PIL seeking enactment of special law on jallikattu rejected

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar, on noting that the petitioner’s lack of expertise is apparent from the fact that he seeks a direction to enact a special law, said “This court is not empowered to issue such a writ of manadamus as sought by the petitioner and it is for the government and the legislature to take a call on the issue.” 

The bench in its order also noted that the issue is well settled in a catena of Supreme Court decisions that a writ of mandamus can be issued only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon a person and there is a failure to discharge that statutory duty and that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation, as the same is the sole prerogative of the legislature. 

The petitioner K K Ramesh, had sought for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the State and Centre to enact a special law with strict conditions to celebrate jallikattu also known as erutazhuval, manju virattu and madupudi thiruvilla. 

Earlier, when an advocate made a mention about the ongoing agitation seeking to withdraw the ban on jallikattu, the bench refused to intervene. When the advocate insisted that the Supreme Court had sought the High Court to take up the complaint, the bench on asking the advocate as to whether he had an order copy in this regard, said the issue pertained to the executive and there was no point in dragging the court into it.

The one-day boycott call given by almost all advocates association in support of the widespread protests in Tamil Nadu for jallikattu on Friday was near total. Spearheaded by the Madras Bar Association (MBA) and Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA), the lower courts across the State presented a deserted picture. 

At the Madras High Court, advocates who gathered there staged a demonstration before marching to the Marina, which has become the epicentre of the protests. However, certain courts at the Madras High Court functioned with the first bench alone hearing as many as 32 pleas until lunch break. Interestingly, the Madras Bar Association, which had not indulged in a boycott in as many years had given the boycott call on the basis that jallikattu has evoked an unprecedented upsurge among youngsters and people in Tamil Nadu and all over the world. Besides, MHAA, the largest advocate body in the State, the Women Lawyers’ Association and the National Green Tribunal Advocates’ Association also participated in the boycott.

The Madras High Court has come down heavily on a forum named as Tamil Nadu Centre for Public Interest Litigation, saying there cannot be a specialist organization to file public interest litigations.

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar while dismissing a plea moved by the said Tamil Nadu Centre for Public Interest Litigation’s, managing trustee, K K Ramesh seeking special law for holding jallikattu, said “The name under which this organisation is being run creates a wrong impression among the public as if it is a specialist only in filing public interest litigations.” 

On holding that an organisation doing voluntary work and having expertise in a particular field may approach the court, said “We cannot allow an organisation to pick up the morning newspaper, find out what is the issue raised and file half-baked petitions without any knowledge of the subject or law and that too without any research on the subject.” The bench also held that “We are thus of the view that any petition which is filed in the name of ‘Tamil Nadu Centre for Public Interest Litigation’ cannot be maintained and no such petitions shall be maintained in this name and style.” It also directed the registry to send a copy of the order to the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court.