
suffering on the bulls, which they are legally obliged to prevent. Section 3 is a preventive
provision casting no right on the organizers, but only duties and obligations.

5
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, No. 59 of 1960, § 11, India Code (1960)
6
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, No. 59 of 1960, § 3, India Code (1960).
7
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., (2014) 7 S.C.C. 547 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶10. It is humbly submitted that the impugned legislations grossly violate Section 3 which
casts a duty on the person in-charge or care of animal to prevent the infliction upon an
animal, unnecessary pain or suffering, discharges that duty

1.1.2 Impugned Legislations are violating Section 11(1)(a) (h) (i) (m(ii)) of the
PCA Act, 1960.

¶11. It is humbly submitted that Section 11 generally deals with the cruelty to animals.
Section 11 is a beneficial provision enacted for the welfare and protection of the animals
and it is penal in nature. Being penal in nature, it confers rights on the animals and
obligations on all persons, including those who are in-charge or care of the animals.
¶12. Section 11 states- Treating animals’ cruelty. ―
(1) If any person― (a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or
otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes
or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or
(h) being the owner of 3 [any animal] fails to provide such animal with sufficient food,
drink or shelter; or
(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it
likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst; or
(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment—
(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or]
¶13. It is humbly submitted that in the event of the Yuvatta Bull-Taming Ritual (akin to
Tamil Nadu’s Jallikattu) is being conducted in Velakum, a village in the heart of Dharmaja,
AWBI gives a first-hand information of the manner in which the event of Jallikattu is being
conducted in Southern parts of Tamil Nadu, through three reports submitted along with the
additional affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Animal Welfare Board, MoEF,
Government of India on 7.9.20138, reported that in Jalikattu The tail, which has nearly 20
small bones, is an extension of the spinal cord and vertebral column. Dislocation and
fracture of the tail vertebrae are extremely painful conditions. Violation This is a violation
of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits

8
Supra note 5

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(l),
which prohibits the mutilation of an animal’s body.
¶14. It is humbly submitted that biting a Bull’s Tail, twisting a Bull’s Tail, Poking Bulls with
Knives and Sticks, Using Irritants Irritant solutions were rubbed into the eyes and noses of
bulls inside the vadi vassal in order to agitate them, Using Nose Ropes Nose ropes were
frequently pulled, yanked or tightened in order to control bulls, Forcing Bulls to Drink
Liquids On many occasions, bulls were forced to drink fluids that were likely liquor.
Animals’ heads were raised by pulling on the nose ropes, and the fluids were forced into
their mouths using a plastic bottle, Forcing Bulls to Stand in their Own Waste In the waiting
areas, bulls were forced to wait for more than eight hours while standing in their own faeces
and urine, Spectators Beating and Agitating Bulls are such acts that are common in the
process of celebrating Jalikattu 9.
¶15. It is humbly submitted that in The Vardhani Bull Races prized buffaloes race through
flooded paddy fields, driven by whip-wielding jockeys standing on wooden sledges. Bulls
are often beaten to increase their aggression, and subjected to gruelling physical demands,
leading to injuries and even death10.
¶16. It is humbly submitted that in The Dharmaja’s Govishaya Trampling Ritual, held the
day after Diwali, the spectacle of devotees laying on the ground for bulls to trample over
them has gained both reverence and notoriety. This ritual, seen as a purification act where
sins are trampled away, often leaves both bulls and humans gravely injured 11.
¶17. It is humbly submitted that this is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which states that beating, kicking, torturing or otherwise
treating any animal so as to subject the animal to unnecessary pain or suffering is an act of
cruelty.

1.1.3 The impugned legislations are repugnant in nature

¶18. It is humbly submitted that PCA Act is a welfare legislation which has to be construed
bearing in mind the purpose and object of the Act and the Directive Principles of State

9
Supra note 7
10
Moot prop
11
ibid

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Policy. It is trite law that, in the matters of welfare legislation, the provisions of law should
be liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm12.
¶19. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that regulations or guidelines, whether
statutory or otherwise, if they purport to dilute or defeat the welfare legislation and the
constitutional principles, Court should not hesitate to strike them down so as to achieve the
ultimate object and purpose of the welfare legislation. Court has also a duty under the
doctrine of parents patriae to take care of the rights of animals, since they are unable to take
care of themselves as against human beings. 13
¶20. It is humbly submitted before that this Court held that, in order to decide the question
of repugnancy, it must be shown that the two enactments contain inconsistent and
irreconcilable provisions, therefore, they cannot stand together or operate in the same
field14.
¶21. It is humbly submitted that this Court took the view that the repugnancy may arise
between two enactments even though obedience of each of them is possible without
disobeying the other, if a competent legislature of superior efficacy, expressly or impliedly,
evinces by the State legislation a clear intention to cover the whole field and the enactment
of the other legislature, passed before or after, would be over-borne on the ground of
repugnancy15.
¶22. It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the question of Repugnancy
between the parliamentary legislation and state legislation arises in two ways 16 —
(i) where the two legislations, though enacted with respect to matters in their allotted
spheres, overlap and conflict.
(ii) where the two legislations are with respect to matters in the Concurrent List and
there is a conflict.

12
Supra notes 7
13
Ibid
14
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 898 (India)
15
Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Sec’y to Gov’t Higher Educ. Dep’t, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala State & Anr., (2000) 5 S.C.C. 231 (India)
16
State of Karnataka v. M/s Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2375 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

In both the situations, the Apex Court ruled, the Parliamentary legislation will predominate, in
the first, by virtue of non-obstante clause in Article 246 (1); in the second, by reason of Article
254(1).
¶23. It is well settled that repugnancy under Article 254 arises when both laws pertain to a
matter in List IIIA. The Supreme Court, laid down the following tests 17 for determining the
repugnancy between the Union Law and a State Law-
(i) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the two Statutes, i.e., when
one says "do" and the other says "do not".
(ii) When both the State and the Union Laws seek to exercise their powers over
the same subject-matter, and not where they deal with separate and distinct
matter, though of a cognate and allied character."
(iii) Though, there may be no direct conflict, a State Law will be inoperative
because the Union Law is intended to be a complete, exhaustive code,
¶24. It is humbly submitted that The Ranthara Bull Sports Regulation Act, 2024, and the
Dharmaja Cultural Heritage Act, 2023 which are State Acts, are repugnant to the PCA Act,
which is a Central Act, since, both the Acts fall under Entry No. 17 in the Concurrent List.
¶25. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that impugned acts are in conflict with
the provisions of the PCA Act, 1960, therefore, repugnant.

[1.2] The impugned legislations are inconsistent with the Fundamental rights

¶26. It is humbly submitted that18 river Ganga and Yamuna are living entity/legal
person/juristic person. It is important to point out that the High Court has not recognised
'rivers' per se as living being. It has recognised only rivers Ganga and Yamuna and its
tributaries as living entity/legal person. So the first question comes in mind that who is
juristic person/legal entity/ legal personality? According to Salmond:- “Person is any being

17
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 648 (India); see also State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem
Kuri Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2375 (India); R.K. Grover v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2020 S.C. 3226 (India); Ranjiv
Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 3081 (India); K.K. Goel v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1806
(India)
18
Mohd. Salim Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., A.I.R 1959 All 540 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

whom the law regards as being capable of rights and duties. This being doesn't always
have to be a human.” 19
¶27. It is humbly submitted that a person is juridically classified in two groups: natural
persons and legal persons. The first group refers to a human being, who is an individual
being capable of assuming obligations and capable of holding rights. The second group
refers to those entities endowed with juridical personality who are usually known as a
collective person, social person, or legal entity 20.
¶28. It is humbly submitted that glaciers, including Gangotri and Yamunotri, rivers, streams,
rivulets, lakes, air, meadows, dales, jungles, forests wetlands, grasslands, springs and
waterfalls were declared as legal persons21. Likewise, animals can also be considered as
legal personality and can be regarded as being capable of rights and duties like other forms
of nature.
¶29. It is humbly submitted that every species has a right to life and security, subject to the
law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the
Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has
been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which
includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall
within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution 22.
¶30. It is humbly submitted that the Yuvatta Bull-Taming Ritual (akin to Tamil Nadu’s
Jallikattu) Jallikattu is a Tamil word, which comes from the term “Callikattu”, where
“Calli” means coins and “Kattu” means a package. Jallikattu refers to silver or gold coins
tied on the bulls’ horns. People, in the earlier time, used to fight to get at the money placed
around the bulls’ horns which depicted as an act of bravery. Later, it became a sport
conducted for entertainment and was called “Yeruthu Kattu”, in which a fast-moving bull
was corralled with ropes around its neck. Started as a simple act of bravery, later, assumed
different forms and shapes like Jallikattu (in the present form), Bull Race etc., which is

19
Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, Nature as a Legal Person: Recent Judicial Developments, available at
https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/17.pdf.
20
Ibid
21
Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., MANU/UC/0202/2016 (Uttaranchal High Court, Dec. 2, 2016)
22
Supra note 5

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

based on the concept of flight or fight. Jallikattu includes Manjuvirattu, Oormaadu,

