Sita & Akbar: How names of two lions became the reason for a plea in Calcutta High Court

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya opined that animals should be given “uncontroversial” names, and that one “should not name any animals after those who are revered and respected by citizens”, according to a report of the proceedings by Live Law.

The hearing ended with the court directing the reclassification of the VHP’s writ petition as a public interest litigation (PIL) and for it to be placed before a regular Bench having determination over PILs, the Live Law report said.

How did the matter of the lions reach the HC?

The petitioners said they came to know the names of the animals from the news of their arrival in the North Bengal Wild Animals Park in Siliguri from Sepahijala Zoological Park in Tripura.

One of these reports, in the Bangla newspaper Uttarbanga Sambad, was headlined “Sangir khoje astir Sita (Sita is restless for a companion)”, and “indicated in a lewd way and represented the news in a much objection manner which was bound to hurt the religious sentiments of all Hindus across the country”, the petitioners said.

While the director of the safari park had assured the petitioners that “no names had been given to the said lions”, the Uttarbanga Sambad published the contents of a memo purportedly issued by the secretary of the State Zoo Authority, which mentioned the lions’ names as Sita and Akbar, the petition said.

Angry at the “irrational, illogical and outrageous nomenclature”, the VHP filed a plea at the Calcutta High Court and mentioned the matter before Justice Bhattacharyya on February 16.

What is the VHP’s argument?

The petitioners argued that naming the lioness ‘Sita’ was an “affront upon the petitioners’ religious belief and hurts religious sentiments of the petitioners which is a constitutional right” — presumably a reference to the right to freedom of religion under Article 25.

They have also argued that the naming is “arbitrary”, and violates their right to equality and equal opportunity.

This action, according to the petitioners, “has caused immense hurt to the religious sentiments of the entire Hindu community”. They have claimed to have received complaints from across the country and, unless immediate action is taken, there is a possibility of “widespread agitation and social unrest”.

The petitioners asked the court to change the name of the lioness to “any other common proper name” not connected to the Hindu religion, and to order the director of the park to no longer name animals after religious deities.

What happened in the Calcutta HC?

Justice Bhattacharyya began hearing the case on February 21. He asked why naming the lioness Sita mattered, as it could have been named out of affection. Counsel for petitioners argued that this was slander, not affection — and if this was allowed, then a donkey too could be named after a deity.

On the point of admissibility of the case, the court asked why the petitioners did not file a PIL, since they claim to represent an organisation and seek to protect wider religious sentiments.

Because it was unclear who had actually named the lions, the court asked the state government to return with clarity on the subject.

On February 22, the government told the court that Akbar and Sita were “house names” of the animals in the Tripura zoo. It also argued that the petition was not maintainable as it was not in the form of a PIL.

The court proceeded to extensively question Additional Advocate General (AAG) Debjyoti Choudhury on whether such naming conventions could be allowed — and asked the counsel whether animals could be named after freedom fighters and nobel laureates, and whether he would name their own pets after Hindu or Muslim religious figures.

The AAG repeatedly said that the names were given in Tripura, and stated that the state government was considering giving the lions other names.