Top
Top Stories

"Tomorrow You Will Say Nobody Should Eat Meat": SC Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban On 'Halal' Slaughter Of Animals As "Mischievous"

Mehal Jain
12 Oct 2020 11:49 AM GMT
Tomorrow You Will Say Nobody Should Eat Meat: SC Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban On Halal Slaughter Of Animals As Mischievous
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the practice of 'halal' for slaughter of animals for food.

"'Halal' is only a method of doing so. Different ways are possible- there is 'halal', there is 'jhatka'. Some people do 'jhatka', some do 'halal', how is it a problem? Some people want to eat 'halal' meat, some want to eat 'jhatka' meat, some want to eat reptile meat", observed Justice S. K. Kaul.
"It has been held that animals don't have a voice of their own and can't reach out to the court by themselves...even the European Court of Justice has ruled that 'Halal' is extremely painful...there are many reports which suggest that extreme pain and suffering is inflicted on to the animal in the process", urged the counsel for the petitioner-organisation.
The advocate drew the attention of the bench to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960- He stressed that its section 3 makes it the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering; section 11(1)(l) makes it a punishable offence if one mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; and section 28 which exempts the killing of an animal in any manner in pursuance of the religion of any community or for any religious rites.
"Tomorrow you will say nobody should eat meat? We cannot determine who should be a vegetarian and who should be a non vegetarian!", observed Justice Kaul, adding that the plea is "totally misconceived"
"Even if one is a vegetarian, why should there be cruelty to animals? In the Jallikattu case, the theory of necessity was reiterated-it was said that killing of animals for food is allowed but even such killing has to be done in a manner to show humanity to animals", argued the counsel.
"The technique of 'halal' is to performed by a skilled person belonging to a particular community (Muslim). It needs the animal to be alive till the last drop of blood gushes out...this is much more painful than 'jhatka' which involves a strike to the backbone so tha animal is stunned and dead", he pressed.
Even as he urged that such a practice which is "against humanity" cannot be permitted to continue, the bench dismissed the plea, calling it "mischievous".

Next Story
Share it