Bombay HC Declines To Stay BMC’s Circular On Animal Sacrifice For Bakri Eid
Bombay HC Declines To Stay BMC's Circular On Animal Sacrifice For Bakri Eid
The circular permits animal sacrifices at 67 private meat shops and 47 municipal markets from 17th to 19th June, coinciding with the Bakri Eid festivities.
14 June 2024
In a recent judgement, the Bombay High Court refused to impose a stay on a circular issued on 29th May by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), which allows animal sacrifices at various meat shops and municipal markets in Mumbai during the Bakri Eid festival.
This decision, issued on 13th June 2024, has implications for animal rights and public policy, as it expresses the court’s stance on administrative decisions regarding religious practices.
Court’s Decision on the BMC Circular
A division bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata dealt with the petitions seeking an urgent stay on the BMC’s circular on 29th May.
The circular permits animal sacrifices at 67 private meat shops and 47 municipal markets from 17th to 19th June, coinciding with the Bakri Eid festivities. The petitioners, Jeev Maitri Trust and Anoop Rajan Pal, who advocate for animal welfare and environmental protection, sought immediate intervention through a praecipe, which is a written request for an urgent hearing.
However, the court emphasised procedural decorum, noting that the praecipe did not request any interim relief but only sought an urgent hearing.
Consequently, the court found the method inappropriate for seeking such relief and declined the oral application for interim measures. The bench highlighted that the petitioners had not amended their petition to specifically challenge the 29th May circular, rendering their request for interim relief invalid.
Arguments and Concerns Raised
The petitioners contended that the BMC’s circular lacked clarity regarding the statutory authority under which it was issued, potentially conflicting with existing municipal policies on animal slaughter. They argued that allowing meat shops near airports violated the Aircraft Act and posed safety risks. Additionally, they claimed the circular also violated central laws, including the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registering of Food Business) Regulations, the Environment (Protection) Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Senior Advocate Milind Sathe, representing the BMC, defended the circular, stating that it provided temporary permission to a limited number of establishments for a short period, only during Bakri Eid. He pointed out that similar permissions had been granted in previous years without legal challenges. Sathe emphasised that the circular was in line with past practices and was limited to specific dates and locations.
Procedure for Addressing Violations
The court noted that a mechanism for lodging complaints about any violations was established under a previous High Court directive dated 8th June, 2023. This mechanism remains in place, offering a means for addressing grievances related to the implementation of the circular. The bench urged petitioners to utilise this mechanism rather than seeking last-minute judicial intervention through a praecipe, which is only for setting up an urgent hearing.
The court’s decision not to stay the circular aligns with its stance on maintaining consistency in administrative permissions granted for religious practices. It signals the need for timely legal actions, advising petitioners against approaching the court at the eleventh hour, which could create an impression of undue urgency.
Historical Context and Future Implications
The Jeev Maitri Trust has a history of challenging the BMC’s no-objection certificates (NOCs) for animal slaughter; earlier it was outside the Deonar Abattoir, dating back to 2018.
The trust’s consistent legal battles highlight the ongoing tensions between animal rights advocates and religious practices involving animal sacrifices. The current judgement reiterates the court’s balanced approach, considering both administrative practices and the procedural integrity of legal petitions.
This ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving administrative permissions for religious practices. It emphasises the importance of following due process and utilising existing mechanisms set in place for addressing their certain specific grievances.
The court’s refusal to entertain last-minute pleas without substantial amendments to petitions reinforces the necessity for timely and well-prepared legal actions.
To conclude, this judgement serves as a reminder of the importance of timely and appropriate legal actions, ensuring that administrative and judicial processes are respected and upheld.
