
Bombay High Court refuses urgent plea to shut slaughterhouses for nine days during Paryushan
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC to view ‘Ajey' before ruling on CBFC's rejection of certification
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday said that it will view the film Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi, a biopic on Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, before deciding whether the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was justified in denying its certification. The court directed producer Samrat Cinematics and director Ravindra Gautam to submit a copy of the film, highlighting scenes flagged by the CBFC. HC to view 'Ajey' before ruling on CBFC's rejection of certification The film, starring Anant Joshi as Yogi Adityanath, is based on Shantanu Gupta's book The Monk Who Became Chief Minister and is set to be dubbed in five languages. Samrat Cinematics Private Limited has challenged the CBFC's refusal, calling it 'arbitrary and unreasonable' and arguing it violates the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. According to the petition, the board acted 'mechanically' and even insisted on a no-objection certificate (NOC) from a private individual—something the law does not require. Earlier, the CBFC told the court that several scenes and dialogues were derogatory. While the filmmakers claimed the work was fictional, the board maintained it was in fact a biopic closely tracking Adityanath's life and political rise. On August 7, a division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Kedar Gokhale had directed the CBFC to specify which portions of the film it found objectionable so that they could be edited. The board's revising committee subsequently marked 29 scenes on August 11. Despite some deletions, certification was denied on August 17. Senior advocate Ravi Kadam, representing the filmmakers, argued that the refusal violated their fundamental rights. Countering this, senior advocate Abhay Khandeparkar, for the CBFC, said due process had been followed and the producers still had the option of appeal. The court disagreed, observing that the CBFC had 'failed to uphold natural justice from the very beginning.' It remarked, 'This is an exercise you should have followed for every film. You have failed to do so.' The bench has scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 25.


India.com
24 minutes ago
- India.com
Not Aadhaar, PAN Or Voter ID: So What Really Makes You An Indian Citizen?
New Delhi: Citizenship has become a topic of intense discussion after the Bombay High Court clarified that having an Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not automatically make someone an Indian citizen. These documents serve only as proof of identity, the court said. This raises an important question: if PAN, voter ID or Aadhaar are not proof of citizenship, what officially establishes Indian nationality? Legally, India does not mandate a single document to prove citizenship. The Constitution lays down specific conditions. Anyone meeting these conditions qualifies as an Indian citizen. Add Zee News as a Preferred Source Citizenship matters because it defines the legal bond between an individual and the nation. It grants rights and privileges. These include fundamental rights, voting rights, legal protections, employment rights and a sense of belonging. Laws determine who qualifies as a citizen. The Constitution of India, in Articles 5 to 11, outlines the rules. On January 26, 1950, all individuals living in India qualified as citizens if they were born in India, had at least one parent born in India or had resided in India for the preceding five years. Certain groups who migrated from Pakistan also qualifies. They include those whose parents or grandparents were born in undivided India, individuals who returned to India after moving to Pakistan and persons born abroad to Indian parents or grandparents. The Citizenship Act of 1955 expanded these provisions. It defines the circumstances under which citizenship can be granted or revoked. Citizenship can be acquired through birth, descent, registration, naturalization or integration of new territories into India. Birth-Based Citizenship Section 3 grants citizenship to individuals born in India between January 26, 1950 and July 1, 1986 or those born later with at least one Indian parent. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2003 further refined the rules, covering children born after its enactment. Descent-Based Citizenship Section 4 allows individuals born outside India to claim citizenship if one parent is an Indian citizen. Registration within a year of birth at an Indian mission is required for those born abroad after December 3, 2004. Registration And Naturalisation Foreign nationals meeting specific criteria can apply for citizenship under Section 5. They must renounce previous citizenship once approved. Section 6 allows long-term residents to apply through naturalisation, following a set procedure. Citizenship Through New Territories Section 7 covers cases where foreign territories become part of India. Legal procedures confirm citizenship, and an official government notification lists eligible residents. Proof Of Citizenship India does not issue a single, universal document as proof of citizenship. Birth certificates serve as evidence for individuals born in India, issued by local municipal or panchayat authorities. Applications can be made online or offline, and approved certificates record the place of birth, confirming eligibility for citizenship. Those granted citizenship through registration or naturalisation receive a certificate signed by an Indian government official of under-secretary rank or higher. This certificate serves as official proof of Indian citizenship. Documents such as passports, Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID or ration cards are not legal proof of citizenship. They serve as identity documents or residency proof and cannot confer citizenship. Lack of these documents does not strip a person of Indian nationality.


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Day before SIR hearing, EC files compliance report before SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a compliance report before the Supreme Court ahead of Friday's hearing on the ongoing revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, which has drawn scrutiny after large-scale deletions. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A person aware of the development told Hindustan Times that the Commission has submitted a 'three-to-four page compliance report which says that all the suggestions made by the Supreme Court on August 14 have been complied with promptly.' The source added that the ECI has also placed on record a status report, giving details of the directions issued to the District Electoral Officers (DEOs) as well as the reports received back from them. 'The Commission had asked all 38 DEOs to furnish the status of compliance with the Court's orders, and these have now been compiled and submitted,' the person said. CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at a press conference on Sunday had said that the Commission has complied with SC's directives in '56 hours.' The Court, on August 14, had recorded the ECI's consent to adopt interim measures designed to improve transparency in the electoral roll revision. These measures require the online publication of the names of nearly sixty-five lakh voters who appeared in the 2025 rolls but are missing from the draft rolls. Each district's website is to host booth-wise data, searchable by EPIC number, along with reasons for exclusion. The Bench had set a deadline of August 19 for completing the exercise. To ensure that the exercise is not limited to digital publication, the Bench also directed wide publicity. 'The lists must be publicised in vernacular newspapers with wide circulation and broadcast on television and radio,' the Court noted, adding that district-level officials should also use their social media platforms to alert voters. Further, the booth-level officers were instructed to display the excluded-voter lists at Block Development Offices or Panchayat offices, so that citizens in rural areas could physically inspect them. The Bench also required that the notices should expressly inform citizens that they may file claims for inclusion in the rolls, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. A consolidated state-level list is also to be made available on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. 'The idea is to ensure that no eligible voter is left without recourse,' the Bench had observed while fixing the matter for monitoring on August 22. Friday's hearing, advanced to 12 pm from the initially scheduled 2 pm, is expected to be brief as Justice Bagchi, who leads the Bench, has to preside over a special bench at 3 pm. 'The court might give further directions after taking a note of the report,' the person cited earlier said.