'Where's The Law?': Bombay HC On Plea To Shut Slaughterhouses During Jain Festival
The Bombay HC ruled there's no law requiring slaughterhouses to close for nine days during Paryushan festival, suggesting petitioners challenge the BMC's decision directly.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ruled that there is no law requiring slaughterhouses to be closed for nine days during the Jain festival of Paryushan Parv, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne stated that the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to state authorities in the absence of any law or rule enforcing such a closure.
According to Bar and Bench report, the court made the observation while hearing a writ petition filed by Jain petitioners seeking closure of slaughter houses for nine days for Paryushan Parv, a Jain observance.
'You are seeking Manadamus. For that, there have to be mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days?" the Bench asked.
The court distinguished the case from the Hinsa Virodhak Sangh case, where the Supreme Court upheld Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's voluntary decision to close slaughterhouses during Paryushan.
'You will appreciate the difficulty. In Ahmedabad the corporation had taken a decision. But (in this case), there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, policy, no legally enforceable right that they must close. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction," the court noted.
Earlier, BMC had agreed to a one-day closure but extended it to two days—August 24 and August 27 (Ganesh Chaturthi)—after the Court directed them to consider the Jain community's representation.
Petitioners, represented by advocates Abhinav Chandrachud and Prasad Dhakephalkar, argued Mumbai's large Jain population justified a longer closure and cited historical and cultural precedents, including Emperor Akbar's directive.
The HC, however, suggested that if the BMC's decision lacked due consideration, the petitioners should challenge the order itself rather than filing a writ petition.
The matter has been adjourned for two weeks, allowing petitioners time to amend their plea. The court also issued notice to BMC.
view comments
First Published:
August 20, 2025, 17:34 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Loading comments...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court refuses urgent plea to shut slaughterhouses for nine days during Paryushan
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) declined to grant urgent relief to several Jain charitable trusts seeking a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses in Mumbai during the ongoing Jain festival, Paryushan Parv. The Court said while it respects the community's sentiments, it cannot pass such an order without statutory backing. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing petitions filed by Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities, Swetambar Murtipujak Tapagachha Jain Sangh Trust, Sheth Bherulalji Kaniyalalji Kothari Religious Trust, and Shree Tapagachha Uday Kalyan Jain Swetambar Muntipujak Trust challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) August 14 order, which permits closures of slaughterhouses only on August 24 and August 27 (Ganesh Chaturthi). 'We respect your sentiments. But tell us, from where do you derive the right to ask for slaughterhouses to be closed for 10 days? You are seeking a writ of mandamus. For that, there has to be a mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that that slaughterhouses must be closed for 10 days?' the Bench asked. Representing the petitioners, senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, advocates Abhinav Chandrachud and Shreyash Shah argued that Paryushan Parv is the most sacred period in Jainism, marked by fasting, meditation, and ahimsa (non-violence). They submitted that animal slaughter during this time causes emotional and spiritual distress and violates their rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee the freedom to practice and propagate religion. The petition said, 'The ongoing practice of animal slaughter during Paryushan not only contradicts the ethos of the festival but also deeply hurts religious sentiments.' The petition relied on the Supreme Court's landmark 2008 judgment in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat, which upheld a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses in Ahmedabad during Paryushan as a reasonable and constitutional restriction. Advocate Chandrachud argued that the principle applies more strongly in Mumbai, where the Jain population is 5.38%, higher than Ahmedabad's 3.6%, yet the BMC denied similar relief, adding that the plea does not seek a permanent prohibition on meat sales but only a nine-day temporary restriction, 'This is a minimal and reasonable accommodation balancing competing rights in a pluralistic society.' The Bench pointed out that the Ahmedabad precedent cannot apply directly because, in that case, the municipal corporation itself imposed the ban, 'In Ahmedabad, the corporation had taken a decision. In this case, there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, no policy, no legally enforceable right requiring slaughterhouses to be closed. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction.' The BMC in its August 14 decision considered logistical factors, highlighting that the Deonar abattoir caters not just to Mumbai but also the entire Mumbai Metropolitan Region. A nine-day shutdown, it said, would disrupt meat supply chains. It further noted that the State government already mandates 16 annual closure days for religious festivals, including Mahavir Jayanti and Ganesh Chaturthi. Advocate Dhakephalkar argued that the BMC wrongly considered the total population of Mumbai, 'They must have considered the population of Jains in comparison only to non-vegetarians. They even counted vegetarians against the Jains. In fact, there is also Shravan going on in Maharashtra, so half the non-vegetarians aren't eating non-veg.' Citing the petition of Hinsa Virodhak Sangh in SC, he added, 'If Emperor Akbar could forbid meat-eating for six months in a year in Gujarat, is it unreasonable to abstain from meat for nine days in a year in Ahmedabad today?' The court advised the petitioners to amend their plea to directly challenge the BMC's August 14 order instead of seeking a blanket court directive. The court issued notice to BMC and adjourned the matter for two weeks.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
SC: Sitting on bills will leave elected govt at governor's whims
NEW DELHI: On the second day of the hearing in the Presidential reference case on Wednesday, the Supreme Court observed that in case a governor has the power to permanently withhold assent to the Bills passed by the State legislature, the situation might arise that would leave the elected State government at the whims and fancies of an unelected governor. 'Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over appeals. The government elected with the majority will be at the whims and fancies of governor,' observed Chief Justice B R Gavai, leading the five-judge Constitution bench. The top court passed the remark after the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution can withhold assent to a Bill, making it 'fall through' with no option to send it back to the legislature. The Court opined that the governor will then have ample powers to sit over Bills and withhold them for time immemorial. Mehta, however, replied that everyone derives power from the Constitution. The Union government argued in favour of discretionary powers assigned to the governor and said setting timelines for considering Bills could lead to a reduction in the constitutional power of the post. 'The governor is not a postman. He represents the Union of India (Centre). He is appointed by the president, who is, in turn, elected by the nation by way of an indirect election. The governor's office will be reduced to a postman if he cannot use his discretion to withhold Bills,' said the SG.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
No law mandates closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv: HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to order closure of slaughter houses for nine days coinciding with the Jain religious festival of Paryushan Parv, saying there was no such legal mandate. No law mandates closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv: HC 'You are seeking Mandamus. For that, there has to be a mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days,' the division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne told the Jain petitioners who sought a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses during the festival. A mandamus is a court order compelling a government official or body to perform a specific legal duty. The Paryushan Parv commenced on Wednesday. The court had earlier directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to reconsider the Jain community's representation after it permitted only a one-day closure of slaughter houses during the festival. Pursuant to the court's directions, the BMC issued an order on August 14 extending the closure to two days—August 24 and August 27, the latter coinciding with Ganesh Chaturthi. Dissatisfied, the petitioners returned to court insisting on a full nine-day ban coinciding with the festival. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud cited the Hinsa Virodhak Sangh ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close slaughter houses during the festival. Mumbai has a larger Jain population than Ahmedabad, which the BMC had failed to account for, Chandrachud argued. The plea did not cover fish or seafood and a restriction on slaughter houses would not violate fundamental rights, he said. Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, also for the petitioners, maintained that the BMC had disproportionately factored in the interests of the non-vegetarian population, despite a vegetarian majority in Mumbai. He even referred to Emperor Akbar's decree prohibiting slaughter during Paryushan, remarking that it was harder to secure a similar order from the civic body. The court, however, said that unlike in Ahmedabad, no municipal decision had been made here warranting judicial support. 'You will appreciate the difficulty. In Ahmedabad the corporation had taken a decision. But (in this case), there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, policy, no legally enforceable right that they must close. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction,' the court said. The judges advised the petitioners to amend their plea if they wished to challenge the BMC's decision for being arbitrary or inadequately reasoned. The matter was adjourned for two weeks, with notice issued to the BMC.
