LAWS(KER)-2020-6-162

MURALEEDHARAN T. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On June 16, 2020
Muraleedharan T. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant public interest writ petition is filed challenging the constitutionality of the Kerala Animals and Bird Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Short facts leading to the filing of instant writ petition are that,- petitioners are professing and practicing Hindu religion and they are adversely affected by Exhibit-P1 enactment promulgated by State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No.1). It is averred that what is prohibited under the abovesaid Act is propitiation of deity through sacrifice of animals and birds in temples and temple precincts. According to the petitioners, killing is not a prohibited act, but propitiation of deity is a prohibited act and the same dehors their fundamental rights as Hindus to practice and profess religion, as per Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have further stated that the Act does not disclose the reason for the enactment and it could be presumed that field of legislation is Entry 17 in the Constitution of India, as per List III of Schedule VII. As per the entry of the legislation, Central Government have promulgated Exhibit-P2 enactment, removing the act of killing animals for religious purpose from the ambit of an offence, as per Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act , 1960. Therefore, Exhibit-P1 enactment is repugnant to Exhibit-P2.

(3.) The purpose highlighted in Exhibit-P1 enactment is confined to propitiating the deity, which would adversely affect the petitioners in practicing the religion, as per the custom and practice inscribed in texts and scriptures. Petitioners have further stated that other religions like Christianity, Islam or the like also, have similar set of practices and propitiating sacrifice to Jehovah is considered as a sacrament as per Biblical tenets. It is, therefore, stated that Exhibit-P1 is not sustainable.