A 2-judge bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy of the Supreme Court on Monday (28 September) refused to interfere with the religious practice of sacrificing animals to please gods and goddesses across the country on the plea that it amounted to cruelty to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Declining to entertain the PIL by Varaaki, a Chennai-based journalist, the Supreme Court said that how could it pass an order to prevent animal sacrifice when as a religious practice, it has the sanction of law. Writ Petition (C) No. 689 of 2015 [Varaaki v. Union of India], was listed before the Supreme Court in Court No. 1 as Item No. 47.
The court said this as senior counsel Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Varaaki, told the court that when animals are slaughtered at slaughter houses, it is governed by rules and regulations and animals are slaughtered by trained people. Ramachandran told the court that during religious practices, the animals are killed by untrained people causing unnecessary cruelty to them. He said that at times, animals are sacrificed during religious ceremonies in the presence of children.
However, Chief Justice Dattu noted that “The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act itself gives that right (of animal sacrifice as religious practice). Villagers will say that it is our religious practice for centuries to please gods and goddesses by such animal sacrifices”.
The court said that it had to “harmonize all faiths and religions”. “These are very very sensitive matters. We can’t be blind to centuries-old traditions being followed,” it said.
It is pertinent to mention that Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, prohibits cruelty to animals by laying down as under:
“11. Treating animals cruelly.—(1) If any person—
(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or
(b) employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease, infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be so employed; or
(c) wilfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance to any animal or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by any animal; or
(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or
(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or
(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or
(g) being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in close confinement; or
(h) being the owner of any animal, fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or
(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst; or
(j) wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner, to go at large in any street while the animal is affected with contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner, to die in any street; or
(k) offers for sale or, without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment; or
(l) mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; or
(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment—
(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal; or
(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or
(n) organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; or
(o) promotes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting;
he shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.”
At the same time, Section 28 of the said Act states that killing any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community is not an offence
“28. 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 view of these reasons, allowing the above PIL to be withdrawn, the court allowed Ramachandran to implead the petitioner as a party in the matter where the apex court is hearing a challenge to Himachal High Court order banning animal sacrifice as a religious practice.