Vadamadu, Erudhu, Vadam, Vadi and all such events involve taming of bulls.23
¶31. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Bulls which are forced to
participate in the race are subjected to considerable pain and suffering, which clearly
violates Section 3 and Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) of the PCA Act read with Article 51A(g)
and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence exhibition or training them as
performing animals be completely banned.
¶32. It is humbly submitted that Bulls, in that situation, are stressed, exhausted, injured and
humiliated. Frustration of the Bulls is noticeable in their vocalization and, looking at the
facial expression of the bulls, ethologist or an ordinary man can easily sense their suffering.
Bulls, otherwise are very peaceful animals dedicating their life for human use and
requirement, but are subjected to such an ordeal that not only inflicts serious suffering on
them but also forces them to behave in ways, namely, they do not behave, force them into
the event which does not like and, in that process, they are being tortured to the hilt 24.
¶33. It is humbly submitted that Bulls cannot carry the so-called performance without being
exhausted, injured, tortured or humiliated. Bulls are also intentionally subjected to fear,
injury – both mentally and physically – and put to unnecessary stress and strain for human
pleasure and enjoyment, that too, a species totally dedicated its life for human benefit, out
of necessity25.
¶34. It is humbly submitted that in The Vardhani Bull Races prized buffaloes race through
flooded paddy fields, driven by whip-wielding jockeys standing on wooden sledges. Bulls
are often beaten to increase their aggression, and subjected to gruelling physical demands,
leading to injuries and even death26.
¶35. It is humbly submitted that in The Dharmaja’s Govishaya Trampling Ritual, held the
day after Diwali, the spectacle of devotees laying on the ground for bulls to trample over
them has gained both reverence and notoriety. This ritual, seen as a purification act where
sins are trampled away, often leaves both bulls and humans gravely injured 27.

23
Ibid
24
Supra note 5
25
Ibid
26
Moot prop
27
ibid

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶36. It is humbly submitted that in the event of the Yuvatta Bull-Taming Ritual (akin to
Tamil Nadu’s Jallikattu) is being conducted in Velakum, a village in the heart of Dharmaja
AWBI gives a firsthand information of the manner in which the event of Jallikattu is being
conducted in Southern parts of Tamil Nadu, through three reports submitted along with the
additional affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Animal Welfare Board, MoEF,
Government of India on 7.9.201328.
¶37. Executive Summary In a comprehensive investigation authorized by the Animal
Welfare Board of India, investigators observed jallikattu events at venues in Avaniapuram,
Palamedu and Alanganallur on the 14th, 15th and 16th of January 2013, respectively.
During the course of the investigation, one bull died and many more were injured.
Investigators observed that bulls were forced to participate and were deliberately taunted,
tormented, mutilated, stabbed, beaten, chased and denied even their most basic needs,
including food, water and sanitation. The findings of this investigation clearly show that
bulls who are used in jallikattu are subjected to extreme cruelty and unmitigated suffering 29.
¶38. Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of citizens to have compassion for living
creatures. This Court30 held that by enacting Article 51A(g) and giving it the status of a
fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that
the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48-A are honoured as a fundamental duty of every
citizen. Article 51A(g), therefore, enjoins that it was a fundamental duty of every citizen
“to have compassion for living creatures”, which means concern for suffering, sympathy,
kindliness etc., which has to be read along with Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 22 etc. of PCA
Act.
¶39. It is humbly submitted that Animals’ well-being and welfare have been statutorily
recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right
to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings
against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under
Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution 31.

28
ibid
29
ibid
30
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others, (2005) 8 S.C.C. 534 (India)
31
Supra note 7

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶40. It is humbly submitted that Right to get food, shelter is also a guaranteed right under
Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially when they
are domesticated. Right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human
beings alone, but to animals as well. Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-ridder, over-
loading is also a right recognized by Section 11 read with Section 3 of the PCA Act.
Animals have also a right against the human beings not to be tortured and against infliction
of unnecessary pain or suffering. Penalty for violation of those rights is insignificant, since
laws are made by humans 32.
¶41. The TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentric legislation enacted not for the welfare of the
animals, unlike PCA Act, which is an eco-centric legislation, enacted to ensure the well-
being and welfare of the animals and to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering of the
animals. The State Act basically safeguards the interest of the organizers and spectators
while conducting the event of Jallikattu.
¶42. It is humbly submitted that in the case the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court 33,
while considering a case under Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, observed as
under:
“93. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "A. Nagaraja's" case have held that
Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and
the word "life" has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic
environment which includes all forms of life, including animals’ life, which are necessary
for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. "Life" means
something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human beings,
but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour or dignity. All the animals have honour
and dignity. Every specy has an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by
law. The rights and privacy of animals are to be respected and protected from unlawful
attacks. Their Lordships have evolved the term "species' best interest." The Corporations,
Hindu idols, holy scriptures, rivers have been declared legal entities and thus, in order to
protect and promote greater welfare of animals including avian and aquatic, animals are
required to be conferred with the status of legal entity/legal person. The animals should be
healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior without pain,

