Bombay High Court Poses Crucial Question: "Where Do You Get The Right?" to Jains Seeking Slaughterhouse Ban

The hallowed halls of the Bombay High Court recently became the arena for a profound discussion on fundamental rights, as it critically addressed a plea from members of the Jain community. The petitioners sought a directive to close all slaughterhouses and meat shops in Mumbai for a period coinciding with their sacred 'Paryushan' and 'Anant Chaturdashi' festivals.

During the hearing, a division bench comprising Justice G.S.

Kulkarni and Justice F.P. Pooniwalla posed a direct and piercing question to the petitioners: "Where do you get the right to ask for closure of slaughterhouses or meat shops?" This query immediately cut to the heart of the matter, challenging the very premise of imposing one community's religious observances on others through legal means.

The Jain community's plea, rooted in the principle of 'Ahimsa' or non-violence, aims to prevent the taking of life during their most revered festivals.

They argued for their constitutional right to religious freedom under Article 25 and 26, asserting that a ban on slaughter and meat sales during these sensitive periods would allow them to observe their religious tenets without perceived interference or contradiction.

However, the Court highlighted a crucial counterpoint: the rights of other citizens.

"Other people have a right to eat what they want to," the bench observed, underscoring that the state's primary role is to ensure harmonious co-existence rather than favoring one community's dietary or spiritual practices over another's fundamental freedoms. The judges pointed out that while the festivals are deeply significant to the Jain community, asking others to abstain from meat for an extended period of 8-10 days could be seen as an infringement on their rights.

The discussion also touched upon historical precedents.

The petitioners referred to a Supreme Court decision from 2015, which had upheld a nine-day ban on the sale of meat in Ahmedabad during 'Paryushan'. Yet, the Bombay High Court carefully noted that this specific ruling did not automatically set a universal precedent, suggesting that each case must be evaluated on its own merits and local context.

Furthermore, a 2008 Bombay High Court order had permitted the closure of slaughterhouses for two days during the 'Paryushan' period, indicating a more limited scope for such restrictions.

The Brihanhanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has historically implemented such bans for a couple of days during the period, reflecting a prior understanding of limited accommodation.

The current plea, however, sought a more extensive restriction, prompting the court to delve deeper into the constitutional implications.

This ongoing legal discourse serves as a vital reminder of the complex interplay between religious freedom, individual rights, and the state's responsibility to maintain a secular and equitable society.

The Bombay High Court's pointed questions emphasize that while religious practices are protected, they cannot unilaterally override the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens. The outcome of this plea will undoubtedly set an important precedent for future cases involving similar demands for restrictions based on religious observations.