The dismissal of a petition by the Madras High Court with
observation that nowhere in the Indian Penal Code it is stated that ‘eating
non-vegetarian food is an offence and there is no law touching, eating habits
of any religion is an offence’ is very prosaic interpretation of law but
certainly not conducive to the evolution of just, fare and judicious law. The
famous legal philosopher Roscoe Pound was of the view that ‘law should be
stable but not stand still’. In his famous book ‘An Introduction to Philosophy
and Social Control Through Law’, he had said that ‘thinking about law one has
to think about the society’. In a civilised society people must be able
to assume that those with whom they deal in the general intercourse of society
will act in good faith and hence; (a) will make reasonable expectation which
their promises or other conduct reasonably create; (b) will carry out their
undertakings according to the expectations which the moral sentiment of the
community attaches’. Thus it is clear where the society fails to follow the
reasonable moral expectations, ‘the law which is in the words of Austin is the
command of the Sovereign’ must come into the play.
The observation of the High Court came in the disposal of
the petition filed by an Advocate by profession in the High Court of Madras
praying that the Writ of Mandamus be issued to the authorities to prohibit the
selling and eating of the beef around the Palani temple and its stairs. This
temple is perched on the hills in the Dindigul district of Tamilnadu. He
has said in his petition that the entire circle of the Holy Hills is used as
Giriwal Pathai (Parikrama). Hindu devotees go around Giriwal Pathai and they
feel uncomfortable to cross the shops which are housed in the temple property
and occupied by people belonging to other religion. They indiscriminately use
beef and other non-vegetarian food by sitting in the stairs of Palani Hills and
thus insult the religious faith of Hindus.
As a matter of fact, it is the responsibility of
authorities particularly the Commissioner of the Municipality of the Palani and
the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Indouments to ensure that
the area surrounding temple and sacred hills are not defiled.
Justices Shri S. Manikumar and Shri C.T. Selvam are right
when they say that meat eating or even the buffalo meat, which is also known as
beef is eating not prohibited in the Hindu religion. But there is no gainsaying
that in and around all temples, non-vegetarian food is not allowed except, of
course, in the ‘Shakt Temples’, where animal sacrifices are permitted. Thus the
people belonging to other religion must be conscious towards the religious
sentiments. Legally also Section – 153A of the IPC says ‘Promoting enmity
between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony’ – is punishable, and when it is read with Section
295 which says that ‘Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of
worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention
of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge
that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or
defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both’.Similarly Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code
says that ‘Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the
religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken
or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or
attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both.’
Thus the ideal situation is that the provisions of Indian
Penal Code are not required to be invoked but when in such situations demand,
then there should not be any hesitation in invoking them. Here the High Court
was certainly go beyond what are provided in the law and it should have done
which could have helped in soothing the prayed tempers. The High Court has said
that the petition is filed in the nature of a public interest litigation and
which cannot be allowed to be misused by the meddlesome interloper or
wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for
personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration. But this case
is certainly does not belong to the category of an interference by an
interloper. This is a matter or an issue which has its bearing the
sensitivities of millions of people who go to the temple round the year. Even
those who do not go to temple they feel certainly hurt when they find that
‘people belong to other faith are eating and selling the meat in the vicinity
of the temple, which is perched on the hills.
Even if, the petitioner not been able to provide any
documentary evidence in support of his petition, at least considering the
matter of great public importance the Hon’ble High Court must have asked for
the factual report from the authorities concerned to pass the appropriate order
in view of the reports received from them but by summarily rejecting
the petition is absolutely no justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment