Supreme Court Won’t Ban Halal Slaughter But The Government Must; Many European Countries Have Already Done So

Yesterday (12 October), the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ‘Akhand Bharat Morcha' (ABM) which sought a ban on halal slaughter of animals for food.

“Even the European Court of Justice has ruled that 'halal' is extremely painful...there are many reports which suggest that extreme pain and suffering is inflicted on the animal in the process", the counsel for the ABM argued.

But the bench of Justices S K Kaul and Dinesh Maheshwari termed the PIL ‘mischievous’.

“‘Halal’ is only a method of doing so. Different ways are possible — there is 'halal', there is 'jhatka'. Some people do 'jhatka', some do 'halal', how is it a problem? Some people want to eat 'halal' meat, some want to eat 'jhatka' meat, some want to eat reptile meat,” Justice Kaul said.

“Tomorrow you will say nobody should eat meat? We cannot determine who should be a vegetarian and who should be a non vegetarian!", he added.

The PIL didn’t seek a ban on non-vegetarianism. When the SC passed a correct judgment on the Triple Talaq case, it didn’t say “tomorrow you will seek a ban on divorce itself”. But resorting to such logic has become a feature of the court in recent times when it is confronted with uncomfortable questions of the law.

Moreover, ‘halal’ is not just a method of slaughter of animals just like ‘jhatka’, as Justice Kaul opined. Halal is one of the biggest threats to an inclusive economy, as I explained in this video.

Unlike jhatka, which is not a religious method of slaughter, halal requires that the butcher “must be a Muslim’, ‘be authorised and be under the supervision of a certified Islamic organisation’, and ‘slaughter the animal according to Islamic rite including recitation of 'Bismillah Allahu-Akbar' before slaughtering each animal.’

Therefore, the creation of the halal meat industry effectively means “of the Muslims, by the Muslims, for everyone”.

Legitimising halal meat means giving constitutional sanction to monopolising a multi-billion dollar industry by members of one religion.

Additionally, even vegetarian products can be halal. In fact, halal is not about only food either, as is generally misunderstood.

Some of the products which are given halal certification include non-alcohol beverages, raw materials needed in food processing, pharmaceutical and healthcare products, traditional herbal products, cosmetics and personal care products, cleaning products, daily consumable products and leather-made products (e.g. shoes, furniture and hand-bag).

It is understandable if the highest court of the country doesn’t want to pronounce judgment on whether halal meat should be banned, for that is the domain of the executive, but the Justices have not covered themselves in glory by rejecting a PIL in this regard.

Nonetheless, the ball is in the Centre’s court. It can and should take on the discriminatory and exclusionary halal meat industry by making the practice illegal.

The government can justify such a move on secular grounds by making a case that barbaric methods of slaughter such as halal cannot be allowed in the 21st century. Some European countries have already implemented this.

In 2009, the European Union’s Council Regulation mandated that animals should be stunned before they are slaughtered; however, these allowed member-States to carve out exceptions in case of ritual slaughter (halal, kosher, et cetera).

But five countries — Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and Slovenia — haven’t done so. In Belgium, two out of three regions (Walloon and Flemish) have also taken a similar stance.

However, those who wish to exclusively have halal or kosher meat can do so by importing it from abroad.

Similarly, Iceland also allows for import of kosher and halal meat, but has effectively banned kosher and non-sedated halal slaughter.

Norway, too, requires all animals to be sedated before slaughtering.

All ritual slaughter has been banned in Slovenia since 2012. Sweden, whose eight per cent population subscribes to Islam, has also not carved out any exception for ritual slaughter and the country mandates that animals must be sedated before butchering.

Sixteen other European nations have made stunning a requirement before slaughter of animals, but have made exceptions in case of religiously sanctioned killing of animals.

These vary from country to country. For instance, France requires that animals must be stunned before they are killed, but those who wish to adopt halal method have to take additional permission and the slaughterhouses need to show that they have proper tools and facilities that meet hygiene requirements prescribed in French regulations.

All these countries are hailed as democracies which are secular in nature and greatly respect diversity.

Yet, they have gone to great lengths to check the ritual slaughter like halal.

They all justify it as compassion towards animals. Of course, if India does it, the same western countries, which hardly raise any voice over actions of European countries, will wax eloquent on freedom of religion, right to choice of food and what not.

When the West advocates for saving cows, it is projected as caring for the environment. When India does it, it’s Hindu majoritarianism.

Such double standards are all too common.

India should chart its own path without caring two hoots about what the hypocrites of the world think. Not only does it need to implement more compassionate methods of slaughtering animals, but must also have regulations on animal slaughter which are in line with the norms of the 21st century.

As I wrote earlier, even Islamic countries fare better than India in this regard.

Only humane ways of slaughtering animals (stunning them before butchering) should be allowed in the country.

Even if an exemption is made for ritual slaughter and for festivals like Bakr-Eid, they must be restricted to licensed abattoirs which strictly adhere to state regulations regarding public health, hygiene, waste disposal, et cetera.

That’s the way to go.