Rights Beyond Humanity: The Jallikattu Controversy and the Politics of Animal Rights
- polsodepthindu
- 3 hours ago
- 4 min read
“The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?” - Jeremy Bentham
Political theory has traditionally been anthropocentric, assuming that rights and moral consideration belong solely to human beings. Yet, the growing recognition of animal welfare and the extension of certain legal protections to non-human animals challenge this long-held assumption. This raises a crucial question: Can the political concept of rights be extended to non-human animals, and how do cultural and legal contexts shape this extension?
One of the most vivid and contested examples of this debate is Jallikattu, the traditional bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu, India. The event brings into sharp focus the tension between cultural rights, the preservation of Tamil heritage and identity and animal rights, which advocate protection from cruelty, dignity, and intrinsic moral consideration.
Why is Jallikattu important?
Jallikattu is a traditional bull-taming sport that dates back over 2,000 years and reflects the courage and strength of the participants. During the event, a specially raised bull is released into an open arena, and young men try to grab its hump and hold on as long as they can, without using ropes or weapons. Whoever holds onto the hump for longer, is considered as the most masculine and strong person out of all. While deeply rooted in the hearts and culture of Tamil Nadu, this sport has led to numerous human and animal deaths and injuries. According to a PETA India investigation, 86 humans, 23 bulls, and one cow reportedly died in Jallikattu events between 2017 and April 2022.
After a petition by A. Nagaraja who lost his beloved son to this sport, the Supreme Court made a landmark judgement on May 7, 2014, banning Jallikattu nationwide. It recognized that animals have the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the constitution. 3 years later, in 2017, massive protests broke down in Tamil Nadu. Protestors saw Jallikattu as a symbol of Tamil pride, heritage and agrarian identity. The ban was seen as an imposition of “northern” or elite urban values over Tamil culture. Slogans like “save our bulls, save our culture” became viral.
In response to the mass protests, the Tamil Nadu government issued an ordinance allowing Jallikattu once again. Shortly after, in 2017, the parliament amended the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 by inserting a state-specific exception for Tamil Nadu. Animal rights organizations like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and AWBI (Animal Welfare Board of India) challenged this amendment. These laws directly violated the 2014 Nagaraja Judgement, and ignored animal rights and dignity. The court said that the amendment does not violate Article 21 as it includes safeguards to prevent cruelty (e.g., veterinary supervision, registration, and safety norms). In 2023, the Supreme Court judgement in Animal Welfare Board of India v. The Union of India upheld the constitutional validity of state amendments allowing traditional bull-taming sports, including Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, Kambala in Karnataka, and Bullock Cart Racing in Maharashtra.
Connecting it to theory
The Jallikattu controversy is so much more than about a sport, it's about the concept of rights, including who has them and what they defend.
Scholars such as Joseph Raz and Neil MacCormick contend that regardless of a being's rationality, rights exist to safeguard important interests. Given their capacity for suffering, animals have a clear interest in being free from pain, fear, and suffering. The 2014 Nagaraja ruling acknowledged precisely this. In contrast, what we witness in the 2023 Supreme Court judgement fits neatly into the Kantian framework. Immanuel Kant believed that moral obligations to the animals were indirect ; people shouldn't treat animals cruelly because doing so taints our own moral fibre, not for the animal's sake.
Moreover, Jallikattu demonstrates that rights are always contested and context-dependent. Animals’ interests are real and morally significant, yet in practice, they can be overridden by human claims to culture. The case highlights the broader theoretical debate between universalist liberalism, which emphasizes equal moral consideration across all beings, and communitarianism, which emphasizes cultural specificity and collective identity in determining rights. It also raises a key question for law and politics: how do we balance human-centered identity with the interests of non-human beings? While Nagaraja opened a path for recognizing animals as rights-holders, the 2023 judgment reminds us how fragile that recognition can be when political and cultural forces come into play, and how the law is shaped not just by ethical reasoning but by social and cultural realities.
Conclusion
The Jallikattu controversy highlights the contested nature of rights. This case underscores the broader tension between animal rights and cultural rights, demonstrating that rights are not fixed but negotiated in practice. It challenges traditional, human-centered ideas of justice and urges a rethinking of who can be recognized as a rights-holder in law and politics.
“The Jallikattu debate reminds us that the struggle for rights is never just legal or abstract, it is a moral and political conversation about who counts, who suffers, and who deserves justice.”
- PETA India, 2022
BIBLIOGRAPHY
India Today. (2022). Jallikattu: Animal cruelty or Tamil Nadu’s culture? The debate rages on. https://www.indiatoday.in
Nagaraja v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 314 of 2011 (Supreme Court of India, 2014). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100872583/
People’s Union for Civil Liberties. (2023). Jallikattu violates the dignity and civil liberties of non-human animals. https://pucl.org
Raz, J. (1984). The morality of freedom. Oxford University Press.
Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
Supreme Court Observer. (2023). Interview: Mr. Alok Hisarwala Gupta on Jallikattu and animal rights. https://www.scobserver.in
The Hindu. (2023). What the Supreme Court said on Jallikattu. https://www.thehindu.com
ABOUT WRITER
Kanika Soni is a Political Science Honours student at Hindu College, University of Delhi. With a love for art, music, and writing, she enjoys engaging with politics and culture through both critical inquiry and creative expression.