‘Animal Sacrifice an Essential Religious Practice’, Analysing the Plea in Supreme Court Against the Judgment of Kerala High Court

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

Follow us

An appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment of Kerala High Court. This judgment upheld the Constitutionality of the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Act, 1968.

The petitioners contended that animal sacrifice is an integral part of their religion. He also contended that the judgment was against his right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

Animal Sacrifice in India

The practise of animal sacrifice is a worldwide phenomenon. Countless faiths practise it for different reasons. Mostly, devotees perform them to please the deity.

In India, people sacrifice animals during festivals and fairs. These practices can be traced back to the period of Vedas and Upanishads. Some superstitious beliefs deep-rooted in our society form their basis. The most important question that emerges is:

Can we allow cruelty towards animals in the name of religion?

What does the Law in our Country say?

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is the primary legislation in India regarding animal cruelty. It governs and regulates such practices in India. Its objective is to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain on animals.

However, some of the States have their legislation to deal with such practices. In the State of Kerala, we have the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Act, 1968. The Act bans sacrificing animals for appeasing deities.

Present Case

On June 16, 2020, the Kerala HC dismissed a plea on animal sacrifice. It upheld the Constitutionality of the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Act, 1968. Two persons, Muraleedharan T. and Vimal CV, challenged the provisions of the Act. The bench comprised Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly. They made the following observation:

There are no materials to show which community of Hindus can sacrifice animals.

Contentions of the Petitioners

The petitioners had raised three grounds to allow the sacrificing of animals. They contended that the ban on such practices is:

  • Unreasonable interference with their fundamental rights. Specifically, Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
  • Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • Void because of Article 254 of the Constitution.

The petitioners also contended that the Act was in arbitrary. The Act allows the killing of animals for personal consumption but not as a sacrifice to the deity. Hence, they contented it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is Central legislation. Section 28 of the said Act does not make a sacrifice of animals an offence. However, the impugned Act criminalizes this practice. Thus, they pointed out that it negates the former provision. Hence, the impugned Act is void in view of Article 254 of the Constitution.

The Court’s Observations

The Court observed that Article 25 and 26 only protect the essentials of the religion.

On the issue of Article 254, the Court observed that the objective of both the Acts is different. It further noted that Section 28 of the PCA Act is ‘killing’ and not ‘sacrificing’.

Taking all these into considerations, the Court dismissed the plea. However, the aggrieved petitioners had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

The stance of the Supreme Court over the years

The Supreme Court has varied its stances on this issue. There are cases where the SC has not entertained cases on animal sacrifice. In some cases, the SC has observed that sacrificing animals is an old age custom. However, in some instances, it has closed its eyes towards such cruelty against animals.

Over the years, the SC has taken cognizance of this matter. A contrary view has been in the case of N. Adithayan vs Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. The SC observed that it could not protect customs that do not have any material as proof. There are no materials to show which community of Hindus is allowed to sacrifice animals. Hence, the Court cannot allow it.

Further, the SC made another observation in the case of Ramesh Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. The SC observed that Section 28 of the PCA Act, 1960, does not permit the sacrifice of animals. It allows the killing of animals in the manner required by the community but not sacrifice.

The Court is indeed bound to balance and maintain harmony among all faiths. Per contra, this does not allow people to use religion as a tool to commit cruelty against animals.

Awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is yet to decide the present case. Analyzing the observations of the SC on such cases, the Court will most likely dismiss the appeal.

Animal rights in India are still at an initial stage. At any time, faith, customs, etc. should not take precedence over the lawful rights of humans or animals. This practice of sacrificing animals to please the deity is superstitious. It is high time we recognize this and stop cruelty against animals.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -