Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 states, "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 allegations against Shah include mobilising violent protests, including incidents of stone-pelting, and paying tribute to the families of slain terrorists.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its judgment, had noted that the accused was not suffering from a mental disorder at the time of committing the crime.
The issue pertained to a long-running dispute that lasted more than a century, in which the appellants or defendants (Ogeppa, deceased) and the respondents or plaintiffs (Sahebgouda, deceased) made opposing assertions with regard to the ancestral pujari rights and the authority to carry out worship of Amogasidda, a saint who died 600 years ago.
The Court clarified that ownership of the disputed land is undisputed and belongs to the State, observing that rehabilitation would be assistance, not a right, and that infrastructure expansion cannot be stalled indefinitely.