Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has rejected a priest’s petition seeking a ban on the slaughter of animals during Id-ul-Zoha and all other religious sacrifices.

The plea was moved by Tek Chand, an octogenarian from Kathua’s Bani, who described himself as a “public spirited pujari of a Hindu temple”. He was represented by lawyer Ankur Sharma, who heads Ikk Jut Jammu, a Right-wing outfit.

Chand’s petition had sought a direction to declare Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which allows killing animals for religious purposes, as unconstitutional.

The court said the priest had failed to disclose how he was a “public spirited person” before stating that “we do not find any merit in the petition”.

“Section 28 of the said Act provides that nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community,” the order read.

The bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sindhu Sharma said the courts were ordinarily “usually slow in interfering in religious matters or with sentiments based upon religion or on the practice of any community”.

“Which practice of slaughtering or sacrificing animals is legal or illegal depends upon the traditions and customs of a particular religion and the place of worship. It is a matter of evidence which cannot be appreciated in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction,” the court observed.

“The practice of killing animals is sufficiently taken care of by the Act. As such, there was no need for issuing any further direction prohibiting the practice, if any, of killing animals and it is left to the executive to apply the Act strictly.”

The court, however, said the petitioner could file a complaint if any provision of the Act was violated by anyone.

“In case in some religious places the practice of sacrificing animals is being carried on in violation of the provisions of the Act, the petitioner is free to approach the concerned head of the administration of the district, who will consider the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law.”

Sharma, the counsel for the petitioner, said the court had provided an enabling environment to end the practice of religious sacrifices by giving Chand a right to lodge a complaint before the administration. “The court has said that it will not go to the extent of judicial discretion that we will start appreciating the evidence. Basically, it has agreed to our contention that it (sacrifice) is not essential to religions and cannot be allowed,” he said.

“The court read Section 28 in a way that it does not protect such activities that are not covered under essentials of a religion.... (there is an order to district administration) that they will consider the application and take appropriate action under law. And the law is that only essentials of a religion are protected,” he added.

Anwar ul Islam Shaheen, a lawyer at the high court, said the court found no merit in the petition.

“The court has explicitly ruled out declaring Section 28 as unconstitutional and said it in no way offended the provisions of the Constitution,” he said.

The court noted that Section 28 was a saving provision and its object was to exempt killing of animals for religious purposes from criminalisation. The court said it was a policy decision as per the wisdom of the lawmakers and was beyond judicial review.