The court cannot issue directions for legislation, and the legal position on sacrificing animals in the context of religious practices has been delineated by relevant Supreme Court judgments.

S.S. Saron, J.

The petitioner in the petition that has been filed by him has made the following substantive prayers:-

“(a) Issue an order under Article 226 to make sections 428 and 429 of the IPC applicable to all animals irrespective of monetary value or ownership;

(b) Issue guidelines as regards punishment for animal abuse, till the amendment to the PCA Act is not passed by the Parliament;

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction or declaration to the effect that the practice of sacrifice of animals is unconstitutional and same cannot be resorted to by any member of the public;

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to ban all the cruel practices in the name of religion and otherwise as the same is unconstitutional, illegal ad is violative of Article 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.”

2. In response to a query of the Court as to the locus standi of the petitioner, who is appearing in person, to file a public interest petition, it is submitted that he has no personal interest in the petition and would gain nothing in any manner by adjudication of the petition. In the affidavit that has been filed by the petitioner, it is stated that he is a student and well conversant with the facts of the case. It is also stated that he has gone through the Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 (the 'Rules' – for short) and it has been affirmed that the present public interest litigation is in conformity with the Rules.

3. It may be noticed that Rule 7 of the Rules envisages that the Registry shall be entitled to verify the antecedents of a person, society or an association, who invokes the jurisdiction of the High Court. Wherever the Registry has a doubt on the antecedents, an office note to this effect is to be put up except on the petitions which are received by post.

4. The Registry of this Court apprised the petitioner that the writ petition be filed according to the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2013 (4) PLR 367, which judgment is also available on the High Court Website. The petitioner in reply to the same recorded, 'objection complied with'. Therefore, it is taken that he is aware of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Ajaib Singh's case (supra). The said judgment emphasized that a petitioner filing a petition in the nature of public interest is to “specifically disclose his credentials” or his direct or indirect personal motive, or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit. The expression “specifically disclose his credentials”, it was observed, must, naturally imply that he has to set forth what he does for his living, what public interest he has been espousing, the work done by him in that behalf, the particulars of any matter preferred by him as PIL earlier on which the Court has passed orders etc. It cannot imply merely writing a sentence that a person is residing in the State, is public-spirited and is, thus, filing a PIL.

5. The petitioner, however, has merely stated that he is a student without mentioning as to where he is a student and what academic course or studies he is pursuing. He has not mentioned as to in which college, university, faculty etc. he is studying or pursuing a course. Besides, he has not mentioned as to what public interest he has been espousing and the work had done by him in that behalf. The requirement to invoke the PIL jurisdiction of this Court by a petitioner is to show his contribution to the society. In the affidavit that has been filed by the petitioner, there is no mention of any contribution made by the petitioner to a social cause or as to what public cause he has espoused. Therefore, the petitioner has been unable to show that he has the locus standi to file a public interest petition in consonance with the Rules and judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh’s case (supra).

6. Even otherwise, the petitioner primarily seeks for a legislation