IMPORTANT POINTS
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation as well as freedom to manage religious affairs are protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are entitled to get the reliefs as sought for, to continue with sacrifices for propitiating any deity, cannot be sustained. So much so, no materials are forthcoming to establish that sacrificing animals and birds are essentials of the religion to drive home the case that Act, 1968 is interfering with Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

S.Manikumar, J.

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:

(i) “Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction, declaring Exhibit-P1 enactment namely, Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968 (Act 20 of 68) as unconstitutional, discriminatory, and declare it as void and set it aside.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction, directing 1st respondent, State of Kerala, not to interfere with religions practices like sacrifice of animals and birds through enactments like Exhibit P1 or similar enactments after holding that such enactments are unconstitutional and illegal.”

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.

4. Petitioners have further contended that Exhibit-P2 clearly excludes animal killing in relation to religious purposes from the rigour of an offence, if it is done in a manner required by the religion of any community whereas, Exhibit-P1 bluntly and emphatically makes the same killing as an offence, which cannot be countenanced as per the Constitution of India.

5. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed on the following grounds:

(A) The field of legislation vis-a-vis prevention of cruelty to animals is readable from Entry 17 under List III Schedule VII of Constitution of India. Based on the entry for legislation, Parliament had promulgated Exhibit-P2 legislation namely, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Therefore, the power exercised by the Parliament by the above legislation makes the Act, 1960 conclusive and one applicable to entire geographic limits of Union. It is submitted that as per Article 254 of the Constitution, the field of legislation which had been filled by the Parliament cannot be intercepted by a State legislature. The supremacy of Parliament in this regard is readable from Article 254 of the Constitution. In these circumstances, the present law by the State as per Exhibit-P1, which did not get Presidential assent, has any force in the State, if the same is repugnant to law made by the Parliament in the same field.

(B) Exhibit-P2, the law by Parliament, permits sacrifice for the purpose of religious