On September 29, 2009, a Tripura High Court Bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Arindam Lodh, after hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) pronounced a ban on the 500-year old tradition of animals and birds sacrifice in temples, particularly two major temples, viz., Devi Tripureswari and Chaturdas Devata temples and directed the government to sensitise people about the importance of love, humanism, and compassion towards all animals and birds.
The court directed all the district magistrates and superintendents of police of the state to ensure implementation of the order forthwith. It also directed the state chief secretary to install CCTV cameras at above-mentioned temples, where a large number of animals have been sacrificed. The bench had also asked the chief secretary to obtain soft copies of the CCTV recordings every month.
However, these two temples, founded by the Manikyas (Tripura’s ruling dynasty from the late 13th century until September 9, 1949), chose to defy the order, citing the absence of a notification on the ban. Also, the ban on the tantrik method of worship has sparked a debate in the state. Meanwhile, Pradyot Debbarman, the son of Tripura’s last king Kirit Bikram Kishore Manikya, and the state government intend to appeal in the Supreme Court to challenge the ban. According to Debbarman, the High Court has gone beyond its jurisdiction by interfering in the customs and culture of the people.
The Verdict of the High Court
Finding the practice of offering animal and bird sacrifice to be unconstitutional, the court ruled that the tradition of sacrificing animals ‘lacks the essence of economic, commercial, political, or secular character’ and cannot be protected under Article 25 (1) of the Constitution (Subhash Bhattacharjee vs The State of Tripura and Others). The court said that freedom of religion is subject to the rigours of public order, morality, and health. Also, animal sacrifice in a temple is violative of Article 21, and religious practice cannot override provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The court said when human sacrifice could be stopped, then sacrificing animals as part of religious practice must be stopped too, for life of both humans and animals must be valued and protected legally. Human sacrifice was a tradition in Tripura till 1407.
Directions passed by the Court
The court issued the following directions after much consideration:
(i) No sacrifice of any animal/bird within the state or any temple is allowed.
(ii) Anyone can visit temples and offer an animal or bird out of personal faith, belief or desire, but the visitor shall take back the animal and under no circumstances no activity of sacrifice shall be permitted.
(iii) The district magistrates and collectors as well as superintendants of police were directed to ensure implementation of the order.
(iv) The Chief Secretary of Tripura Government shall ensure compliance of the order. He shall ensure installation of CCTV cameras particularly in two temples, i.e., Devi Tripureswari temple and Chaturdas Devata temple and would provide soft copy every month of any such activity.
(v) District Magistrates and Collectors of all the districts shall also educate and sensitise the general public of the constitutional mandate, relevance, significance, humanism, and compassion towards all animals/ birds.
Plea not ‘anti-Hindu’
Unfortunately, the state government tried to communalise the issue saying that the sacrifice of goats by Muslims has not been challenged, which means the plea is anti-Hindu. However, the court rejected this argument as ‘preposterous’, saying that the state cannot be allowed to take such a stand, especially in the absence of any material substantiating the same. The court said that the issue of animal sacrifice by the minority community (Muslims) on the occasion of Bakr-Id had already been settled in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi (Mohd. Hanif Qureshi and Others vs The State of Bihar, 1958), Ashutosh Lahiri (State of West Bengal vs Ashutosh Lahiri, 1994) and Mirzapur (Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab vs State of Gujarat And Others, 1998), therefore, such plea needed to repelled at the threshold.
—sidelight——
Tagore in the judgement
The court reminded the State of the message conveyed by Sri Rabindranath Tagore to the then Raja and his citizenry through his famous work, Bishorjon. The novel Rajarshi begins with the Maharaja Gobinda Manikya taking a walk on the banks of River Gomati with a little girl, Hashi. The river is red with blood and Hashi asks “Eto rokto keno?” (Why is there so much blood?) She soon dies of a fever, repeating the question until her last breath. A shaken Gobinda Manikya bans animal sacrifice, but Raghupati conspires with the king’s enemies so as to dethrone him in a coup with the help of the Mughals. Gobinda Manikya eventually regains his position with the help of the Arakans. Later on, the novel was adopted into the play, named Bishorjon.
Special leave petition (SLP)
Given the mixed response from the public, the Tripura government approached the Supreme Court against the Tripura High Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court bench led by Justice Rohinton Nariman admitted the SLP on November 8, 2019, and issued a notice to Subhash Bhattacharjee, an animal rights activist and former judicial officer of Tripura, on the SLP of the state government against the high court verdict. And the ritual was, therefore, resumed with certain restrictions.
Up to 80% Off on popular eBooks