Bombay HC questions right of Jain organisations to seek closure of slaughterhouse for entire Paryushan Parv

The BMC informed HC that on August 14, its commissioner passed a decision and “partly allowed” the petitioners’ representations and decided to close slaughterhouses for only two days of Paryushan, on August 24 and 27 (the latter also being the Ganesh Chaturthi). The court had last month asked BMC to reconsider its decision for only one day closure.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Sheth Bherulalji Kanaiyalalji Kothari Religious Trust and Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities and two other organisations.

The petitioners had relied on the Supreme Court judgement of March 2008 in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat pertaining to Ahmedabad (Gujarat) that upheld the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close down slaughterhouses during Jain festival.

Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud  argued that the BMC, in its August 14 decision, did not consider that the Mumbai city has more Jain population than Ahmedabad. He submitted that BMC’s order was exactly a “copy-paste” version of last year’s decision and it “exhibits lack of application of mind and has been passed by taking into account the material which is not relevant for the purposes of the decision”.

The petitioners also referred to Article 51A (g) of the Constitution related to fundamental duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures and argued the civic bodies should considered the same.

The HC remarked that it could not direct the authority to close slaughterhouses for the entire Paryushan Parv as there was “no legislative mandate” in law.

The judges orally remarked, “You (petitioners) are seeking a mandamus of 10-day closure. For that there has to be a mandate in law. You must have a right which could be enforced by court of law. Where does the law say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days? No stay can be granted (on BMC decision) because you are seeking writ of mandamus. Except for pointing out an error in BMC order , you have not made out a case for issuing mandamus.”

The HC emphasised that the SC verdict was on a decision made by Ahmedabad civic body and not one imposed by judicial order of the court.

The bench orally remarked, “You (petitioners) will appreciate the difficulty (of the HC). In SC judgement, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had taken a decision (of closure), which was upheld by the court. But in this case, there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law that they must close (for all 10 days). Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction.”

Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar for another petitioner argued that the BMC had taken a decision despite there being a large number of vegetarian population in the city. He remarked it was easier “to appeal and convince Mughal emperor Akbar” to prohibit slaughter in Gujarat (in his times as mentioned in SC verdict) but it was difficult to convince the BMC and state government.

The HC allowed petitioners to amend the pleas to challenge BMC’s August 14 order and posted the hearing after two weeks.