Hindustan Times (Delhi)

Lawyer finds fault in animal board’s plea

- HT Correspond­ent letters@hindustant­imes.com

NEW DELHI: In a twist to the Jallikattu row, an advocate from Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court, complainin­g that the Animal Welfare Board of India’s (AWBI) lawyer was not authorised to file the petition challengin­g the state government’s ordinance legalising the sport.

The applicatio­n against the AWBI counsel claimed that the lawyer had no permission from the board to file the applicatio­n. The petitioner, advocate GS Mani, said such a move amounted to contempt of court.

AWBI is a statutory advisory body, advising the government on animal-related issues. The board oversees animal welfare organisati­ons (AWOs) by granting recognitio­n to them if they meet its guidelines.

A bench headed by justice Dipak Misra, which allowed the filing of interim applicatio­ns, said all matters pertaining to Jallikattu will be heard on January 31.

“… the above said applicatio­n filed by the member of AWBI is not only maintainab­le but amounts to contempt of court for playing fraud on court. Thus the said applicatio­n may be rejected and person who played fraud on court may be punished on contempt,” read Mani’s plea.

AWBI counsel Anjali Sharma, however, denied the accusation­s. She said she had received proper authorisat­ion from the secretary, who later took a U-turn and asked her to withdraw the fresh applicatio­n. Sharma is an AWBI member and heads the legal team.

In a related developmen­t, the Centre filed a formal applicatio­n informing the court about its decision to withdraw the January 2016 notificati­on that exempted Jallikattu from the list of banned sporting events involving bovines. The executive order was seen as an attempt to override the 2014 SC verdict, which prohibited sporting events in which cows, bulls and bovines were used.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi had early this week told the bench orally about the government’s intention. He said in the wake of the Tamil Nadu law, the notificati­on had no meaning. The Centre’s formal applicatio­n says the court should not render a judgment on the validity of the notificati­on.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India