WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
- The Petitioners had filed a Public Interest Writ Petition questioning the validity of the Kerala Law- ANIMALS AND BIRD SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1968 to be against their right guaranteed under Art. 25 and Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
- The petition was filed before the Kerala High Court on the 16.06.2020 and the Division bench consisting of Chief Justice Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly gave the order the very same day, upholding the legislation.
- The petitioners have now, submitted a plea to the Supreme Court of India.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF THE CASE?
- The Petitioners- Muraleedharan and Vimal, in this case are Hindus, specifically Shakti.
- As per the petition, the Act restricts their right in practicing customs and other practices according to Hindu Scripts as it prohibits the propitiation of deity through such sacrifices in temples etc.
- The petitioners argue that, “killing is not a prohibited act, but the propitiation of deity is a prohibited act, which hinders their rights to practice ad profess their religion under Art. 25 and Art. 26”
- They also state that the impugned act falls under Entry 17, wherein the Central Government as according to S. 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 removed such killing of animals for religious purpose from being an offence.
- They also elide on similar practices in other religions and allowed outside Kerala and such a provision in the Kerala act is irrational and unreasonable as it discriminates Hindus in Kerala. Thus, in violation of Art. 14
WHAT WERE THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS?
- Writ of Certiorari- Declaring the Act as unconstitutional and discriminatory, thereby declaring it as void.
- Writ of Mandamus- Directing the State not to interfere with religious practices like sacrifice of animals and birds through similar legislations.
REASONING OF THE HIGH COURT?
- According to the Court, S. 28 of the Central Law uses the word ‘killing’ and not ‘sacrifice’, thus ‘the law protects the manner of killing by a particular community and not for any religious purpose’. Further, there was no material record to identity which community with the Hindus or other religion required such killing of animals for propitiating in the manner required by the religion.
- Further, the Supreme Court in previous instances have held that sacrificing of animals for propitiating the deity is not protected by Art. 25
- Therefore, the Court, held that there is no repugnancy.
- The court did acknowledge the fact the, the permitting of other religions to sacrifice does case discrimination, but with regard to the same petitioners stated that such an argument was not prioritized by them.
Also read the judgement: Click Here
