Dismissed

Roopesh P.R. v. Unionof India

Kerala HC16 Jun 2020WP(C)/11809/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968. Relying on a prior judgment in W.P.(C) No.11142 of 2020, the Court held there was no repugnancy with the Central Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and affirmed the State Act's validity despite religious contentions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the validity of the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968 was dismissed.

Roopesh P.R. Vs Unionof India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.11809 OF 2020(S)

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 ROOPESH P.R., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PATHALIL (H), MOORIKKADAVU, MANNAKKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DIST.670571, PRESIDENT,

¶10

VISWA VAMACHARA DHARMA RAKSHA SANGAM (VVDRS) MPM/CA/365/2019, ERNAKULAM

¶11

2 SHIVA AVATHAR AADI MARGI MAHA CHANDALA BABA MARAVARI ALIAS BIJU NARAYANA SHARMA, AGED 36, S/O. KANNAN MATHRUKULA DHARMA RAKSHA ASHRAMAM, KIZHATOOR P.O., VADAKKUTHALA, PERUNTHELMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

¶13

SMT.E.S.SONI

¶14

SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 UNION OF INDIA, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, 4TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI P.O., DELHI-110001.

¶17

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF AANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES, KRISHIBHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶18

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶19

R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG R3 BY ADV.SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL.AG

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C) No.11809/2020

JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, CJ

Instant public interest writ petition is filed challenging the constitutional validity of Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968 (for short, 'Act 20 of 1968'), on the ground that the said Act is repugnant to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 enacted by the Parliament, especially due to the repugnancy as per the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that,Petitioner No.1 is the President of a registered organisation of Hindus, following Vamachara in Koulamarga, which is a part of Shaktheyam. Petitioner No.2 is a also a person following Shaktheya method of Thantra and a Thantri recognised by Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. The case projected by the petitioners is that as per Hindu mythology and belief, four Vedas have been originated from the four heads of Brahma and Aagama has been originated from Lord Shiva. The basic Veda, viz., Sruthi has two parts. One is Vaidikam, which consists of acharams or rituals based on Vedas, and the other is thantrikam, which are rituals or acharams based on Aagamas. Petitioners have further stated that thantrikam has mainly three factes, viz., Shaivam, Vaishanavam and Shaktheyam. As far as Vaishanava method of rituals are concerned, it

¶27

W.P(C) No.11809/2020

¶28

¶29

does not use meat for poojas and other rituals instead, anukalppam is used. Anukalppam means materials that symbolises meat and other materials used for rituals. However, Saktheyam is a ritualistic form where pancha makaram is used for rituals and it includes liquor, fish, meat, mudra (grains) and maidunam. It is pointed that the basic text of Koulamargis, who are following Vamacharam is Kularnavathanthram, and the origination of Kularnavathantra is, parting of insights by Lord Shiva to Lord Parvathi about Koulamarge. For Koulamargis, who are following Vamachara rituals, Panchamakaram is an essential part of religious belief for attainment of moksham.

¶30

Therefore, according to the petitioners, it can be seen that meat is an essential part of rituals for Koulamargis, who are following Vamacharam. However, the ritual was prohibited in the State of Kerala by enacting Act 20 of 1968 - the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968. Petitioners have further contended that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was passed with an intention to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and thereby, prevent cruelty to animals. It is further pointed out that Section 28 of Act, 1960 exempts killing of any animals in a manner required by the religion of any community and, therefore, the law enacted by the State, specifically intended or targeted against the religious belief of a set of

¶31

W.P(C) No.11809/2020

¶32

¶33

Hindus, is without any rationale and violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Petitioners have further contended that animal sacrifice is being carried out as a part of religious beliefs of Christians and Muslims and that a week long festival is conducted at St. George Church, Edappally, wherein thousands of worshipers come for sacrificing fowls and it is a part of ritual. Therefore, it is prayed to declare Act 20 of 1968 as unconstitutional, discriminatory and ultra vires, as it is hit by Article 254 of the Constitution of India and violative of Articles 25 and 26 thereof. It is also prayed to declare the Act, 1968 as void by issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶36

The issue raised with respect to the repugnancy of Act 20 of 1968 enacted by the State Government vis-a-vis the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, enacted by the Central Government, was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11142 of 2020 and by judgment dated 16.06.2020, dismissed the same. In the said judgment, it was clearly held that there was no question of repugnancy by and between the State Act and the Central Act, and both would operate on different footing. So much so, it was further held that sacrificing of animals and birds for

¶37

W.P(C) No.11809/2020

¶38

¶39

propitiating any deity is not a part of the management of religious affairs and the essentiality of the religion. It was also found that the essentiality of a religion is one required for the basic sustenance of the religion itself and not any particular form of a ritual followed by a particular community. Therefore, after considering the issue threadbare, taking into account the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to Articles 25, 26 and 254 of the Constitution of India, we upheld the constitutional validity of Act 20 of 1968.

¶40

In view of the findings rendered in the judgment dated 16.06.2020 in W.P.(C) No.11142 of 2020, we are not going elaborately to the subject issue and all the findings in the said judgment will be squarely applicable to the facts of this case, especially since, we find that the contentions advanced are typical in nature.

¶41

Writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

¶42

Sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

Sd/SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

Krj

W.P(C) No.11809/2020