32
Ibid.
33
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 396 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

fear and distress. They are entitled to justice. The animals cannot be treated as objects or
property…”
¶43. It is humbly submitted the honb’le court that animals may be mute but we as a society
have to speak on their behalf and no pain or agony should be caused to the animals. Cruelty
to animals also cause psychological pain to them. Animals’ breath like humans and have
emotions; they require food, water, shelter, normal behavior, medical care, self-
determination. The animals have a right to life and bodily integrity, honor and dignity.
Animals cannot be treated merely as property 34.
¶44. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that custom or usage irrespective of
even any proof of their existence in pre-constitutional days cannot be countenanced as a
source of law to claim any rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social
equality and the specific mandate of the Constitution and law made by Parliament. No
usage which is found to be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of the law of the
land or opposed to public policy or social decency can be accepted or upheld by courts in
the country35.
¶45. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble that 36 As early as 1500-600 BC in Isha-
Upanishads, it is professed as follows:
“The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land. No creature is superior to
any other. Human beings should not be above nature. Let no one species encroach over
the rights and privileges of other species.”
¶46. It is humbly submitted that Rights guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3, 11, etc.
are only statutory rights. The same have to be elevated to the status of fundamental rights,
as has been done by few countries around the world, so as to secure their honour and
dignity. Rights and freedoms guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 have to be
read along with Article 51A(g)(h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal
rights37.

34
Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, A.I.R. 1970 P&H 322 (India)
35
N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 S.C.C. 106 (India)
36
Chief Secretary to the Government, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and Others v. Animal Welfare Board and Another,
(2017) 2 S.C.C. 144 (India)
37
Ibid

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶47. It has been submitted that our jurisprudence does not recognise rights only for human
beings but that of animals are legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding
rights, duties and liabilities as that of a legal person.38
¶48. It is humbly submitted that enactment of a law, but tolerating its infringement, is worse
than not enacting law at all39.
¶49. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the Bombay High Court held that
the bull fights or ‘dhirios’ are in contravention of the provisions of the PCA, Act and,
therefore, illegal and cannot be permitted to be organized. The respondents were, therefore,
directed to take immediate steps to ban all types of animal fights including bull fights and
‘dhirios’ in the State of Goa and to see to it that the direction is fully complied with in letter
and spirit which the Act seeks to achieve40.
¶50. It is humbly submitted that the high court further added that considering the materials
brought on record regarding the cruelty sought to be inflicted on the animals in the
process of such bull fights, we are reminded of the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in his
Lectures on Human Rights.41 While expressing deep anguish and sigh of great displeasure
over torture inflicted on innocent animals in this country and that too despite the Vedas, the
Bible, the Koran, the Buddha and Mahavire and the Supreme miracle and revolutionary
apostle of Ahimsa, Mahatmaji, Justice Krishna Iyer has warned us that we have forfeited
the right to be heirs of a culture of Karuna, Samata and Dharma. Justice Krishna Iyer
further reminds us that humanism cannot be halved by denying it to prehuman brethren and
compassion is beyond division by refusing it to the Darwinian species; all life is too
devinely integral to admit of unnatural dichotomy as man and animal in the wholeness of
ecology. Justice Krishna Iyer, therefore, reminds us the message of kindness found in
Koran which reads as under:
“There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature on two wings, but they are
people like unto you.”

38
Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, (2018) SCC OnLine Utt 645 (India)
39
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, J.T. 1996 (4) S.C. 263 (India)
40
People for Animals through Mrs. Norma Alvares & Another v. The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary &
Others, 1996 SCC OnLine Bom 566; (1997) 4 Bom CR 271; (1998) 100 (1) Bom LR 226 (India)
41
Ibid.

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶51. It is humbly submitted that the impugned legislations try to regulate such practices by
regulating the rituals to reaffirm that they are performed within certain limits, including:
Mandatory veterinary checks for the animals and limitation on the methods of provocation.
However, Mandatory veterinary checks are a not a cure or remedy for the injuries sustained
by the bull in such dangerous practices. Prevention is better than cure therefore such rituals
shall be prevented or curtailed outrightly.
¶52. In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UOI,42 Life under Article 21 has a
much wider ambit and it applies to the protection of nature and its resources. Besides
applying environmental jurisprudence, Supreme Court envisaged the protection of flora
and fauna. The Judiciary has duly recognised the dignified existence of animals and their
role in the subsistence of tribes, whilst upholding constitutional values. In another case
of Subhas Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura,43 the High Court was
directed to ban animals and birds' sacrificial rituals in the temple. The court based its
decision on consonance with its reasoning under Article 21.
¶53. It is humbly submitted that the impugned legislations violate Article 21 of the
Constitution of Indica and Article 21 has been characterized as the procedural magna carta
protective of life and liberty44

42
T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, (2012) 3 S.C.C. 277 (India)
43
Subhas Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 441 (India); Harshima Vijaivergia, Status of
Animal Laws in India: Strict Implementation or a Tribute Suffices?, J.C.L.J. (2021) 338.
44
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 194 (India).

