Current Affairs for IAS Exams – 13 January 2016
:: NATIONAL ::
SC says no jallikattu
In a clear message that animals cannot be bullied into
pain and suffering in the name of custom and tradition in the 21st century,
theSupreme Court stayed a January 7 notification issued by the Centre
allowing jallikattu, despite theban imposed by the court in2014 on the
sport, which it had called “inherently cruel.”
It was Justice Banumathi, as a single judge on the
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, who first banned jallikattu.
That decision was set aside by the High Court’s Division
Bench but was redeemed by the Supreme Court in 2014, concluding that the
bull-taming sport inflicted inconceivable cruelty on animals.
Jallikattu is a clear violation of Sections 3 and 11 of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Cruel treatment of bulls
cannot be a matter for human festivity, especially in the 21st century
Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre,
said it was true that bulls were being tortured prior to the 2014 Supreme
Court ban. “But the 2014 judgment was talking about what was happening then.
The Supreme Court was then dealing with jallikattu when
bulls were tortured and ran around in frenzy like mad animals. The new
notification protects the animals from cruelty, has prescribed safeguards.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s reiteration that
an ordinance be promulgated as a last-ditch attempt to allow the conduct of
jallikattu in 2016 may be untenable in law.
Legal experts say such an ordinance, if promulgated,
would be seen as the legislature usurping judicial powers. Secondly, the
ordinance would go against the very essence of the Supreme Court judgment
and its conclusion that bulls are not performing animals.
Legal experts point to the 2005 Supreme Court judgment in
Sarbananda Sonowal versus Union of India, which bestows the right to any
public-minded citizen to approach the highest judiciary under Article 32 of
the Constitution if a law made by the legislature has a “disastrous effect.”
In the Dr. D.C. Wadhwa versus State of Bihar case, the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Executive has no
arbitrary right to promulgate ordinances.
The apex court held that it is the right of every citizen
to insist that he should be governed by laws made in accordance with the
Constitution and not law made by the Executive in violation of the
constitutional provisions
Death on beach
In a rare occurrence, 45 short-finned pilot whales were
washed a shore in Thoothukudi district.. But as many as 36 mammals, part of
the school that survived the beaching, were pushed back into the sea in a
joint operation by several government agencies. Marine scientists said the
school could have got stranded in search of food.
Marine scientists working in the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere
Reserve say that the short-finned pilot whales are deep water whales, diving
upto 1,000 metres, who form stable matrilineal kinship groups. This
particular group could have been stranded while in search of food, the
favorite being squids.
Not much is known about the species. In fact, the IUCNRed
List of Threatened Species classifies it as ‘data deficient’.
A team from Fisheries College and Research Institute(FC&RI),
Thoothukudi,made observations on the water temperature, salinity and
dissolved oxygen content of the inshore region, all of which were found to
be normal.The short-finned pilot whales use call dialects to communicate
within the group. One of the animals could have been isolated after falling
sick or in search of food. The other whales might have followed it and might
have been stranded as they could not have communicated effectively within
the group.