The Hon’ble Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the practice of 'halal' for the 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 the 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 the 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 that 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".

 

 

PROVISIONS RELATED TO THIS CASE

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS GENERALLY

Section 11. Treating animals cruelly : 

(1) If any person-

(a) beats, kicks, overrides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes, or being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or

(b) employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease or infirmity; wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be employed; or

(c) wilfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance to (any animal) or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by (any animal;) or

(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or

(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or

(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or

(g) being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in close confinement; or

(h) being the owner of (any animal) fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or

(i) without reasonable cause abandons any animal in circumstances which tender it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation thirst; or

(j) wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner, to go at large in any street, while the animal is affected with a contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner, to die in any street; or

(k) offers for sale or without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment; or

(l) 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 or;)

(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment

(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuaries) so as to make it an object or prey for any other animal; or

(n) organizes, keeps uses, or acts in the management or, any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; or

(o) promotes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting:

he shall be punishable, in the case of a first offense, with a fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend, to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend, to three months, or with both.

(2) For the purposes of section (1) an owner shall be deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to the prevention of such offence;

Provided that where an owner is convicted permitting cruelty by reason only of having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to -

(a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-roping of any animal in the prescribed manner, or

(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers by such other methods as may be prescribed or

(c) the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force; or

(d) any matter dealt within Chapter IV; or

(e) the commission or the omission of any act in the course of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

Section 12. Penalty for practicing phooka or doom dev- 

If any persons upon any cow or other milch animal the operation called practicing phooka or   [doom  dev  or  any other operation (including injection of any or doom dev. substance) to improve lactation which is injurious to the health of the animal] or permits such the operation being performed upon any such animal in his possession or under his control, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with both and the animal on which the operation was performed shall be forfeited to the Government.

 This news is reported by Yashasvi Kanodia