Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
This case is about a petition that was filed by a retired judicial officer in the public interest before the honorable Tripura High Court. The petition was mainly based upon the sacrifice of innocent animals before God and Goddess. According to the petitioner, the sacrifice was done on the basis of superstition. In this particular petition two main temples i.e. Mata Tripureswari Devi Temple and Chatur Das Devata Temple were taken into consideration as per the basis of the writ petition.
According to the petitioner, under the patronage of district administration, Government of Tripura in the Mata Tripureswari Devi temple, every day a goat was sacrificed, and on special occasions, a substantial number of animals were being sacrificed as Bali by the general public. The animals that were sacrificed were buffalo, goats, and pigeons. The petitioner also stated that in the Chatur Das Devata Temple on specific days of the month animals were sacrificed. The petitioner stated that the sacrifice of animals is not considered an essential and integral part of the Hindu region. His concern was that sacrifice of animals was a social evil and such a view of sacrificing animals would be traumatic in nature on the minds of many people. The petitioner added to his contention that even if the history of the temple is looked at closely, any such sacrifice of an animal was not mandatory or essential. He also stated that such practices were enhancing superstitious beliefs in the mind of the people. And lastly, he referred to such judicial orders in Nepal and Himachal Pradesh where such acts were banned.
The State in its response stated that the petition itself does not stand out because the petitioner had directly approached the High Court and instantly filed the writ petition without approaching the Government of Tripura and without issuing any notice to the temple authorities. The State referred to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement with the Indian Dominion. In that agreement, it was stated that the State Government would worship Mata Tripureswari and other temples in a traditional system. These practices were followed before independence from the regime of the Maharaja, and those practices were an integral part of the worship, thus it could not be stopped and it is still continued. The State also highlighted the fact that Religion is a very personal concept and a huge number of people have a lot of sentiments attached to it. In this particular petition, the petitioner had failed to consider the sentiments of several people. Moreover, the practice of animal sacrifice has been observed as a long-accepted procedure of the Hindu Rituals of the Tantrik method of worship of the Dash Maha Vidya i.e. the ten forms of the Goddess of the Hindus. By the Hindu scriptures and various cults under Hinduism, it has been observed that Devi Tripura Sundari (Mata Tripureswari) is one of the 51 shakti piths of Hindu mythology and one form of the Dash Maha Vidya which is known as Shoroshi form. Shoroshi form has been worshipped as per the Tantrik worship method of the Tantrik Cult. The Tantrik Cult has various steps, where the last one to present is Ahuti. Ahuti in the form of sacrifice of the goats, pigeons, buffaloes, etc before the Goddess. Therefore, such practice of animal sacrifice is an integral part of the worship. The State further submitted three documents that supported its contention. Learned Advocate General of the State submitted three documents; the works of W.W. Hunter termed as A Statistical Account of Bengal, Imperial Gazetteer of India, and minutes of meeting dated 18th June 1982 in connection with the management of the public places of worship in Tripura.
Questions that were before the honorable Court was
In the answer to the first question, the Court stated that the right of offering an animal for sacrifice is not an essential part as per Article 25(1) and in the concerned view regarding State, The State can regulate or restrict any political, economical, financial or secular activity related to religious practice. In this particular, the State action is neither permissible under Constitution nor any other statute. In regard to the second question, the Court held that it is not an essential practice and sacrifice of animals not being an essential part of religion is violative of Article 21. And in regard to the third question, the Court stated that constitutional values should be embraced and they should not be superseded by personal beliefs. Religious practices not being essential cannot override Section 3 of the Prevention and Cruelty of Animals Act and other provisions of the Constitution.
The Court first looked into Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Court opined that Article 25 reveals that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and have a right to freely profess, and practice, and propagate religion but subject to certain conditions and that being public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III of the constitution. In Article 26, the freedom of religious denomination, more specifically to manage its own affairs in matter of religion is observed and subject to the same conditions. In Article 48, the expression shall is used which means the State shall make an Endeavour of organizing agriculture and animal husbandry on the modern and scientific lines and take steps for preserving them and prohibiting the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and drought cattle. However, this does not mean it is restricted to only oxen. Article 48A does not define wildlife but includes the term living being. And finally, the Tripura High Court banned the practice of sacrificing an animal or birds. However, the Government of Tripura appealed before the Supreme Court regarding this judgment, and the Supreme Court on again looking into the matter gave an interim order stating that animal sacrifices will be allowed subjected to certain conditions.
86540
103860
630
114
59824