Andhra Pradesh: The petitioner filed the present petition to declare the action of the State (‘respondents’) as improper, wherein the permission to organize ‘Banda Laagudu Poteelu’ (Bull Race), ‘Pouranika Natakam’ (mythological play) and use of loudspeakers were denied in Remata Village, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. Exercising its Writ jurisdiction, Single Judge Bench of B.S. Bhanumathi J., partly allowed the writ by allowing to conduct the mythological play but banned the permission to organise the Bull race, since it was in violation of Section 3 and 11(1)(a)(m) and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (‘Act of 1960’).
In the matter at hand, the petitioner contended that since time immemorial, an Urusu was organised in their village in the memory of Sri Sri Sri Gokaramayya Swami. The elders of the village had decided to conduct Urusu in a peaceful manner, a part of which certain cultural and sports activities were being conducted. Therefore, the petitioner had sought permission of the police personnel for the purpose of organising bull race and mythological play dated 11-04-2023. But the respondents had denied permission for the aforementioned by way of an endorsement dated 09-04-2023 stating that:
-
The scheduled date had SCC exam.
-
The previous years of the Urusu event had witnessed many fights and murders resulting into disturbance of law and order.
-
An intelligence report had affirmed the chances of riots being erupted.
The petitioner contended that the permission to conduct the event had been refused improperly and further clarified that no force was used on the animals to participate in the game, since it was meant to be exhibiting the strength of the Bulls and guaranteed that no violence was involved in this case like a Jalli Kattu game. He added that the Bulls would be encouraged and not lashed to pull the weight attached to them which will not amount to subjecting the animals to pain and suffering. The petitioner also gave an undertaking that the play would be conducted peacefully under the surveillance of the police and stated that the instances that were cited by way of the objection by the police had occurred three decades ago.
The respondent vehemently opposed the petition submitting that the provisions of Act of 1960 vide Sections 3 and 11 (1) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraju, (2014) 7 SCC 547 banned organising such a game which involved Bulls. It was submitted that there were two rival groups ready to perform such a play and granting permission to one as against the other would cause serious problem of law and order. Further even the police personnels were engaged in other duties such as the SCC Examinations etc, the police force was not sufficient to deploy them to have a peaceful celebration.
The Bench perused Section 3 and 11(1)(a)(m) and (n) of Act of 1960 which indicated that, the Bull race fell within the scope of the aforementioned Sections, thus, an act which was prohibited under law could not be permitted.
However, the Court opined that conducting of the play had no legal bar, but it was the responsibility of everyone associated with it in conducting and participating in maintaining peace while holding the play and not to cause any law-and-order problem.
The Court was of the view that since the petitioners expressed their readiness to give undertaking to maintain peace and not to cause law and order problem while playing mythological play and that even the respondents had not stated objections to the undertaking given by the petitioners, thus, it permitted the mythological play to be conducted peacefully.
With the above observation, the Bench partly allowed the petition in so far, the mythological play was concerned. It was clarified that if there was any breach of the undertaking, police was at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.
[Kappa Pedda Venkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 598, decided on 11-04-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner- Advocate Varun Byreddy;
For the respondent- GP For Home.