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE II: CAN THE BULL RITUALS IN THESE STATES BE PROTECTED AS

CULTURAL RIGHTS, AND DO THESE RIGHTS OVERRIDE THE DUTY TO
PREVENT ANIMAL CRUELTY UNDER ARTICLE 21?

[ 2.1] THE BULL RITUALS CANNOT BE PROTECTED AS CULTURAL RIGHTS AS

THEY ARE NOT ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES

¶54. It is humbly submitted that the Vardhani Bull Races, Dharmaja’s Govishaya Trampling
Ritual and the Yuvatta Bull-Taming Ritual (akin to Tamil Nadu’s Jallikattu) involves
causing the Bull pain and suffering and cannot be free from cruelty.
¶55. It is most humbly submitted by the petitioners that an Essential Practice for the Religion
would be any practice without which the substratum of the religion would fail and any other
activity will not be an essential religious practice. The test protects only those practices
without which the religion would not be the same. In the legal sense, the court has said that
essential part of a religion means the core beliefs upon which the religion is founded 45.
¶56. It is humbly submitted that Bulls exhibit a fight or flight response when exposed to a
perceived threat. Bulls are more likely to flee than fight, and in most cases, they fight, when
agitated. Bull is known to be having resting behaviour and will avoid source of noise and
disturbance and choose non-habitual resting sites if the preferred ones are close to the noise
or disturbance, which is the natural instinct of the Bull. Studies indicate that rough or
abusive handling of Bulls compromises welfare and for increasing Bulls fear, often, they
are pushed, hit, prodded, abused, causing mental as well as physical harm 46.
¶57. It is humbly submitted that this is a violation of section 11(1)(a) 47 of The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which states that beating, kicking, torturing or otherwise
treating any animal so as to subject the animal to unnecessary pain or suffering is an act of
cruelty. Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, prohibits
treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering.

45
Kartik Piyush Panchal, The Essential Religious Practice Test/Doctrine of Essentiality, PEN ACCLAIMS, (2020),
http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Kartik-Panchal.pdf.
46
Supra note 7
47
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, § 11(1)(a) (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶58. It is humbly submitted that the bulls are being treated with extreme cruelty and
suffering, violating the provisions of Section 11(1) of the PCA Act. Over and above,
Section 11(1), clauses (b) to (o) also confer various duties and obligations, generally and
specifically, on the persons in charge of or care of animals which, in turn, confer
corresponding rights on animals, which, if violated, are punishable under the proviso to
Section 11(1) of the PCA Act.
¶59. It is humbly submitted that what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily
to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. This ‘essential part’
of religion is protected by the Constitution: ‘Under Article 26(b), therefore, a religious
denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to
what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the religion they hold and no outside
authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters.’ However, the
State can legitimately regulate religious practices when they ‘run counter to public order,
health and morality’ and when they are ‘economic, commercial or political in their
character though they are associated with religious practices’48.
¶60. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that Vardhani Bull Races,
Dharmaja’s Govishaya Trampling Ritual and the Yuvatta Bull-Taming Ritual (akin to
Tamil Nadu’s Jallikattu) is not an essential part of a religion Therefore, the state can
legitimately curtail it to protect bulls from the cruelty meted out towards them from the
age-old practises followed in the States of Ranthara and Dharmaja.
¶61. It is humbly submitted that outrage from animal rights activists poured in after the clip,
titled “Bulls of Sorrow,” went viral, leading to a massive social media storm under the
hashtag #TraditionOrTorture, demanding an immediate ban on these rituals, while locals
in both states rallied in defence of their traditions, declaring that the video was an insult to
their culture. Violent clashes erupted in major cities, leading to injuries and widespread
property damage Compromising the public order and morality in the states of Dharmaja
and Ranthara.
¶62. It is humbly submitted that there may be religious practices of sacrifice of human
beings, or sacrifice of animals in a way deleterious to the well-being of the community at
large and in such event, it is open to the State to intervene by legislation, to restrict or to

48
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt, (1954) S.C.R. 1005 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

