INTRODUCTION:
In India, traditional sports, such as Dahi Handi in Maharashtra and Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, continue to serve as cultural and Social Identifiers within their respective geographic regions, as well as sources of Entertainment through sporting events[1]. Additionally, Traditional Sports also serve to create a regional identity and preserve local cultural heritage while also being beneficial to the Development of a community. However, in recent years, the Judicial System has strengthened its scrutiny of Traditional Sports in view of concerns for the Welfare of Children, Animal Rights, and Public Safety.[2]
India has recently enacted the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, which is a significant step towards systematic and accountable sports administration in India, which provides a code of transparency, governance, and judicial regulation of sports federations; however, judicial regulation is necessary in the context of traditional sports to reconcile the statutory regulation of traditional sports and constitutional rights to cultural and fundamental freedom.[3] The judicial handling of the Jallikattu and Dahi Handi cases illustrates how the legislative system works in harmony with constitutional values, particularly Article 21, which enunciates the right to life and dignity, and Article 25, which protects the freedom to practice cultural and religious activities within reasonable restrictions.[4]
This blog will discuss the Indian judicial handling of traditional sports regulation and the continued relevance of the lessons derived even in the context of the new statutory system.
UNDERSTANDING “SPORT” IN THE LEGAL CONTEXT:
Contrary to the position in a number of other countries, there is no specific statutory definition of the term “sport” under Indian law. As a consequence of the absence of a definition, the courts are often left to decide whether a particular activity is to be considered as “sport” on the basis of its nature, implications, and social implications.[5] Conventional sporting activities generally involve a combination of elements of culture, recreation, and sport.
In the absence of specific legislative provisions, the courts are compelled to intervene in order to respond to concerns about public safety, order, and welfare.
In these situations, judicial effectiveness can be found in legal interpretation.[6] The divergent views on how legislation should be interpreted are presently evident in the judicial system’s interpretation of the Jallikattu and Dahi Handi statutes.
JALLIKATTU: ANIMAL RIGHTS VS CULTURAL HERITAGE:
Legal Background-
The state of Tamil Nadu has been observing the festival of Pongal through the ancient practice of Jallikattu, but due to the possibility of causing suffering to animals, it has been challenged in court several times under the Prevention of Cruelty Act,1960.[7]
In 2014, the Supreme Court of India struck down Jallikattu.[8] , holding that it was in violation of the duty of people to be kind to animals as mandated by Article 51 A(g) of the Constitution[9]
Opponents of Jallikattu encouraged the passage of a Tamil Nadu Amendment allowing the sport to be legalized because it is part of Tamil Culture. This has raised substantial constitutional questions about whether or not cultural rights take precedence over animal welfare.[10]
DAHI HANDI: PUBLIC SAFETY AND CHILDREN’S RIGHTS:
Dahi Handi is a significant event in the Janmashtami festival, where the creation of human pyramids is done with the sole purpose of breaking the clay pots that are suspended above their heads.[11] Even though Dahi Handi can be termed as a sport or an event, there have been instances of injuries and deaths that have been attributed to this event over the years, especially among children, due to the absence of safety measures while falling from human pyramids.[12]
In the case of Dr Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has imposed restrictions on the following:
- The banning of all participants under a specific age
- A limit on how tall human pyramids may be made
- The requirement that sufficient safety precautions are taken
The Court stressed the significance of life and security as inherent rights that cannot be substituted by custom through the mention of Article 21.[13] The doctrine of parents patriae, which holds that the State must play a protective role in order to secure the interests of those who lack the capacity to protect themselves, further strengthens this justification. The Court has acknowledged that the State has a constitutional duty to act in circumstances where customs endanger life and security in connection with events such as Dahi Handi, making it necessary to control despite its significance. The Court’s position on the matter is a proactive role of the judiciary, which seeks to provide protection through legislation rather than prohibiting the practice.
CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS OF REGULATING TRADITIONAL SPORTS:
The freedom of religion and culture guaranteed under Article 25 and the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 are two important values that have to be balanced in order to control traditional sports. The Indian judiciary has employed well-established constitutional principles to achieve this balance. The essential religious practices test permits state regulation of cultural activities that fall short of this barrier by restricting protection under Article 25[14] to practices that are important to a religion. Moreover, the judiciary relies on the principle of proportionality to establish whether the administrative measures adopted against the traditional practices are intended to achieve a legitimate aim, including public safety and animal welfare, and whether these measures are proportionate and less restrictive. In the context of Jallikattu and Dahi Handi, the judicial authorities have adopted regulation as opposed to prohibition, which is a proportionate response that balances the regulation of the cultural practices with the constitutional obligation of public safety and welfare.
NEED FOR A BALANCED REGULATORY FRAMEWORK:
The way in which the courts have handled disputes arising from traditional sports illustrates the need for regulatory standards that are clear and enforceable. This would include standard safety guidelines for participation, enforceable guidelines for the protection of animals and children, and a legislative definition of the status of cultural and sporting events.[15] The regulatory framework would not only have a declaratory role but would also create enforceable rights and obligations for the organizers and the governing bodies, which would allow for the monitoring of compliance and the punishment of non-compliance through penalties, suspension of permissions, or administrative action. This would reduce the need for constant judicial intervention in the matter, as the courts would have clear statutory standards to apply to the matter, while also ensuring that cultural practices are carried out in a manner that is consistent with the constitutional imperatives of safety, dignity, and public welfare.[16]
CONCLUSION:
The regulation of traditional sports such as Jallikattu and Dahi Handi is representative of the complex interplay between cultural practices and the regulation of the Indian Constitution. While these practices are a significant part of the cultural identity of the people, they are not accorded absolute protection and are therefore vulnerable to being challenged on the basis of the Indian Constitution, particularly in regard to the security of the public, animals, and the basic rights of the participants. The judicial intervention in these matters is a testament to the application of Articles 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.
The coming into effect of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, is a major step towards organised and transparent sports management. Nevertheless, the Act does not render judicial intervention unnecessary in matters concerning traditional sports, particularly where the legal provisions are not entirely responsive to the conflict between cultural traditions and constitutional provisions. The courts remain an important institution in the interpretation of the legislative intent and constitutional imperatives.
The most important legal takeaway from the Jallikattu and Dahi Handi decisions is that effective regulation is to be found in balanced governance and not in blanket banning. A regulatory approach that facilitates a balanced continuation, coupled with the enforcement of safety norms, is the most effective way of striking a balance between preservation and compliance. This can only be achieved through a combined approach of legislative intervention, judicial interpretation, and administrative regulation to ensure that traditional games are developed in a manner consistent with the values of the Constitution.
Author(s) Name: Anoushka Uthaiah (Alliance University)
References:
[1] Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, National Sports Policy of India (Government of India).
[2] Law Commission of India, Report on Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Law Commission of India).
[3] National Sports Governance Act 2025 (India).
[4] Constitution of India, art 21; Constitution of India, art 25.
[5] K Murugesan, ‘Sports Law in India: Emerging Trends’ (2019) 4 SCC J 23.
[6] Black’s Law Dictionary (11th edn, Thomson Reuters 2019)
[7] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
[8] Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547.
[9] Constitution of India, art 51A(g)
[10] Aparna Chandra, ‘Jallikattu and the Supreme Court: Constitutional Morality and Animal Rights’ (2014) 6 NUJS L Rev 129.
[11] Ministry of Women and Child Development, Advisory on Safety of Children in Public Events (Government of India).
[12] Dr Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v State of Maharashtra 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 901.
[13] Constitution of India, art 21.
[14] Constitution of India, art 21; Constitution of India, art 25.
[15] International Olympic Committee, Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement.
[16] Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Reforming Sports Governance in India (2017).
