Calcutta High Court Refuses To Stall WB Govt's Cattle Slaughter Rules Ahead Of Eid, Orders State To Clarify 'Cow Sacrifice Not Religious Requirement'

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday refused to stay the West Bengal government's notification regulating cattle slaughter ahead of Eid-ul-Azha, holding that the May 13 notification merely implemented earlier unchallenged directions issued by the Court itself in 2018.

However, in a significant direction, the division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen ordered the State to amend the impugned notice by expressly incorporating that slaughter of animals, including cows and buffaloes, in open public places is strictly prohibited and that “sacrifice of a cow is no part of the festival of Id-Uz-Zoha and is not a religious requirement under Islam,” as decided by the Supreme Court in Hanif Quershi v State of Bihar.

The bench was dealing with a batch of PILs and writ petitions challenging the State's recent move to strictly enforce the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 ahead of Bakrid.

The cases centred around a State notification requiring a “fit for slaughter” certificate before slaughter of bulls, bullocks, cows, calves and buffaloes. Under the regime, only animals above 14 years of age or those permanently incapacitated due to age, injury, deformity or incurable disease may qualify for slaughter certification.

Several petitioners, including Trinamool Congress MLA Akhruzzaman, and organisations representing Muslim groups and cattle traders, argued that the notification virtually made Bakrid sacrifices impossible and adversely affected religious practices and the rural economy.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for TMC MP Mahua Moitra, had argued that qurbani under Islam requires the sacrifice of healthy animals and not old or incapacitated cattle. He urged the Court to invoke the exemption clause under Section 12 of the 1950 Act for Eid-ul-Azha.

Farasat had submitted: “I am seeking an exemption for the biggest festival in my religion. Otherwise what is the purpose of the exemption clause?”

The Court, however, held that the impugned notification was merely a written implementation of directions previously issued by a coordinate bench in the 2018 case of Rajyashree Chaudhuri v. State of West Bengal.

The bench observed: “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.”

Holding that the 2018 order had attained finality, the Court ruled: “We find no basis to stay or set aside the public notice dated 13.05.2026.”

HC Directs State To Insert “Cow Sacrifice Not Religious Requirement” Clause

While refusing to interfere with the notification, the Court accepted another PIL seeking stricter implementation of anti-slaughter safeguards.

The bench directed the State to immediately amend the notification to include two additional clauses drawn from the 2018 judgment: I) Slaughter of animals including cows and buffaloes in open public places is strictly prohibited. II) Sacrifice of a cow is not an essential religious requirement of Islam.

The Court reproduced the earlier ruling which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar to hold that cow sacrifice is not mandatory under Islam.

State Asked To Decide Exemption Pleas Within 24 Hours

In a relief for petitioners seeking permission for Bakrid sacrifices, the High Court directed the State government to take a decision within 24 hours on requests for exemption under Section 12 of the 1950 Act.

The Court noted the State's admission that Section 12 is an enabling provision empowering the government to grant exemptions for religious purposes.

“Considering the fact that the festivals may take place on 27/28th of this month, the State shall take a decision in this regard within 24 hours from the date of communication of this order,” the bench directed.

No Interim Relief On Constitutionality Challenge

The High Court declined interim relief in petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the 1950 Act.

The Court held: “No case for grant of interim relief is made out. The aspect of constitutionality will be considered after exchange and completion of pleadings by the parties."

Submissions at the Bar

Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya mounted a sweeping constitutional challenge against Sections 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the 1950 Act, arguing that the legislation had become obsolete and impractical.

He contended that the law was framed in an era when agriculture depended on cattle and buffaloes, but modern technology had rendered such considerations irrelevant.

Calling the legislation a “dead letter law,” Bhattacharya argued: “If the law is not implemented for a very long time, it loses its force.”

He also pointed to allegedly absurd procedural requirements, including payment of ₹1 non-judicial stamp fees per animal and the absence of functioning slaughterhouses across much of the State.

The bench, however, refused interim relief and emphasized the presumption of constitutionality attaching to a statute that has existed for over 76 years.

The Court observed: “It is trite that there exists presumption of constitutionality of a statutory provision unless it is specifically declared as unconstitutional.”

Additional Solicitor General Ashok Kr. Chakraborty defended the notification, arguing that it flowed directly from prior High Court directions that were never challenged.

“It is not the case that the notification contravenes the judgement, but confines itself to it,” the ASG argued.

The State government also maintained that no mala fides had been alleged and insisted that the notification only operationalized existing statutory provisions.

Counsel for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation further submitted that no applications for slaughter certificates had yet been received despite the existence of designated officers and slaughter infrastructure.

Case Title AKHRUZZAMAN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. and batch

Case No. WPA(P)/243/2026 and connected matters.

Click here to read order