regulate to the extent of completely stopping such deleterious practices. True religious
practice should be guided by reason, equality and humanistic values, rather than blind
adherence to traditions. All unhealthy, unscientific and deleterious practices are to be
prevented, even if it is done in the name of religion 49.
¶63. It is humbly submitted that the state of Dharamja and Ranthara through impugned
legislations did not restrict or regulated the religious practises to the extent of completely
stopping them however, merely allowed the practises to take place with mild instructions.
¶64. It is humbly submitted that there was no fundamental right of Muslims to insist on
slaughter of healthy cows on the occasion of Bakrid. The contention that not only
an essential religious practise under Article 25(1) of Constitution, but even
optional religious practise could be permitted, was discarded. The Apex Court held that
slaughtering of healthy cows on Bakrid is not essential or required for religious purpose of
Muslims or in other words it is not a part of religious requirement for a Muslim that a cow
must be necessarily sacrificed for earning religious merit on Bakrid50.
¶65. It is humbly submitted that Cock fighting, which is considered a spectator sport
associated with the Sankranthi festival, does not appear to have any religious sanction.
Several religions prescribe a particular method for slaughter of animals, either as a part of
religious ceremonies, or for its consumption as food; and certain religions also prescribe
slaughter of animals as a sacrifice to the Gods. Section 28 of the 1960 Act merely provides
for the manner of killing of animals prescribed by any religion or community. No religious
text, which requires cocks to fight each other unto death as a part of a ritual or as a method
of slaughter prescribed by religion, has been brought to our notice for us to hold that such
acts are saved by Section 28 of the Act. It is the manner in which an animal is killed which
is required to be sanctioned by religion to be saved under Section 28 of the Act, and not the
killing of the animal itself. Cockfight events are in violation of Sections 3 and 11 of the
1960 Act, and are not saved by Section 28 thereof 51.

49
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 853 (India); see also
Raveendran P.T. v. The State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 237 (India)
50
Ramavath Hanuma @ Hanumanthu v. State of Telangana, 2017 0 Supreme (A.P.) 534 (India)
51
Narahari Jagadish Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat & Others, 2016 0 Supreme (A.P.) 554 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶66. It is humbly submitted that Tradition” is not a justification for cruelty towards animals.
A cruel tradition should never be allowed to define a culture. “Traditions, can – and must-
evolve”. Traditions, such as cockfights, have no religious sanction or significance as it is a
pursuit for economic gain to reap maximum monetary benefits through animal exploitation
inflicting unnecessary pain on them. It is nothing but an evil practice 52.
¶67. It is humbly submitted that the tradition of bull rituals is not a justification for cruelty
towards animal. It cannot override the duty to prevent animal cruelty in the pretence of
being an age-old religious practise or tradition.
[2.2] THE BULL RITUALS GROSSLY VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE
BULL THEREFORE THE CULTURAL RIGHTS CANT OVERRIDE ARTICLE 21
WHEN IN CONFLICT
¶68. It is humbly submitted before the freedom to practice any religion of a person is
enshrined under Part III of the Constitution in Art. 25 which governs all the persons residing
in the country irrespective of their status of citizenship. Hence, no one can question the
religious inclination of any person irrespective of whether he is a foreign national or any
person residing in the territory of India.
¶69. It is further submitted that Art. 25 of the Constitution gives to all persons the right to
freely profess, practice and propagate religion. This right, however, is not absolute. The
opening words of Art. 25(1) of the Constitution make this right “subject to public order,
morality, and health and to the other provisions of this Part”. This would mean that the right
given to a person under Art. 25(1) of the Constitution can be regulated by the State if the
exercise of that right would violate other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, or if the
exercise thereof is not in consonance with public order, morality and health or other
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
¶70. It is humbly submitted that the age-old practises of Vardhani Bull Races, Dharmaja’s
Govishaya Trampling Ritual and the Yuvatta Bull-Taming Ritual are not in consonance
with the public order and morality and were in conflict with the fundamental right of Right
to life guaranteed under Part III of the constitution.

52
State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Home v. Mahaveer Bishnoi S/o Shri Patram Bishnoi,
2017 0 Supreme (Raj) 1257 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶71. It is humbly submitted that India, with its century’s old history, culture and religion,
has brought in enactments to prevent and prohibit objectionable ritualistic practices like
Sati, human sacrifice and child marriage. No doubt, Article 25 of the Constitution grants
all persons the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. A careful reading of
Article 25 shows that the above-mentioned freedom is subject to public order, morality,
health and the other provisions of Part III. As such, the freedom and right under Article 25
are subservient to the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Being
so, the expression of religious freedom by the conduct of poojas and rituals by the petitioner
cannot result in the deprivation of the right to decent living guaranteed to the other
residents53.
¶72. It is humbly submitted that the bull ritual under the ambit of cultural rights under article
25 of the constitution were in conflict with the article 21 right to life of the bull Therefore,
article 21 will have an overriding effect on the bull rituals and such rituals shall be curtailed
by the state.

53
Raveendran P.T. v. The State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 237 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE III: WAS THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S DECISION TO IMPOSE INTERNET

BANS, CENSOR VIRAL VIDEOS AND INVOKE SECTION 163 INSS IN THE
AFFECTED REGIONS OF RANTHARA AND DHARMAJA JUSTIFIABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 19(2) ON THE GROUNDS OF MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER, OR DID
IT CONSTITUTE A DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE AMOUNTING TO AN
ABUSE OF POWER BY SUPRESSING LEGITIMATE DISSENT AND FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION?

[ 3.1] IMPOSING BAN ON INTERNET VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER ARTICLE 19 AND 21
¶73. Amongst the Fundamental rights guaranteed under Part iii of the constitution of India,
Articles 14, 19 and 21 composing the ‘golden triangle’ 54 are of prime importance55 and
have been invoked most often to declare legislation or arbitrary state action invalid. 56
¶74. Article 19 speaks about the Right to Freedom that lays down six rights granted to every
Indian citizen such as - freedom of speech and expression, freedom to practice any
profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business, to assemble peacefully without
arms etc, in the clause (1). However, these rights are subject to some reasonable restrictions
stated in corresponding clauses that are from Article 19(2) to Article 19(6). 57
¶75. It is most humbly submitted Article 19 is not absolute. The limitations that are to be
imposed on the rights have to stand the ‘Test of Proportionality ‘that is ingrained in our
Constitution under the ambit of the ‘Doctrine of Reasonable Restrictions ‘. 2 The restrictions
imposed by the law will be treated as proportional if it is meant to achieve a particular
purpose that holds significant importance. The measures imposed are required to be
necessarily and logically connected to the purpose sought to be achieved. Therefore, there
is a requirement of having a balance 58 between the importance of achieving the particular
purpose and the social significance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right.

54
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 S.C.C. 1 (India)
55
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597 (India)
56
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625 (India)
57
Indian Constitution, art. 19
58
Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 S.C.R. 88, 253-54 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶76. It is most humbly submitted that the implementation of Internet shutdown in the
affected regions of Ranthara and Dharmaja to prevent the spreading of inflammatory
content has violated the rights of Individuals under article 19 of the constitution of Indica.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India 59 made an
important distinction that the internet is not a fundamental right in itself, but is only a means
by which other constitutionally protected fundamental rights are exercised. Hence, any
restriction on the internet would have to meet the reasonable restriction criteria under
Article 19(2) and/or Article 19(6).
¶77. The internet empowers the citizens to voice their views on a global platform 60 and hence
falls within the scope of Art 19 (1)(a) of the constitution.61 The decision of ban on internet
in the affected regions of both the states and censoring of the viral video indirectly infringes
upon the freedom of press which is also an essential element of Article 19(1)(a).
Furthermore, the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) may only be reasonably
restricted for the purposes outlined in Article 19(2), and any restriction must be grounded
in necessity and proportionality rather than convenience or expediency.
¶78. For a democracy to thrive, fostering an informed, dissenting culture and ensuring active
public participation in governance is crucial. A democratic system, therefore, should not
merely tolerate dissent but should actively encourage it. Article 19(1)(a) 62 thus
encompasses not only a vital freedom enjoyed by citizens in opposition to the State but also
safeguards the right to dissenting expression specifically, ensuring the political conditions
necessary for the endurance of a democratic society.
¶79. Imposing Ban on Internet in the affected regions undermine citizens' abilities to hold
the State accountable and demand corrective action, particularly when observable failures
or oversights have occurred. Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that the freedom of

59
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India)
60
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 9 S.C.C. 681 (India)
61
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India)
62
Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

"speech and expression" includes not only the right to convey, publish, and disseminate
information63 but also to receive information.64.
¶80. It is most humbly submitted that while the internet is merely a medium meant for
utilisation, the purpose for which it is utilised should be discussed. Conversations, exchange
of knowledge, dispersing information, certain form of trade are primarily carried out by the
means of internet. Therefore, the freedom of trade and commerce through the medium of
the internet is also constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(g), subject to the
restrictions provided under Article 19(6).65
¶81. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that that imposing ban on the
internet has infringes a range of freedom of individuals starting from speech and expression
to carrying on occupation, trade business etc dependent on the medium.
¶82. It is most humbly submitted that in the case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India the
Hon’ble court held that – ‘There are three concepts which are fundamental in
understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights. The first is discussion, the
second is advocacy, and the third is incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a
particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when
such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in.’66.
¶83. In the present matter it can be observed that the video which was released by the
journalist, Arun Deshmukh was a form of expression where the journalist had shared the
footage of bulls being beaten, whipped and tortured to make them more aggressive on a
public platform. Imposing internet shut down and internet censorship in this case is nothing
but a clear violation of the freedom of speech and expression of the individual as well the
freedom of press.
¶84. In the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan & Ors67 the Hon’ble Court held that – “Our
commitment of freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the

63
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, [2002] 5 S.C.C. 294 (India Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf)
Lal Kaun, Delhi & Anr. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 554 (India); Raj Narain v. State of U.P., (1975) 4
S.C.C. 428 (India)
64
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, [2002] 5 S.C.C. 294 (India)
65
Indian Constitution, art. 19(6)
66
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India)
67
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan & Ors., (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is
endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It
should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought
should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the expression
should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a "spark
in a powder keg"
¶85. It is respectfully argued that the right to life and personal liberty under article 21 reads:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.”. Furthermore, the principle of "due process of law" was emphasized
by this Hon'ble Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.68
¶86. It is most humbly submitted that over the years the Hon’ble Court has went on to expand
the horizons of Article 21 of the Constitution. Imposing a ban on Internet violates the rights
such as ‘right to livelihood’, right to health’, ‘right to education’ etc which form an essential
element of Article 21. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the imposing of ban on internet
clearly violates the rights of people under Article 19 and 21.

