Legal Restrictions on Religious Slaughters of Animals in India
- Dakshi Shukla
- June 28, 2020
Content :
Mahatma Gandhi, who is considered to be the father of India, also placed high value on the compassionate treatment of animals. As he has stated, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” (Shad, 2019)
This paper mainly deals with animal slaughter in India, and cattle slaughter covers the most part of animal slaughter. When it comes to the point of cattle slaughter, there is a lot of conflict of interests, as, on one hand, Hindus revere and worship cows, cows are regarded as a goddess. On the other hand, Muslims see the cow as a source of employment (as a large section of the Muslim society were butchers by occupation), nutrition and the one to be sacrificed. The Cow is seen as a maternal figure, a care taker of her people, provides us with life-sustaining milk. It is a symbol of the divine bounty of earth. Throughout the Vedic scriptures, there are many verses that highlights and emphasize that the cow must be protected and cared for in every situation. It is considered a sin to kill a cow and its meat.
Completely banning the slaughter of cattle for professional or consumption purposes in all states is not justifiable as it completely neglects and violates the fundamental rights of the people such as Right to Personal Liberty [Article 21] and Right to Freedom to carry any trade or occupation [Article 19(1)(g)]. In India, the cow is not only a symbol of religious difference but the cow in India is a significant political issue too, it is a tool in the hands of those who base their politics on religious identities. The demands for a ban on cow slaughter and also opposing political views seem to based not on love for the animal nor for gastronomical reasons, but on a question of identities, such as, Religious identities, majority and minority identities. There are many states in India where the cattle slaughter is banned, in some states it is not.
There is also a case in which the court rightly recognized that it’s a moral duty and legal obligation under the doctrine of parenspatriae (the power of the state to act as guardian for those who are unable to care for themselves, such as children or disabled individuals) to protect the rights of animals and that the courts are uniquely positioned to change animals legal status based on changing morality and existing legal principles. Prohibiting consumption of cattle meat which forms a daily part of consumption habits of one section of the society to maintain the religious sentiments of another section of the society is not a reasonable legislation in a federal nation.
