Calcutta High Court Reserves Order On Challenge To Bengal Govt's Cattle Slaughter Restrictions Ahead Of Eid

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday (May 21) reserved its order in a batch of petitions challenging the West Bengal government's recent notification regulating the slaughter of cattle ahead of Eid-ul-Azha.

The petitioners, including TMC MP Mahua Moitra, contended that the restrictions would adversely impact religious practices and the rural economy. This comes after the State govt clarified that only animals above 14 years age or permanently disabled would be 'fit' to be slaughtered. 

The matter was moved before a division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen by Trinamool Congress MLA Akhruzzaman. TMC MP Mahua Moitra also appeared during the hearing. Moitra and other petitioners have challenged a notification issued earlier this month under the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950, which requires veterinary assessment regarding the age and physical condition of cattle before slaughter permission is granted.

The challenge concerns a state notification mandating a “fit certificate” before slaughter of bulls, bullocks, cows, calves and buffaloes. Under the notification, only animals above 14 years of age or those permanently incapacitated due to injury, deformity, old age or incurable disease would qualify for slaughter after certification by the authorities.

Economically easier to sacrifice larger animal

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat appearing for TMC leader Mahua Moitra, urged that he had only sought for interim relief. He said that the 1950 Act is structured against religious sacrifice.

Farasat said that Section 4 states that only animals above 14 years age can be sacrificed. He said that Bakrid sacrifice pertains to “qurbani” of only a healthy animal and not of an old or maimed animal.

"Therefore exemption must become even more important. Any religious practise is an exempted category. All my arguments are for exemption. Under the law, the State can exempt the slaughter of animal for “any” religious purpose. If exemption cannot be granted for this purpose, there will be no other purpose at all," he said.

He said that on Bakr-eid an animal is sacrificed for one person. Thus a larger animal covers 7 people wherein a smaller animal covers one person and so the masses can only afford larger animals.

Farasat said that the Supreme Court had observed that when a family of 7 can sacrifice one large animal, they may not be able to afford 7 smaller animals. Thus, Farasat said, the Apex Court had taken note of "economic compulsion" over religious compulsion.

Farasat said that the Supreme Court judgment granted exemption for cows. "Cows may have some relevance regarding hurting others sentiments. But for buffaloes bullocks and oxen, there is no such exemption," he said.

He further submitted that this issue is also pending in the Supreme Court regarding protection of Essential Religious Practice. "Is only essential religious practise protected or even other practises? That has now been reserved by the SC," he said.

Farasat submitted that Eid-Al-Adha was falling on May 27/28 and urged the court to grant an exemption for animal sacrifice for religious purpose.

Can grant exemption for religious sacrifice

He said, "High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance according to law or pass an order itself directing the performance of the activity. This court can direct them to do it in a certain way".

The court asked if slaughtering constituted an offence to which Farasat said that it was punishable with six month imprisonment and fine and was thus seeking an an exemption.

Concluding the senior counsel submitted, "Sacrifice for religious purpose has a different legislative treatment. I am seeking an exemption for the biggest festival in my religion. Otherwise what is the purpose of the exemption clause?". 

During the hearing one of the petitioner's argued that he had sought stopping of cow slaughtering. Emphasizing that he had sought ban on slaughtering all together, the petitioner said that the "qurbani made on Bakerid" slaughters innocent and voiceless animals. 

Another petitioner had sought a direction to the authorities to issue guidelines regarding lawful performance of qurbani on Eid according to the laws and to notify public slaughter houses; and not to subject citizens to unlawful harassment by unlawful groups.

Law unused for long time, loses force

Meanwhile senior advocate Bikash Bhattacharya appearing for another petitioner said that the Act seeks to control the slaughter of animals and its objective is to perseve animals for agriculture. On difficulty in the application of the Act the senior counsel said:

"Now the agriculture is no longer dependent on buffaloes or cows. The technology has developed. Admittedly this Act has operation only in municipal areas which were municipalities in 1952. Not beyond that. Because it came to force in 1952. Except Calcutta municipality and Kalimpong, this is not applicable anywhere else. Now to show the purpose of the statute, the Act says that 'No person shall slaughter any animal without a certificate'. The panchayat samitis under the Act were never notified. I don't know how you can determine the age of an animal without biological testing…"

Bhattacharya said that as per the law, any person aggrieved by the refusal to issue certificate may within 15 days appeal to the State government. He further said that it had been notified that a fee of ₹1 per animal must be paid in non judicial stamp and argued that today one cannot find ₹1 rupee in their pocket.

"I have to purchase a stamp of ₹1 today per animal. This is absurd and impractical. Law is not static. It has to be implemented dynamically," he emphasized. 

He further said that the municipality has to maintain a slaughter house under the Act adding that he did not know if there are any such slaughter houses in West Bengal.

He said that as per the relevant Rules, the Act shall not apply to religious, medical, etc. purposes as long as it doesn't affect the religious sensitivity of neighbours or law and order. The senior counsel said that the exception was there in the law wherein slaughter was allowed for religious purposes. 

"If the law is not implemented for a very long time, it loses its force. In any case, the notification is inconsistent with the Act," he said. 

Cattle traders facing hardships

He said that people were facing such "hardships" as they were not being able to carry out their rituals. 

"I am told that cattle traders all belonging to different faiths are all suffering. It is not possible to get a fitness certificate to slaughter at the present time," he said emphasizing that cattle sellers were getting affected by the notification in question. 

He said that Bakr-Eid is on May 28 and the notice by the State government was issued on May 13. He thus said that the 15 day period for filing appeal before the authority had vanished, thereby contravening fairness and non arbitrariness. 

He further said that the State may put restrictions for health purpose and regulate the sale,  but urged that the ritual may be allowed to be continued while maintaining all health restrictions and earmarking areas.

Bhattacharya said that if a law has suffered from long disuse, it may be repealed under the "doctrine of desuetude". This, was because, citizens don't have to act according to dead letter laws that are not implemented. 

"People cannot be prosecuted for violating laws that have become dead letter as everyone is entitled to their fundamental rights," he added. However the court asked that on several occasions many benches of the high court have dealt with the constitutionality of the 1950 Act.

"If this Act was not in use, there would be no occasion to file any petitions. Notifications have been issued every year. Is it fair to say the Act was not in use?," the court inquired. 

The court said that a division bench of the court had passed directions under the 1950 Act in 2018. Bhattacharya however argued that the statute suffered from implied repeal before. He said that the law was virtually repealed being "unused from 1950 to 2017" till the High Court passed orders. 

He thus said that the petitioner was asking for a stay of the notification and for the State to ensure that the animals' health is fit for slaughtering. 

Notification issued after high court order which is unchallenged

Additional Solicitor General Ashoke Chakrabarti appearing for the Union of India submitted that the notification comes from an unchallenged order of the high court. He said that if the judgement prevails, then no argument can be accepted

"It is not the case that the notification contravenes the judgement, but confines itself to it," he said. 

The ASG referring to a Supreme Court order and said that animal sacrifice on Bakr-eid is an "optional" religious practise and not covered under Article 21. 

He said that there was no question of any provision of the Act having been struck down

"There can be no differentiation of healthy and unhealthy cows. Their figures are from 2019. Large number of cows are being smuggled to Bangladesh, because of no border fencing. Thus the population is going down," he added. He further submitted that no animal shall be slaughtered except in a licensed slaughter house

He said that the court may or may not grant exception adding that earlier the high court had also made exceptions for animal slaughter on bolla kali puja. 

No malafides alleged against State

Counsel appearing for State of West Bengal that the notification was not independent but was passed in compliance with the High Court order. 

The State said, "Can a statue or notification be challenged if there is no mala fides? No one has pleaded mala fides by the State. This is applicable to the whole of West Bengal. So far as the implementation of the mechanism is concerned, none of the applicants have applied for certificates under this Act". 

At this stage the court orally said, "A decision must be taken if you are willing to make an exemption or not". To which the State said that it is bound by the court's order. 

Meanwhile counsel for Kolkatta Municipal Corporation supporting the notice submitted, that the high court had directed the State to make wide publication of a notice within 10 days

He said that there was wide publicity of the notice and so now, no one can say they are suffering because it was a sudden step by the State. 

"There is no distinction between buffaloes and cows under the (1950) Act. What is their prayer? They want to slaughter any cow anywhere in West Bengal? There are restrictions. No place other than municipal slaughter house shall be used as a slaughterhouse" he added. 

He said that even under the KMC Act the punishments are in tune with the Act of 1950

The counsel said that the State had issued notices for implementation after the directions of the high court, wherein people have been violating the State's and courts directives.

"As on date we don't have designated slaughterhouse for slaughter of cows. But there are designated officers. As of yesterday we have received no application for slaughter," he added. 

After hearing all the parties the court reserved its verdict.

Case: AKHRUZZAMAN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS and batch

Case No: WPA(P)/243/2026