NEW DELHI -- The Supreme Court on Friday agreed not to pass judgement for a week on the Jallikattu issue, while taking into account the Centre's submission that they were in talks with Tamil Nadu to find a way out in the matter.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi mentioned the matter before a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumati that people of Tamil Nadu are "passionate" about Jallikattu and the Central government and the state are trying to resolve the issue.
"The Centre and the state are in talks to find a way out in the matter and our request is that the court should not deliver the judgement for at least a week," Rohatgi told the bench.
Hearing the AG's brief submission, the bench said "Okay".
On Thursday, the apex court said the issue of protecting the agitating supporters of the bull-taming sport can be raised before the Madras High Court.
The apex court had reserved its verdict on 7 December last year on a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's notification allowing the sport.
On the next day, the Centre had issued a notification lifting the ban on Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu with certain restrictions, which was challenged in the apex court by Animal Welfare Board of India, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals India, a Bangalore-based NGO and others.
The Supreme Court had on 21 January last year refused to re-examine its 2014 judgement banning use of bulls for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races across the country.
It had also stayed the 8 January notification of Centre and questioned the Centre over the notification allowing use of bulls in events like Jallikattu, saying that its 2014 verdict banning the use of the animals cannot be "negated".
The court in its 2014 judgement had said that bulls cannot be used as performing animals, either for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races in the states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country, and had banned their use across the country.
The apex court had also earlier declared Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 as constitutionally void, being violative of Article 254(1) of the Constitution.
Also on HuffPost India: