The reported comments of the Chief Justice of India, Justice HL Dattu, while refusing to entertain a petition from a journalist from Chennai seeking a ban on the sacrifice of animals during religious festivals across the country, have led to considerable consternation.

Justice Dattu has observed that centuries-old tradition and faith, meant to appease the gods, cannot be interfered with and it was a “very very sensitive” matter.

He also referred to Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act, to justify such killing of animals as part of one’s religious tradition.

The comments, though made in the course of hearing the writ petition at the admission stage, should not prejudice another case, which is currently pending.

That pending case is an appeal against the judgment by the Himachal Pradesh high court delivered last year, banning such killing of animals within the state.

In the Himachal Pradesh case, the state government placed strong reliance on Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. This enactment was carried out to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain on animals.

Section 28 of the Act reads:

Saving as respects manner of killing prescribed by religion: Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.

In Paragraph 81 of the judgment, the high court said:

The underlying principle of Section 28 is that it would not be an offence to kill any animal in the manner required by the religion of any community. It does not permit, in any manner, to sacrifice an animal in temple. Mostly the temples are open to public and the conscience of all the devotees are to be taken into consideration. It has come on record that the killing of animals in a brutal manner causes immense pain, strain, agony and suffering to the animals. The animals are left to bleed after inflicting injuries on their parts. The blood is strewn all over. The Supreme Court, has held that killing of cows on Bakrid is not an integral part of Islam.

The high court further held:

The Supreme Court, in the case of Syedna Taher Saifuddin Sahib vs State of Bombay (AIR 1962 SC 853) has already held human and animal sacrifice to be deleterious. We have advanced by another half century, but till date, the practice of animal sacrifice is still prevalent in this part of the country. The killing of various species of animals/birds is not an integral/central and essential part of Hindu religion.

Citing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, the high court asked if the animal cannot be slaughtered in a slaughter house in sight of other animals, how human can see sacrifice of animal, that too, in a holy and pious places like temples. The animals have emotions and feelings like us. Religion cannot be allowed to become a tool for perpetuating untold miseries on animals, the high court held.

If any person or body tries to impose its directions on the followers in violation of the Constitution or validly enacted law, it would be an illegal act, the high court said relying on the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in Visha Lochan Madan vs UOI

Observers have expressed relief that the CJI has at least allowed the petition to be withdrawn, and seek tagging with the pending case.

Read the Varaaki SC petition here

Photo by Arunakapilan.