The ban on slaughtering of bulls under 16 years has been deferred till January 4. Justice S J Vazifdar, vacation judge of the Bombay High Court while hearing the case on Tuesday, granted a stay on an earlier HC order which restricted the slaughter of bulls below 16.
An HC order dated December 15 made it illegal to slaughter bulls below 16. However, on December 22, the state filed a petition for special leave to apply to the Supreme Court challenging the ban.
The division bench while ordering the ban on December 15, said until the state’s bill seeking total ban on slaughter of calves, bulls and bullocks is affirmed by the President, its interim relief of age criteria would contain the slaughter of bulls to some extent.
The order was, however, challenged by Naseem Siddiqui, chairman of the State Minority Commission and Mohammed Rauf Qureshi, chairman of the Beef Dealers’ Welfare Association.
The two petitioners in their application to the High Court said that an age ban like this would directly interfere with the religious feelings, particularly of the Muslim community, and sought interim relief from the court. Traditionally, Muslim families sacrifice either a goat or any other animal that they raise over a period of time on the occasion of Bakri-e-Id and a ban like this would go against their constitutional rights, said the petition.
“Traditionally, the bull or goat that is sacrificed should be young and healthy, the stay will make sure that no such traditions are disturbed on the occasion of Eid,” said Siddiqui.
Moreover, it was noticed that following the ban, the Deonar slaughter house witnessed slack in business, as reported by DNA.
While arguing the case on behalf of the applicants on Tuesday, their counsel, Majeed Memon argued that not only did the interim order affect the religious sentiments of the Muslim community, but also created economic discrepancies as the prices of chicken and mutton had risen with the fall in demand for beef.
Also, seeking a clarification on the ban order specifying the slaughter age, state advocate general, Ravi Kadam said the state would like a two-week stay on the order.
But Justice Vazifdar said that as a vacation judge he could at the most grant a stay on the order and not change or clarify the order of a division bench. The case will now come up for hearing before the regular bench after the court resumes on January 8.
