Karnataka HC Permits Bull Racing With A Condition That Animals Are Not Tortured

BACKGROUND

• People For Animals Mysuru Animal Welfare Organisation filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court praying directions from the court to the State Government to cancel the bullock cart races in Mandya district.
• It also prayed to cancel a previous order of March that allowed the races.
• The plea also sought direction to the animal welfare board to oversee bullock cart races taking place in the state of Karnataka.

SUBMISSION OF THE STATE

• The state informed the court that the state amended the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Karnataka) in 2017 and sections 2 and 28 (a) allow bullock cart races in the state.
• The state also mentioned that bullock cart races are a custom and tradition of the state and the state has taken proper care to prevent cruelty against the animals.

ORDER

• The court noted the 2017 amendment to the Act and stated that it permits the holding of bullock cart races and the same cannot be challenged.
• The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the state government to hold bullock cart races while laying down some conditions.
• The court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shivajirao Adhalrao Patil (SLP (C) 4598/2013) where the court allowed bullock cart races in the state of Maharashtra while laying down some conditions.

CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT

• There should be a separate track for each bullock cart.
• The cartman will not be allowed to whip the bull and they can only swirl the whip in the air and hit on the ground.
• A veterinary doctor who is attached to the village dispensary shall inspect all the bulls to make sure that they are physically fit to take part in the race and they are not intoxicated or subjected to any other kind of action to make them ferocious.
• If any bull is subjected to any kind of cruelty by any person or persons during the race, such person/s shall be liable for penalty under the Prevention of Animal Cruelties Act, 1960.

What do you think of this case?