Paryushan Parv: Bombay HC tells BMC to reconsider limiting slaughterhouses’ closure to a day

The court directed BMC to reconsider its decision after examining representation by the petitioners belonging to the Jain community by August 18, before the commencement of Paryushan Parv on August 20.

The court said the Nashik and Pune Municipal Corporations were required to take a reasoned decision on the closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv. The petitioner claimed that the two civic bodies did not give any reasons for refusing to ban the slaughter of animals during the entire period of the festival.

Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata and Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud relied on the Supreme Court judgement of March 2008 in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat, which noted that the state and every citizen must have compassion for living creatures.

Khambata argued that the SC had found the closure of slaughterhouses for nine days to be a reasonable restriction, and could not be said to be violative of the fundamental rights of persons engaged in the slaughtering of animals. The petitioners claimed BMC misinterpreted the SC decision, and failed to consider that the population of Jains in Maharashtra was greater than that of Gujarat, which was not the case. Khambata pointed out that the BMC in its decision had reasoned that Mumbai is a cosmopolitan city including non-vegetarian population and did not have much population of Jain community.

The lawyers submitted that the Jain community constitutes 1.24 per cent of Maharashtra’s population, while they represent 0.95 per cent of Gujarat’s population. Chandrachud said that as per the 2011 Census, there were over 14 lakh Jains in Maharashtra, compared to over 5.7 lakh Jains in Gujarat. He also submitted that Mumbai has 5.38 per cent of Jain population compared to 3.64 per cent in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, therefore, the impugned decision was arbitrary.

When the court asked whether other communities would also demand the same relief since “different festivals are celebrated with great enthusiasm” in Maharashtra, Khambata responded that the same was unlikely, as the Paryushan was a festival for non-violence.

Government Pleader Poornima Kantharia submitted that the state had taken a policy decision to close slaughterhouses for 15 days of the year on various festivals. Kanthari said, therefore, that closing them on only one day during Paryushan Parv cannot be termed as arbitrary or irrational.

Advocate Akshay Shinde, appearing for the BMC, submitted that it had already notified 15 days on which slaughterhouses were to be closed, and it had taken the decision to close them for one more day during Paryushan Parv.

The bench noted that the impugned BMC order proceeded on the assumption that the population of the Jain community in Maharashtra was less than in Gujarat. “Thus, the aforesaid vital fact has not been appreciated by BMC. It ought to be appreciated that the ban on slaughterhouses for a period of nine days was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008. However, the relevant aspect of the matter has also not been considered while taking the policy decision by BMC,” the bench said.

The Bombay High Court allowed petitioners to submit detailed representation to BMC, and directed the civic body to reconsider its decision by August 18. The court also directed Nashik and Pune civic bodies to take decision on closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan. Disposing of the pleas, the court clarified that it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the matter.