Tribune News Service
New Delhi, July 16
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued discover to Kerala Government on a petition difficult the constitutional validity of the Kerala Animals and Bird Sacrifices (Prohibition) Act, 1968, which prohibits sacrifice of animals and birds in temples.
“There seems to be a dichotomy. Killing animals and consuming it is allowed. But killing animals, offering it to a deity and then consuming it is not allowed,” a Bench headed by CJI SA Bobde stated.
This is the second petition on the problem that has landed within the Supreme Court which is already seized of a comparable case involving prohibition on animal sacrifice for non secular objective in Tripura.
Petitioners PE Gopalakrishnan alias Acharya Thrypuram, Amulraj Okay.Okay Raji V and Babu N.Okay have challenged the June 16 order of the Kerala High Court dismissing a problem to the Act.
Acharya contended that he belonged to a household that has been historically following Shakti worship and he himself was concerned in educating and propagation of Shakti worship practices of which animal sacrifice was an inalterable half.
Other petitioners are additionally Shakti worshippers who stated on account of incomplete efficiency of ‘bali’ (sacrifice) in view of the restrictions imposed by the impugned Act, they moderately apprehended the wrath of their household deity.
The Kerala Animals and Bird Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968, prohibits propitiation of deity by means of sacrifice of animals and birds in temples and temple precincts.
Interestingly, killing or maiming of animals for propitiating any deity alone is the core consideration for the ban beneath the Act.
However, if the sacrifice is just not for propitiating any deity, however for private consumption even in temple premises, is just not prohibited, the petitioners identified.
Terming the regulation as manifestly arbitrary, the petitioners urged the highest courtroom to strike down the regulation beneath problem because it violated their proper to equality.
They stated the exclusion of similar practices by different non secular communities, with out the identical being based on any intelligible differentia justifying the classification made by the impugned laws; and criminalisation of animal or hen sacrifice for the aim of propitiation of deity, whereas excluding animal or hen sacrifice for all different functions, similar to private consumption even in or in the precincts of temple premises went towards Article 14 of the Constitution.
If the item of the regulation had been to make sure preservation and safety of animals, it would demand its uniform software throughout all non secular communities, they submitted.
The petitioners are additionally aggrieved by the truth that the High Court didn’t think about their impleadment software and went on to pronounce its verdict.