Back
Calcutta HC Mandates Inclusional Clauses in Cattle Slaughter Notice; Refuses to Stay Enforcement
In a significant judicial development, a Division Bench of the , led by Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, addressed a batch of challenging the ’s recent notification regarding cattle slaughter. The Court notably refused to stay the State’s , notification, holding that it simply codified long-standing, unchallenged judicial directives.
The Conflict: vs. Religious Observance The litigation arises from a State notification that mandates a "fit for slaughter" certificate for bulls, bullocks, cows, calves, and buffaloes in accordance with the . Petitioners, including several religious organizations and civil society groups, contended that the strict enforcement of this 76-year-old legislation, especially just before the festival of Eid-ul-Azha, rendered the tradition of qurbani nearly impossible to practice.
The petitioners sought relief by invoking , an that allows for exemptions. Conversely, the State and the argued that the recent notice was merely a procedural implementation of a landmark 2018 order ( ) that previously reached finality.
Arguments from the Bar Counsel for the petitioners argued that the law has become a " " given the lack of modern infrastructure and functioning slaughterhouses across the state. They highlighted that the law was drafted in an era of agricultural reliance on cattle, suggesting that the procedural hurdles were effectively aimed at curbing personal liberties during religious festivals.
The State maintained that the notification does not introduce new restrictions but enforces safety and administrative standards established by the Court years ago. The (KMC) further noted that despite having established protocols for issuing slaughter certificates, it had received zero applications from the petitioners, casting doubt on the practical urgency of their claims.
Key Observations The judgment relied heavily on the set in , underscoring that certain practices do not fall under protected religious requirements. The Court remarked:
-
"If the conditions mentioned in the impugned notice are examined in juxtaposition to the conditions mentioned by this Court in WP 328 of 2018, it will be crystal clear that the impugned public notice is issued for implementing the order passed by this Court in WP 328 of 2018."
-
"Firstly, slaughter of animals including cows and buffalos in any open public place is strictly prohibited."
-
"Secondly, sacrifice of a cow is no part of the festival of Id-Uz-Zuha and is not a religious requirement under Islam as held by the
in the case of
."
-
"It is trite that there exists
of a statutory provision unless it is specifically declared as unconstitutional."
A Controlled Path Forward While rejecting the stay on the notification, the High Court directed the State to amend the notice to include two critical clarifications: an explicit prohibition on open-air slaughter and a statement reiterating that cow sacrifice is not an in Islam.
In a move addressing the needs of the festive season, the Bench ordered the State to decide on pending applications for exemptions under within 24 hours of receiving the communication of the order. The broader challenge regarding the constitutionality of specific sections of the 1950 Act remains pending, as the Court declined to grant , citing the for long-standing statutes.
This ruling reinforces a delicate balance between animal welfare regulations and the administrative necessity of ensuring religious festivals occur within the bounds of established law.
