The Bombay High Court Today (Aug 20) ruled that there is no legal requirement to shut slaughterhouses for nine days during the Jain festival Paryushan. The Court said only a law or rule can mandate such closures, not judicial directions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday made it clear that there is no law in India which says that slaughterhouses must be closed for nine days during the Jain religious festival of Paryushan Parv.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a petition filed by members of the Jain community who wanted all slaughterhouses in Mumbai to be kept shut for the entire nine days of the festival.
The Court observed that it cannot pass such a direction against the government or municipal authorities because there is no legal provision mandating such a closure.
The bench asked the petitioners,
“You are seeking Mandamus. For that, there have to be mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days?”
The Court also highlighted that this case was not the same as the well-known Hinsa Virodhak Sangh case. In that earlier matter, the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close slaughterhouses during the Jain festival.
The Bombay High Court clarified,
“You will appreciate the difficulty. In Ahmedabad the corporation had taken a decision. But (in this case), there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, policy, no legally enforceable right that they must close. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction.”
Earlier, in a previous hearing, the Court had asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to reconsider its decision after the community had requested a full nine-day closure. Initially, the BMC had allowed only a one-day ban.
Later, the BMC issued an order on August 14, stating that slaughterhouses would be closed on two days — August 24 and August 27 (which is also Ganesh Chaturthi).
Not satisfied, the Jain petitioners again approached the Court, demanding a complete nine-day closure during the festival which began on Wednesday.
Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing the petitioners, argued that Mumbai has a much larger Jain population compared to Ahmedabad and that this fact was not considered by the BMC. He further relied on the Hinsa Virodhak Sangh judgment to argue that such closures are legally valid and not against fundamental rights. He also clarified that their plea does not extend to seafood or fish.
Senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, who also appeared for the petitioners, submitted that the BMC had unfairly given more importance to the non-vegetarian population of the city. He argued that a majority of Mumbaikars are actually vegetarians.
He even highlighted historical precedent, saying that Emperor Akbar had once issued a fatwa banning slaughter during Paryushan, but now, it is difficult to get even a similar order from the BMC.
The Court, however, firmly noted that the Ahmedabad case was based on a decision voluntarily taken by the municipal corporation there. It was not the result of a court’s directive.
Once again, the bench reminded,
“You understand the distinction.”
The judges said that if the petitioners felt the BMC order was arbitrary or not made with due consideration, they should amend their petition to challenge the BMC’s order itself instead of asking the Court to issue a writ.
Therefore, the matter has been adjourned for two weeks. The petitioners have been given time to amend their plea, and the Court has also issued a notice to the BMC for its response.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Slaughterhouse
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
