Sacrifice by Law or Sacrifice of Law: A Legal Investigation into Human Sacrifice in India

Sacrifice by Law or Sacrifice of Law: A Legal Investigation into Human Sacrifice in India

Abstract

This article examines the complex relationship between the concept of human sacrifice in India and its status within the legal framework. By analyzing both historical practices and present-day legal perspectives, it investigates whether the act of sacrifice is legitimized or condemned by law, and whether the law itself is undermined by the persistence of such practices. The focus is not on animal or non-human sacrifices, but specifically on human sacrifice, a phenomenon that often stands at the intersection of ritual, power, belief, and legality. Drawing from constitutional principles, statutory provisions, judicial interpretation, and philosophical inquiry, the piece questions whether the law permits or prohibits such acts, and who is ultimately sacrificed, the individual to the law, or the sanctity of law to social practice. Through exploration of case law, legislative measures, and socio-legal analysis, the article aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the idea of “sacrifice by law or sacrifice of law” in contemporary India.

Introduction

Is sacrifice done by the virtue of law, or are we sacrificing the essence of law by conducting sacrifices?

The legal and philosophical scrutiny of human sacrifice in the Indian context raises profound questions about the nature and capacity of law to respond to deep-seated rituals and beliefs. From ancient codes to contemporary statutory and constitutional frameworks, the treatment of human sacrifice exposes both law’s limitations and its evolving engagement with morality, order, and human dignity. As law students, our task is to critically examine whether legal norms accommodate, resist, or are subverted through acts of human sacrifice, and what this means for the legitimacy and coherence of Indian law itself.

Historical and Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Human Sacrifice in India

Ancient Texts and Colonial Reactions

Human sacrifice (narabali) has roots in select ancient communities and texts. While Manu Smriti and Arthashastra expressed reservations and often condemned such acts, more anthropological work documents cases of ritualistic human killing under the guise of appeasement, power, or perceivedspiritual necessity. Colonial powers, shocked by these practices, felt compelled to codify prohibitions and later criminalized them as murder.

Contemporary Persistence

Despite clear criminalization, modern NCRB data records over 100 ritualistic human sacrifices in India between 2014 and 2021, highlighting the ongoing collision between superstition and legality.[1] Such acts disproportionately affect marginalized communities – Dalits, Adivasis, and children, whose vulnerability is exacerbated by weak institutional protection and social stigma.

Legal Frameworks: Statutory and Constitutional Prohibitions

Constitutional Provisions

The Indian Constitution enshrines the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), and equality before law (Article 14). Article 25 guarantees religious freedom subject to public order, health, and morality, making clear that practice of religion cannot extend to acts compromising life or safety. Efforts to combat superstition are further anchored by Article 51A, mandating the development of scientific temper and humanism.[2]

Penal Legislation

  • Indian Penal Code, Section 302 & BNS, 2023[3]:

Murder, including killing for ritual or sacrificial purposes, is unequivocally criminal under IPC and its modern successor BNS 2023. No ritual justification exposes the perpetrator to leniency.

  • State Anti-Superstition and Human Sacrifice Acts:

Maharashtra’s Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice, Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act (2013) criminalizes not just the act of human sacrifice but also its promotion, abetment, and propagation, prescribing imprisonment of up to 7 years and fines between ₹5,000 and ₹50,000.[4]

Recent statutes in Gujarat and Haryana (2024) reflect similar approaches, acknowledging human sacrifice as a distinct legal and social evil that necessitates specialized vigilance, awareness, and enforcement mechanisms.

International Human Rights Framework

India’s obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibit arbitrary deprivation of life, cruel or inhuman treatment, and uphold the right to dignity.[5] These instruments reinforce limits on ritual actions that violate basic rights.

Judicial Discourse: Case Law Analysis

Supreme Court and High Court Decisions

  1. IshwariLal Yadav v State of Chhattisgarh (2019)[6]

The Supreme Court affirmed death sentences for ritualistic murder of a child, referencing SushilMurmu v State of Jharkhand (2004)[7] and reinforcing the principle of “rarest of rare” crimes meriting capital punishment. The Court, however, neglected anthropological and psychological context, focusing instead on the aggravated nature of the act. This raises critical questions about the individualization of punishment and understanding of ritualistic motivation.

  1. State of Maharashtra v Damu S/o GopinathShinde (2000)[8]

The Supreme Court commuted death to life imprisonment for sacrifice of five children, recognizing the alienness of the belief system. This signals judicial awareness of ritual context—but also the limitation of contextualizing heinous acts at the expense of consistency in sentencing.

  1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v Jitender Kumar (2013)[9]

Delhi High Court cited cultural and psychological factors to commute sentences, further complicating the question of ritual culpability and justice.

Lower Courts and Special Tribunals

State-specific legislation has enabled specialized courts to prosecute offenders with greater rigor. The Maharashtra Act, for example, identifies special vigilance officers to investigate cases and directs prosecution by Metropolitan Magistrates.

Sacrifice by Law versus Sacrifice of Law: Philosophical and Jurisprudential Reflections

Theoretical Perspectives

  • Sacrifice by Law:

Law’s authority may demand the restriction of individual freedom for collective order (e.g., punishment for ritual killing), representing a “sacrifice by law.” In these instances, law upholds societal morality and public interest over personal or ritual freedom.

  • Sacrifice of Law:

When acts of human sacrifice persist under the guise of religion or superstition, often shielded by community complicity or institutional apathy, we witness the “sacrifice of law.” Here, both the substantive and symbolic power of law are subverted, and the state’s commitment to rights and justice is traded for conformity and silence.

Socio-Legal Tensions

Superstition, marginalization, and patriarchal authority create conditions where law is either absent or ineffectual. Failure to address cultural context, lack of legal literacy, and selective prosecution perpetuate impunity and erode the essence of legal protection.

The Socio-Political Economy of Human Sacrifice

Human sacrifice remains embedded in modes of social control, asset seizure (e.g., sacrifice to uncover mythical treasure), and consolidation of hierarchical power. Vulnerable populations—often women, children, and lower-caste individuals—are disproportionately targeted, amplifying structural discrimination and reinforcing cycles of violence.

Conclusion

Human sacrifice in India exists at the uncomfortable intersection between archaic ritual, cultural practice, and contemporary legality. While statutes and constitutional prohibitions offer a powerful framework to defend the right to life and dignity, real-world challenges reveal a continuing sacrifice of law at the altar of custom, superstition, and social apathy. The true test of law lies in its capacity for reform, enforcement, and adaptability in the face of complex social realities. Only when legal instruments are supplemented by societal transformation can the sacrificial logic of violence give way to rational justice and the full realization of human rights.


[1] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India, 2014–2021.

[2] Constitution of India, arts. 14, 21, 25, 51A.

[3]Indian Penal Code § 302 (1860); BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita § 101 (2023).

[4] Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, No. 30 of 2013, India.

[5]Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (Dec. 10, 1948).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

[6]IshwariLal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1289 (India).

[7]SushilMurmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338 (India).

[8]State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o GopinathShinde, (2000) 6 SCC 269 (India).

[9]State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) v. Jitender Kumar, CRL.A. 1057/2010, Delhi High Court (2013) (India).


Author Name- Bhavya Shamalia is a 3rd Year B.A. L.L.B. (Hons.), Faculty of Law, at The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda 

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *