Abstract

This case comment critically examines the judicial decision addressing the constitutionality of animal sacrifice in temples, emphasizing Article 51A(i) of the Indian Constitution, which mandates citizens to develop a sense of humanism and abjure violence. The court highlighted that witnessing animal sacrifices may negatively impact a child’s moral development, promoting violence rather than compassion. Referencing cases like Hanif Quareshi and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh, the judgment emphasized the need to balance fundamental rights with directive principles and fundamental duties. The court questioned the necessity of inflicting pain on animals as part of religious practices, arguing that no religion inherently requires causing unnecessary suffering. However, this comment critiques the judgment’s failure to respect customary laws, as it disregards the cultural and historical significance of such practices in specific communities. Through interpreting religious texts and imposing legal restrictions without adequate consultation with affected communities, the decision potentially undermines customary traditions. This analysis tells the need for a balanced approach that reconciles constitutional morality with respect for customary laws and practices.

Keywords