The Bombay High Court last week refused to grant an interim stay on operation of a circular issued on May 29 by the Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika, or Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, permitting animal sacrifice at 67 private mutton shops and 47 municipal markets on Eid-al-Adha or Bakri Eid on Monday, newspapers reported.
A division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Kamal R. Khata was on Thursday hearing a plea filed by the Jiv Maitri Trust and Anoop Rajan Pal, who work for the welfare of animals and the environment. The bench noted that the interim relief was sought based on a praecipe, or written request for urgent hearing, and the court agreed to hear the matter with the impression that there was a separate application seeking interim relief, but no such application was made, The Indian Express reported.
“We are not sure if this is an appropriate course to seek interim relief,” the court said, according to The Hindu. “Even the praecipe is bereft of any interim relief sought and simply seeks circulation of matter for urgent hearing. Oral application for interim relief cannot be entertained.”
The court also said the petitioners did not amend the petition to challenge the May 29 circular, so it would not be appropriate to press for interim relief in the matter.
The petition said the May 29 circular permitting slaughter at mutton shops was not consistent with the municipal corporation’s own policy on slaughter of animals. As per the policy, slaughtering of animals at public places, including bus stops or airports, is not permitted. Meat shops near airports also violate the Aircraft Act, 1934, and pose safety concerns, the petition said.
Senior advocate Milind Sathe, representing the corporation, argued that the circular only grants permission to private shops and municipal markets on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday for the Eid festivities. He said such permissions were granted in the past as well.
Hearing the arguments, the court said that if there are violations of any provisions, there are also mechanisms in place to lodge complaints. Refusing to grant any relief in the matter, it said: “Do not come at the last moment like this. Do not give that impression. There were similar permissions granted last year. There is a mechanism in place to file complaints.”
In a separate case, the high court permitted the slaughter of animals for the festival in the area around Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur district of Maharashtra. A division bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla granted interim relief to petitioners challenging the ban on animal slaughter in the area issued by the director of archaeology and museums, Bombay, the superintendent of police, Kolhapur, and the chief executive officer of the Kolhapur district council, the legal news website LiveLaw.in reported.
“We are of the opinion that at least for the festival of Bakri Eid, which is on 17th June 2024, and the Urus [at the Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb dargah], which is till 21st June 2024, the slaughtering of animals by the petitioners can be permitted,” the court said. It, however, made it clear that the actual killing of animals and birds could only take place in the closed premises at Gat No. 19, which is a private property owned by Mubarak Usman Mujawar. “The killing of animals and birds certainly should not be done in an open place or in a public place,” the court held.
The authorities had cited the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962, and a previous order of the high court from 1998 prohibiting animal slaughter in the name of deities at public places, and said the slaughter of animals within the protected area of the fort was prohibited under Rule 8(c) of the 1962 Rules. The rule bans cooking and consumption of food within protected monuments.
Assistant Government Pleader S.D. Vyas defended the ban citing the Monuments Act, 1960, and the 1962 Rules. She argued that the prohibition on cooking and consumption of food within protected monuments extends to the slaughter of animals as the ritual is a part of cooking food.
The court examined the definitions given in the Monuments Act, 1960, particularly Sections 2(10) and 2(11), which differentiate between a “protected area” and a “protected monument”, and noted that while Vishalgad Fort is a protected monument, the surrounding area of 333 acres and 19 gunthas is a protected area. The prohibitions under Rule 8(c) apply to protected monuments and not protected areas, it said, adding that an affidavit from the assistant director of the department of archaeology at Pune supports this distinction.
The court said interpreting the entire 333-acre area to be a protected monument would result in the absurdity of preventing residents within the area from cooking and consuming food.
