Aniruddha Kambhampati, Jindal Global Law School
In 2014, the Supreme Court of India banned the practice of jallikattu primarily on the ground that it was in contravention to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Three years later, the Tamil Nadu government promulgated an ordinance which amended those sections of the Act the Supreme Court had declared jallikattu fell afoul of, thus paving the way for it to be played again. The reasons cited in support of the ordinance was for the preservation of Tamil Nadu’s tradition and for the survival of the bulls. I argue in this paper that the ordinance goes against the very essence of the doctrine of separation of powers, since the Court’s exercise of judicial mind was effectively negated by the executive. In addition to this, I offer an alternate interpretation to Article 213 of the Indian Constitution, an interpretation which in my opinion can prevent any attempt at undermining the judiciary’s independence. Lastly, I argue that there
is a need for a system of checks to ensure that the executive does not step into the shoes of the legislature when not necessary, and offer what I feel is a possible solution to this conundrum.