Decode Civils CAShorts
Current affairs Open app
ExplainerPolityGS1GS2

Kambala, jallikattu and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

By CAShorts DeskPublished Sources: Supreme Court judgments (2014, 2023); India Code; Gazette of India; Mysuru Dasara official site; PTI; Star of Mysore; Verdictum; The News Minute

Why in news: Kambala, coastal Karnataka's buffalo race, was held at Mysuru Dasara for the first time on 18-19 October 2026, organised by the district administration.

Kambala, jallikattu and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
Illustration (AI-generated)

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 punishes inflicting unnecessary pain on animals. In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that jallikattu and bullock-cart races breach it; Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka amended the Act in 2017, and a Constitution Bench upheld those amendments in 2023. Kambala, Karnataka's buffalo race, made its Mysuru Dasara debut on 18 October 2026.

Syllabus: GS1 · Art & Culture; GS2 · Constitution; GS2 · Federalism & Local Government

Why this matters for UPSC

GS2 polity: Prelims can ask what the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides, what Entry 17 of the Concurrent List covers and how Article 254(2) works; Mains, how legislatures and courts balance animal welfare against cultural tradition.

In short

Jallikattu, bullock-cart races and Kambala fall under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as amended by three States, a law weighing animal welfare against rural tradition.

From ban to valid lawNagaraja ruling (2014)2016 notificationWithdrawal (2017)State amendmentsPresidential assentConstitution Bench (2023)

The 2023 verdict settled who may legislate, not whether animals suffer; the amended Acts protect animals only if districts enforce them and penalties deter.

Why it matters

For families in coastal Karnataka who raise racing buffaloes, and villages in Tamil Nadu that stage jallikattu at Pongal, these laws decide whether a centuries-old festival is lawful or an offence. Races may now go ahead, but under State conditions, and the 2023 Bench warned that a sport which still offends the law attracts penal consequences. District officials must police every event. The animals get written safeguards yet no constitutional rights, so their welfare turns on enforcement. The wider question is federal and moral: how far a State may carve its customs out of a national welfare law, and how far courts should defer to elected legislatures when culture and cruelty pull apart.

Prelims pointers

  • Entry 17, List III (Concurrent List): prevention of cruelty to animals. Entry 15, List II (State List): preservation and improvement of stock, animal diseases and veterinary training.
  • Article 254(2): a State law on a Concurrent List matter, repugnant to an earlier central law, prevails in that State if reserved for and assented to by the President.
  • Proviso to Article 254(2): Parliament may later enact a law on the same matter, including one adding to, amending, varying or repealing the State law.
  • Article 213 proviso: a Governor needs the President's instructions to promulgate an Ordinance whose provisions, in a State Act, would need the President's assent to be valid.
  • Article 48 (Directive Principle): organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern, scientific lines; preserve and improve breeds; prohibit slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle.
  • Article 51A(g): duty to protect the natural environment and have compassion for living creatures; 51A(h): scientific temper, humanism, inquiry and reform; both added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976.
  • Animal Welfare Board of India: set up in 1962 under section 4 of the 1960 Act; under the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying; headquarters at Ballabhgarh, Haryana.
  • Section 28 of the 1960 Act: killing an animal in the manner a community's religion requires is not an offence under the Act.

Practise a UPSC-style question

With reference to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, consider the following statements:

1. It defines an animal as any living creature other than a human being.

2. A first offence of cruelty under its section 11 is punishable with imprisonment of up to two years.

3. It empowers the Central Government to notify animals that shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. (a) 1 and 2 only
  2. (b) 2 and 3 only
  3. (c) 1 and 3 only
  4. (d) 1, 2 and 3
Show the answer

Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only

Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only. The first-offence penalty under section 11 is a small fine, so statement 2 fails.

Statement 1: correct. Section 2(a) of the 1960 Act defines an animal as any living creature other than a human being.

Statement 2: incorrect. A first offence under section 11 draws a fine of Rs 10 to Rs 50; jail of up to three months is possible only for a repeat offence within three years.

Statement 3: correct. Section 22 bars exhibiting or training, as a performing animal, any animal that the Central Government so notifies in the Official Gazette.

Eliminate: Judge statement 2 first: section 11 punishes a first offence with a fine alone, not two years in jail. Out: (a), (b), (d).

Trap: Near-miss figure. Two years is the penalty in the Act's neighbouring section 12 on phooka, not the section 11 penalty for cruelty.

Remember: Section 11, PCA Act: first offence Rs 10 to Rs 50 fine; section 22: the Centre can bar animals from performing.

More Explainers

All Explainers

More Polity current affairs