Under pressure, BMC limits meat ban to 2 days

Succumbing to public pressure, including open defiance by political parties against the four-day meat ban imposed on slaughter and sale of meat in the city, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on Friday evening withdrew its controversial circular.

The civic body circular, issued on September 1, had stated that sale of meat and slaughtering at abattoirs would be banned on four days – September 10, 13, 17 and 18 – in the city. Shiv Sena and MNS put up a strong resistance, terming the ban as a BJP-imposed one. The Bombay Mutton Dealers' Association, meanwhile, challenged the BMC decision in the high court.

During the hearing, the civic body argued that a two-day state ban was already in operation since 2004 and the corporation had added two more days since 2014. When court asked whether such a ban would be feasible in a metropolitan city like Mumbai, where there are other sources for procuring meat, the corporation advocate said, "The shutting down of abattoirs, the main source of meat, on ban days is to stop its availability outside."

The court, however, asked how, with so much of technological advancement and preservation methods, the stand could be maintainable. Advocate General Anil Sing opposed the petition saying the two-day ban has been in operation since 2004, and should not be disturbed.

The court also raised several questions about why the corporation had extended the ban from closure of abattoirs to sale of meat. It asked, "What is the idea of having the ban on some days and allowing slaughter and sale of meat on other days? Is it that there is no sentiment on one day and the next day you are filled with sentiment? What is the idea behind this?"

The division bench, consisting of Justice Anoop Mohta and Justice A A Sayed, further adjourned the hearing to September 14, when it will be heard for a limited point as to revoking the ban on sale of meat on September 17. The association clarified that it was not against the closure of abattoirs on that day.

The petitioners had claimed that the decision is unconstitutional and favours only a small percentage of population, besides going against the secular fabric of the country.