The Calcutta High Court stated on Monday that it would be impractical to anticipate the entire Eastern India region to embrace veganism.
This comment came from a vacation bench comprising Justices Biswajit Basu and Ajay Kumar Gupta while they were addressing a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to prohibit the sacrifice of over 10,000 animals at the Bolla Raksha Kali Temple in Kolkata 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 inquired whether the petitioner’s counsel was targeting a specific temple or seeking a broader prohibition on animal sacrifices. The petitioner’s counsel clarified that the PIL specifically addressed the practices at the Bolla Raksha Kali Temple, where over 10,000 animals, predominantly goats and buffaloes, are sacrificed each Friday following the Raas Poornima festival. The counsel contended that this practice does not qualify as an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. In response, the Bench posed further questions to 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 stated that while symbolic sacrifices can occur, there is no justification for sacrificing over 10,000 animals in a single 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 argued that the petition did not genuinely serve the public interest. He referenced Supreme Court rulings indicating that bans on religious sacrifices could only be imposed through legislation, not by court orders. He also cited Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which permits the killing of animals as part of a community's religious practices.
In response, the petitioner’s counsel raised concerns about the environmental impact of these sacrifices due to pollution. The Bench replied that if the practice indeed causes environmental harm, it would be the responsibility of the State to address those issues.
"Today, if I direct all animal sacrifice to be stopped, how can it be implemented?" Justice Basu remarked.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy