Yesterday, On 28th October, The Calcutta High Court raised concerns about a PIL that seeks to ban the ritual sacrifice of over 10,000 animals at Kolkata’s Bolla Raksha Kali Temple. The petition aims to support a shift toward veganism in Eastern India, arguing against animal sacrifices on ethical grounds. The court, however, expressed caution over interfering with long-held religious practices during its Friday hearing.
Calcutta: During a hearing on Monday, the Calcutta High Court remarked that expecting all of Eastern India to embrace veganism would be unrealistic.
The statement made by a vacation bench comprising Justices Biswajit Basu and Ajay Kumar Gupta while reviewing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the ritual sacrifice of over 10,000 animals at Kolkata’s Bolla Raksha Kali Temple.
In response, the bench noted,
“One thing is clear, if it is ultimately a goal to make all of Eastern part of India vegan, this is not… The Advocate General cannot live without a piece of fish every day!”
Advocate General Kishore Datta, representing the state, humorously agreed, adding,
“I am strictly non-vegetarian!”
During the hearing, the Calcutta High Court bench inquired if the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) specifically targeted the Bolla Raksha Kali Temple or aimed to stop animal sacrifices on a broader scale. The petitioner’s counsel clarified that the PIL focused on the temple’s ritual sacrifice of over 10,000 animals primarily goats and buffaloes conducted each Friday after the Raas Poornima festival.
Arguing that such sacrifices are not essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution, the counsel suggested that symbolic offerings could replace mass sacrifices.
The bench responded with scepticism, questioning,
“How can you come to this conclusion? How can you say this is not an essential religious practice? Religious practices in this part of Bengal…do not resemble those in the Northern part,”
And noted the ongoing debate over whether mythical figures were vegetarian or non-vegetarian.
When the counsel proposed symbolic sacrifice, the court remarked,
“You cannot restrict it in that way…it may shock our conscience because I know persons who eat chicken but cannot see the killing of chickens for offerings.”
Advocate General (AG) Kishore Datta argued that the PIL lacked genuine public interest, citing Supreme Court rulings stating that only legislative actions not court orders can ban religious sacrifices.
He also referenced Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which permits animal sacrifices when performed as part of religious practices.
The petitioner’s counsel, in turn, raised environmental concerns, suggesting that pollution resulting from these sacrifices warranted intervention. In response, the bench observed that if environmental harm arises from such rituals, addressing it would fall under the State’s responsibility.
Justice Biswajit Basu remarked,
“Today, if I direct all animal sacrifice to be stopped, how can it be implemented?”
It was further noted that a similar PIL is already awaiting decision before a regular bench.
The vacation bench, therefore, directed that this petition be combined with the ongoing matter before the regular bench.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
