Law doesn’t ban Bakrid sacrifice, but politics thrives on pretending it does

An impression is created that Bakrid sacrifice doesn't merely symbolise the violent nature of Islam—which inevitably 'hurts non-violent Hindu sentiments'—but it also crosses the acceptable boundaries of law.

The goats nibble on a snack of nutritious fodder | Photo: Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

The aggressive campaign for a ‘Green Bakrid’ revolves around the idea that this particular Muslim festival is all about killing innocent animals. The Cruelty Against Animal Act, 1960 is often invoked to legitimise the demand that qurbani (sacrifice) on the day of Bakrid—or Bakra Eid—should be made completely illegal.

In fact, an impression is created that qurbani not merely symbolises the violent nature of Islam—which inevitably “hurts non-violent Hindu sentiments”—but it also crosses the acceptable boundaries of law. These popular perceptions are so powerful that one does not bother to look at the legal framework that deals with animal slaughter in general and Bakrid sacrifice in particular.

Three direct questions are relevant in this regard: which animals are to be sacrificed on Bakrid? Where should they be sacrificed? And what should be done to the blood and carcasses of the sacrificed animals?

Which animal to be sacrificed?

My book, Contested Homelands: Politics of Space and Identity, shows how Bakrid became a highly controversial festival in colonial North India. The colonial authorities evolved a legal-administrative framework to deal with the question of animal slaughter in general and the slaughter of sacrificial cows on Bakrid in particular. These mechanisms, however, placed religious practices of different communities in a binary opposition to each other while simultaneously producing a contested notion of community-space.

This administrative mechanism became the guiding principle for various animal preservation laws enacted immediately after Independence. These laws were mainly related to the protection of cows and other bovine animals from slaughter, especially those that were required for the purpose of agriculture and milk production.

For instance, the Central Provinces and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1951 placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows and restricted the slaughter of buffaloes, allowing it as a subject of certification by authorities, based on age and usability in the production. The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1955 completely restricted the slaughter of all categories of bovine cattle under any circumstance. The Act does not explicitly prohibit the slaughter of goats or sheep, but it does restrict the slaughter of the animals traditionally associated with the festival in Bihar.

The UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 also prohibited the slaughter of cows. However, it remained silent on the slaughter of other bovines. Most importantly, these laws criminalised cow slaughter, making it cognisable (arrest without warrant) and non-bailable offence.

In short, almost all the state legislations passed afterwards prohibit cow slaughter, allow restricted slaughter of buffaloes, and most importantly, keep goats and sheep outside their purview. These laws, interestingly, did not problematise qurbani on Bakrid. In other words, restricted slaughter of bovine including buffalos and other animals like goats and sheep are not prohibited for qurbani on the occasion of Bakrid.

How should it be slaughtered?

The much-talked-about Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA), 1960 does not ban slaughtering of animals. This legislation seeks to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering upon animals. It defines cruelty in the manner that includes over-loading during transportation, beating, lack of sufficient food, water, or shelter, and abandonment.

The Act underlines specific guidelines in connection with slaughter of animals so that “unnecessary pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is eliminated in the pre-slaughter stages as far as possible, and animals are killed, wherever necessary, in as humane a manner as possible.” PCA (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 also puts responsibility on the governments and associated enforcement agencies to modernise and maintain slaughterhouses and slaughtering rules to ensure painless slaughter of animals.

The PCA does not recognise qurbani as a problematic act. Section 28 of the Act provides immunity for the killing of animals for religious purposes. It says: “…Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offense to kill an animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.”

It is worth noting that the religious norms practiced by Muslim communities for qurbani are very much in line with the provisions of PCA. For instance, Islamic norms do not allow the slaughter of pregnant, sick, under-age, and/or the animals with deformities. Similarly, pre-slaughter care, which includes proper feeding and drinking and allotting resting time to the animal are given adequate attention. Prevention of cruelty during slaughter, which includes quick and painless slaughter with a sharpened knife away from the sight of other animals, also corresponds to the qurbani norms. In this sense, the very act of qurbani does not contradict the basic spirit of PCA.

The Supreme Court has rejected several pleas challenging Section 28 of PCA, calling for a ban on qurbani. In July 2023, for instance, the Court ruled against an appeal filed by the Gopeshwar Gaushala Samiti, maintaining the constitutional validity of the provision under the constitutional right to religious freedom.

The petition argued that after the insertion of Article 51-A—which outlines the Fundamental Duties of citizens—Section 28 of PCA cannot continue as every citizen is under constitutional obligation to show compassion for living creatures. The petition was filed against an earlier Allahabad High Court order, which had already dismissed the petition in 2017 on the same grounds.

Where to perform qurbani?

There have been no specific legal provisions regarding the place of sacrifice slaughters other than colonial bye-laws followed by different municipalities. For instance, the Bye-Laws Part III of the Delhi Municipal Committee, 1957 explains: “No person can slaughter or cause or permit to be slaughtered at any place other than a public slaughter house an animal…this rule shall not apply to an animal intended for sacrificial slaughter on the occasion of any festival or ceremony … the slaughter of such animals shall not be carried on within the sight of the public except in the case of Zabiha in localities exclusively inhabited by Muslims.”

The PCA Rules 2001 also provide that animals are not slaughtered in places other than those recognised or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law. However, it does not make any provisions for sacrificial slaughter.  In the absence of any clear, legally designated spaces for qurbani even within the Muslim-dominated areas, Bakrid has become a contested festival in legal-administrative terms.

Cleanliness and hygiene, we must remember, are also a matter of concern for urban Muslim communities living in areas already lacking basic amenities, regular water supply, proper sanitation, and community centres. However, these concerns have either been completely neglected or have now been reduced to politics over cow, meat, vague notions of vegetarianism, ahimsa (non-violence) and, above all, stereotyping minority culture and identity. The question of administrative intervention required for the efficient observance of Bakrid remains unattended.

Nazima Parveen is a Senior Research Fellow at Policy Perspective Foundation. She tweets @ParveenNazima. Views are personal.

(Edited by Prashant)