The recent move by the Supreme Court to issue a notice to the Kerala government, challenging the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968, has sparked interest. The Act in question puts a restriction on the sacrifice of animals and birds in temples as an offering to deities. It also criminalizes the motivation behind the act of sacrifice, rather than the act itself. However, if the purpose of this sacrifice isn’t meant to appease any deity and is for personal consumption within temple premises, it doesn’t fall under the prohibitions of this Act.
Background of the Case
The notice issued by the Supreme Court comes in response to a plea that challenged an order given by the Kerala High Court on June 16th, 2020, which supported the 1968 Act. This plea was filed by petitioners who follow the Shakthi tradition of worship, making the case that the sacrifice of animals is a key component of their worship rituals.
Essential Practice or Cruelty?
According to the petitioners, who are Shakthi worshippers, animal sacrifice forms an integral part of their devotion and religious practices. The prohibition of such rituals, they argue, has thwarted their ability to perform the “Bali” ritual, and this, in turn, they believe, weakens the power of their family deity. Shaktism, or Shakthi tantric practice, represents a major tradition within Hinduism, and according to its scriptures and practices, animal sacrifice is both essential and unavoidable.
Discrimination Allegations
In addition to the above, the petitioners also brought up arguments suggesting discriminatory practices. They pointed out that the Act appears to apply only to Hindus, while not imposing similar restrictions on other religions, which they view as arbitrary and a violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality before the Law) of the Constitution. In support of their claim, they pointed to the practice of bird sacrifice at a Church in Kochi and the Bakrid festival, neither of which have been prohibited.
The State’s Perspective
The state assembly, in response to the discriminatory arguments, has clarified that the killing of animals in other religious practices can’t be interpreted as a sacrifice as these animals are subsequently cooked and consumed.
Call for Blanket Prohibition
The petitioners proposed that if the law is geared towards prohibiting the killing of animals and birds, it should be universally applicable, regardless of the purpose – religious or otherwise.
The Supreme Court’s Reaction
In addressing this issue, the Supreme Court underscored the inconsistencies in animal protection laws which allow the killing of animals for food, yet prevent their killing as an offering to deities. The question, “Is killing not cruelty?” was raised by the court, referring to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. This Act permits the killing of animals but outlaws any form of cruelty towards animals. The SC suggested that while there may be some valid argument for allowing the taking of lives under specific circumstances, cruelty can never be justified.