[3.2] INVOKING SECTION 163 INSS IN THE AFFECTED REGIONS AMOUNT TO

DIPROPORTIONATE RESPONE AMOUNTING TO ABUSE OF POWER BY THE
STATE.

¶87. It is most humbly submitted that in the present case the State governments of Ranthara
and Dharmaja have invoked Section 163 69 of INSS in the affected regions. In the case of
Babulal Parate v State of Maharashtra, 70 the Hon’ble court held that this power can be used
in anticipation of danger. But it should be based on sufficient materials which show that
immediate prevention of certain acts is necessary to preserve public safety.
¶88. It is most respectfully submitted that in the case of K.S Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J) v
Union of India 71 the Hon’ble court laid down a threefold requirement that are: legality,
which postulates existence of law; defined in terms of legitimate State aim; and

68
Supra note 55
69
See BNSS, § 163 (India) (previously cited as § 144, CrPC)
70
Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 884 (India)
71
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between objects and the means adopted to
achieve them.
¶89. It is humbly submitted that imposition of complete ban on the internet services in
affected regions without establishing a direct connection between the video and the
disturbance in public order72 is unreasonable and arbitrary in nature. It is therefore
submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the action of the State was disproportionate
amounting to abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights

72
Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 101 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PCA ACT, 1960 IS SUFFICIENT
TO ADDRESS THE CRUELTY ON THE ANIMALS AND PROVIDES SUFFICIENT
PUNISHMENT AND REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT?

¶90. It is most humbly submitted that in the Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja
this Hon’ble court made the observation that penalty was insignificant and the punishment
“prescribed in Section 11 (1) was not commensurate with the gravity, defeating the very
objective.
¶91. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to Overturn its decision in the AWBI
case but the lacunas of the PCA, Act were highlighted.
¶92. It is most humbly Submitted that in the case of People’s Charioteer Organization &
Another v Union of Indica and Others73 this Hon’ble court was of the opinion that -
“Technological growth, Economic growth, international relations, Climate change and
many more, but there is one gaping hole in our country’s legislation- Animal Cruelty
Prevention Laws. The single greatest testament to this claim is the fact that our country’s
most prominent Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was legislated in 1960. And since
then, the Prevention of Cruelty Animals Act has never even been amended. Meaning
thereby, the monetary fines imposed for crimes against animals in 1960, still stands to date
and the cost of fines remains to a meagre of Rs. 10-100. This is one of major reasons that
this law has failed to prove as deterrent and should be revamped on the similar lines of
Motor Vehicles Act.”
¶93. Therefore it is humbly submitted that the PCA, Act , 1960 needs amendment to have
strict laws to ensure that it addresses issue of the cruelty on animals.

73
People’s Charioteer Organization & Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 6 SCC 720 (India)

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV

 DR ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and:
1. Hold the Public Interest Litigation maintainable before this Hon’ble Court.
2. Declare that Ranthara Bull Sports Regulation Act, 2024 and the Dharmaja Cultural
Heritage Act, 2023 violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
3. Declare that Ranthara Bull Sports Regulation Act, 2024 and the Dharmaja Cultural
Heritage Act, 2023 violate the provisions of Constitution of Indica, thus
Unconstitutional.
4. Declare that bull rituals cannot be protected as cultural rights & hold that duty of state
to prevent animal cruelty under Article 21 override the right to hold bull rituals.
5. Declare that the State Government’s decision to impose internet ban and censor viral
videos are not justifiable under Article 19(2) on the ground of public order.
6. Hold State Government’s decision to impose internet ban and censor viral videos
violates Article 19(1)(a) & Article 21 of the Constitution of Indica, thus
unconstitutional.
7. Declare that imposition of Section 163 of INSS, 2023 in Ranthara & Dharmaja as
disproportionate and amount to suppression of legitimate dissent & free expression,
thus arbitrary.
8. Declare that the provisions of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, 1960 as insufficient to
address the cruelty on animals and prescribes insufficient punishment for the same.
9. Direct the state to amend the provisions of Animal Cruelty Act, 1960 to prescribe
stricter punishment and mechanism to address the cruelty of animals.
&/OR
Pass any such order, writ, or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of
Justice, Equity & Good Conscience

All of which is most humbly & respectfully submitted

Place: S/d
Date: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner XIV