Bakri Eid: Bombay HC Refuses To Stay BMC Permission For Animal Slaughter At Private Places

The Bombay High Court (HC) on Thursday, June 13, refused to stay the permission for slaughtering animals on the eve of Bakri Eid on June 17, which was granted by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). About 67 private shops and 47 municipal markets sought permits for slaughtering animals on the eve of Bakri Eid this year.

A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Kamal Khata was hearing a plea filed by Jiv Maitri Trust. This trust works for the protection and welfare of animals and the environment. The plea was challenging the communication issues by the civic body on May 29 by which it permitted permission for slaughtering.

In 2018, the trust had initially filed a petition challenging the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted by the BMC at the time for slaughtering animals outside the Deonar abattoir. It has contested the authorisation, claiming that it violates central acts such as the Food Safety and Standards (Licencing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, the Environment (Protection) Act, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The petitioners advocate stated that the civic body's policy does not permit slaughtering at public places including bus stops, airports, etc. However, the May 29 circular allows slaughtering at mutton shops, despite the fact that mutton-selling businesses are not covered by the regulation, even those near airports. Furthermore, the policy requires the municipal corporation's authorisation via a 30-day notice.

As a result, the lawyer asserted that the message violated the BMC policy. Milind Sathe, lawyer for the corporation, maintained that such requests were almost always made 2-3 days before the festivals. The claimed permit is only valid for three days, on June 17, 18, and 19.

According to Sathe, such permission has previously been granted. Advocate Mubin Solkar, representing potential intervenors, contended that such relief is requested each year on the eve of the festival. When Solkar claimed that it was their fundamental right to slaughter, the petitioner's counsel countered that the animals, too, have rights.

The bench stated in its judgement that previous high court orders had made clear that if the policy was violated, there was a mechanism for filing a complaint. The mechanism is in place.

It further stated that the petitioner did not alter the petition to contest the communication dated May 29. Pressing for interim relief would be inappropriate without first modifying and challenging the communication.