The Calcutta High Court on Monday remarked that it would be unrealistic to expect all of Eastern India to adopt veganism..A vacation bench of Justices Biswajit Basu and Ajay Kumar Gupta made the observation while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the sacrifice of more than 10,000 animals at Kolkata’s Bolla Raksha Kali Temple on Friday."One thing is clear, if it is ultimately a goal to make all of Eastern part of India vegan, this is not...The Advocate General cannot live without a piece of fish everyday!"Appearing for the State, Advocate General (AG) Kishore Datta agreed, saying,"I am strictly non-vegetarian!".During the hearing, the Bench asked the petitioner counsel whether the PIL targeted a specific temple or aimed to halt animal sacrifices more broadly.Counsel for the petitioner clarified that the PIL was focused on the Bolla Raksha Kali Temple, where, after the Raas Poornima festival, more than 10,000 animals, mainly goats and buffaloes, are sacrificed each Friday.The counsel argued that such a practice was not an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 of the Constitution. The Bench questioned the counsel, "How can you say so? How can you come to this conclusion? How can you say this not an essential religious practice? Religious practices in this part of Bengal - the Eastern part - do not resemble those in the Northern part. And it is really in controversy whether mythical characters were really vegetarian or really non-vegetarian."In response, the counsel said that symbolic sacrifice can happen, but there is no need to sacrifice more than 10,000 animals in a day."You cannot restrict it in that way...it may shock our conscience because I know persons who eat chicken but cannot see killing of chickens for offerings," the Court said..AG Datta contended that the petition lacked public interest. He pointed out rulings from the Supreme Court that indicated that only legislation, not court orders, can impose a ban on religious sacrifices. He also highlighted Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which allows killing of animals as part of the religion of any community.The petitioner's counsel then said that pollution from these sacrifices raised environmental concerns.To this, the Bench said that if environmental harm results from the practice, the State would need to address it."Today, if I direct all animal sacrifice to be stopped, how can it be implemented?" Justice Basu remarked..The vacation bench was then told that a similar PIL is already pending before a regular bench. It thus directed that the petitioner's plea be clubbed with the matter pending before the regular bench.
The Calcutta High Court on Monday remarked that it would be unrealistic to expect all of Eastern India to adopt veganism..A vacation bench of Justices Biswajit Basu and Ajay Kumar Gupta made the observation while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the sacrifice of more than 10,000 animals at Kolkata’s Bolla Raksha Kali Temple on Friday."One thing is clear, if it is ultimately a goal to make all of Eastern part of India vegan, this is not...The Advocate General cannot live without a piece of fish everyday!"Appearing for the State, Advocate General (AG) Kishore Datta agreed, saying,"I am strictly non-vegetarian!".During the hearing, the Bench asked the petitioner counsel whether the PIL targeted a specific temple or aimed to halt animal sacrifices more broadly.Counsel for the petitioner clarified that the PIL was focused on the Bolla Raksha Kali Temple, where, after the Raas Poornima festival, more than 10,000 animals, mainly goats and buffaloes, are sacrificed each Friday.The counsel argued that such a practice was not an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 of the Constitution. The Bench questioned the counsel, "How can you say so? How can you come to this conclusion? How can you say this not an essential religious practice? Religious practices in this part of Bengal - the Eastern part - do not resemble those in the Northern part. And it is really in controversy whether mythical characters were really vegetarian or really non-vegetarian."In response, the counsel said that symbolic sacrifice can happen, but there is no need to sacrifice more than 10,000 animals in a day."You cannot restrict it in that way...it may shock our conscience because I know persons who eat chicken but cannot see killing of chickens for offerings," the Court said..AG Datta contended that the petition lacked public interest. He pointed out rulings from the Supreme Court that indicated that only legislation, not court orders, can impose a ban on religious sacrifices. He also highlighted Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which allows killing of animals as part of the religion of any community.The petitioner's counsel then said that pollution from these sacrifices raised environmental concerns.To this, the Bench said that if environmental harm results from the practice, the State would need to address it."Today, if I direct all animal sacrifice to be stopped, how can it be implemented?" Justice Basu remarked..The vacation bench was then told that a similar PIL is already pending before a regular bench. It thus directed that the petitioner's plea be clubbed with the matter pending before the regular bench.
