Read Time: 07 minutes

“Courts always slow in interfering in religious matters or with sentiments based upon religion or on practice of any community,” observed the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court while rejecting a PIL by Hindu Priest seeking prohibition on slaughtering animals apropos religious beliefs and superstition.

A division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sindhu Sharma while rejecting the plea noted that,

“Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is a saving provision and its object is to not to criminalize killing of animals for religious purposes only, which is a policy decision as per the wisdom of the lawmakers and was beyond judicial review.”

The plea was filed by a Hindu pujari who had challenged the Constitutional validity of Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

As per the law, Section 28 provides that nothing contained in the Act shall render it an offence to kill the animals in a manner required by the religion or any community.

“The aforesaid provision only saves the killing of animals in a manner required by religion or any community. The said provision in no way offends the provisions of the Constitution so as to declare it to be unconstitutional rather, it is in aid of the object for which the aforesaid Act has been enacted,” noted the bench.

“Which practice of slaughtering or sacrificing animals is legal or illegal depends upon the traditions and customs of a particular religion and the place of worship. It is a matter of evidence which cannot be appreciated in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction,” the bench asserted.

The bench observed that, the petitioner in the present petition has stated that he was a ‘public spirited Pujari’ of a Hindu temple but he has failed to disclose how he was the public-spirited person or the kind of activities taken by him in the past in public interest to recognize him as a public-spirited person.

The plea had stated that, the religion of Islam does not prescribe any form of animal sacrifice and the same is a cruel age old practice that has arisen out of the misinterpretation of the texts of Islamic faith.

“Not only qurbani but any other form of accepted cruelty to animals is beyond the imagination of a civilized society and the same is constitutionally abhorrent and requires to be banned,” the plea had contended.

The petitioner also placed on record a number of temples where animal sacrifice used to take place in the district of Kathua.

The bench also noted that,

“The practice of killing innocent animals is sufficiently taken care of by the Act and, as such, there is no need for issuing any further direction prohibiting the practice, if any, of killing animals and it is left to the executive to apply the Act strictly.”

Finding no merits in the plea the bench, therefore, dismissed the petition and asked petitioner to approach the concerned head of administration of the district, who would consider the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Note – A public spirited person under law is one who has a genuine interest in the issue(s) being canvassed through a ‘PIL-Petition’, and can substantiate on the basis of material in his possession, that he has been pursuing the subject matter involved with the concerned authorities; but shall not include a person pursuing a private interest litigation, or a publicity interest litigation, or a political interest litigation, in the guise of a ‘PIL- Petition’.)

[Case Title - Tek Chand v UT of J&K & Another]