On Monday, as some animal welfare groups protested the slaughter of goats by Muslims to celebrate Bakri Eid, some lawyers were mulling over a judgement last fortnight by the Himachal Pradesh High Court imposing a complete ban on ritualistic animal sacrifices in all temples and public places across the state.
Many are uncomfortable with the Himachal ruling because it enters the realm of theology to determine if animal sacrifices are essential to the practice of Hinduism. Instead of taking such a great leap, the court should have based its decision on treating animals in a humane way, even when offering them for sacrifice, legal experts believe.
Besides, they point out that the judgement is silent on the customary sacrifices on Bakri Eid, and confines itself to Hindus only.
Ancient practice
The judgement came in regard to a writ petition filed by Sonali Purewal, a member of an animal welfare organisation called People for Animals in Kasauli. She said that she was disturbed by the way in which buffaloes, goats, and sheep were being slaughtered in Hindu temples dedicated to Chamunda, Harimba, Shikari Devi and other deities, especially on the occasions of Durga Ashtami and Navratra. She contended that this slaughter, carried out in the name of religious tradition, benefited only the temple priests, trustees, livestock traders and the designated butchers.
Invoking the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Porewal contended that the sacrifices were an exercise in superstition. The absence of any regulation meant that there were no checks on the instruments used, or whether those carrying out the sacrifices were properly trained.
For its part, the state administration took the position that these practices had very deep religious and cultural moorings, and it would not be proper for the court to intervene, because putting a stop to sacrifices meant to propitiate deities would offend the religious sensibilities of the devout.
However, the Deputy Commissioners of Shimla, Chamba, Mandi districts as well as the caretakers of some temples testified that the prevalent manner of sacrifices were indeed cruel, and should be stopped since many devotees were opposed to them.
Integral part
The most intense discussion has focussed on the court's decision to adjudicate upon what practices that could be deemed as being an integral part of Hinduism. Critics say the decision encroaches on the beliefs and religious practices of Hindus, infringing on the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Such an act, they contend, is reminiscent of the effort of colonial courts to examine diverse traditions and customs through the prism of objective parameters, recreating new ones that they found agreeable with their perceptions of reason and science. Some scholars feel that this decision is an incursion into matters of faith and runs against the grain of pluralism and diversity, which are considered indispensable components of secularism.
Instead, the court could have drawn on the Supreme Court's decision in the A. Nagaraja case of May, which imposed a ban on jalllikattu (bull races) in Tamil Nadu temples, legal experts say. In that instance, the court did not delve into religious tenets, and based its judgement purely upon the rights of animals to be treated with care and dignity.
When judges assume "a power greater than that of a high priest, maulvi or dharmashastri" to interpret theological tenets, jurists Rajeev Dhavan and Fali Nariman said, established constitutional principles run the risk of being compromised.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Many are uncomfortable with the Himachal ruling because it enters the realm of theology to determine if animal sacrifices are essential to the practice of Hinduism. Instead of taking such a great leap, the court should have based its decision on treating animals in a humane way, even when offering them for sacrifice, legal experts believe.
Besides, they point out that the judgement is silent on the customary sacrifices on Bakri Eid, and confines itself to Hindus only.
Ancient practice
The judgement came in regard to a writ petition filed by Sonali Purewal, a member of an animal welfare organisation called People for Animals in Kasauli. She said that she was disturbed by the way in which buffaloes, goats, and sheep were being slaughtered in Hindu temples dedicated to Chamunda, Harimba, Shikari Devi and other deities, especially on the occasions of Durga Ashtami and Navratra. She contended that this slaughter, carried out in the name of religious tradition, benefited only the temple priests, trustees, livestock traders and the designated butchers.
Invoking the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Porewal contended that the sacrifices were an exercise in superstition. The absence of any regulation meant that there were no checks on the instruments used, or whether those carrying out the sacrifices were properly trained.
For its part, the state administration took the position that these practices had very deep religious and cultural moorings, and it would not be proper for the court to intervene, because putting a stop to sacrifices meant to propitiate deities would offend the religious sensibilities of the devout.
However, the Deputy Commissioners of Shimla, Chamba, Mandi districts as well as the caretakers of some temples testified that the prevalent manner of sacrifices were indeed cruel, and should be stopped since many devotees were opposed to them.
Integral part
The most intense discussion has focussed on the court's decision to adjudicate upon what practices that could be deemed as being an integral part of Hinduism. Critics say the decision encroaches on the beliefs and religious practices of Hindus, infringing on the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Such an act, they contend, is reminiscent of the effort of colonial courts to examine diverse traditions and customs through the prism of objective parameters, recreating new ones that they found agreeable with their perceptions of reason and science. Some scholars feel that this decision is an incursion into matters of faith and runs against the grain of pluralism and diversity, which are considered indispensable components of secularism.
Instead, the court could have drawn on the Supreme Court's decision in the A. Nagaraja case of May, which imposed a ban on jalllikattu (bull races) in Tamil Nadu temples, legal experts say. In that instance, the court did not delve into religious tenets, and based its judgement purely upon the rights of animals to be treated with care and dignity.
When judges assume "a power greater than that of a high priest, maulvi or dharmashastri" to interpret theological tenets, jurists Rajeev Dhavan and Fali Nariman said, established constitutional principles run the risk of being compromised.
