SC refuses to hear petition on animal sacrifice at Vishalgad
Supreme Court
on Friday refused to hear an urgent petition filed against an order passed by Bombay high court allowing animal sacrifice in a dargah at Vishalgad in Kolhapur on Bakri-Eid.
The counsel, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, said the high court had allowed animal sacrifice for Urs from June 8 to June 12. On June 3, a vacation bench of the high court, comprising Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Firdosh Pooniwalla, noted that a detailed order on June 14, 2024, allowed sacrifice of animals and birds in "a closed and private area" near the Dargah and not in any "open or public place".
Meanwhile, a heavy police force was deployed at Vishalgad, ahead of Bakri Eid on Saturday. Superintendent of Kolhapur Police, Yogesh Kumar Gupta, said, "A meeting has been conducted by all the stakeholders from administration like the collector's office, forest department, revenue department, animal husbandry, and police. A heavy police force, along with SRPF troop, has been deployed at the fort. We will follow the court orders.
"
Members of the Hindu outfits demanded, through a written statement, that the administration should not allow Urus to take place at the fort and that surveillance via CCTV cameras should be maintained at the fort. They insisted that the administration should ensure that slaughtering occurs only in areas permitted by the high court, and that too behind closed doors. The Hindu outfits also demanded immediate cancellation of the proposal to construct a slaughterhouse at Moshi village near Alandi in Pune on a 4-acre plot of land.
State medical education minister Hasan Mushrif said on Friday, "Festivals should be celebrated peacefully, and citizens should ensure that the law and order situation is maintained."
Police paraded through the main roads of the city.
The procession concluded at Dasara Chowk.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Eid wishes
,
messages
, and
quotes
!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
'Digvijaya calls Hafiz 'sahab', finds communalism in Kanwar Yatra': BJP's Sudhanshu Trivedi
New Delhi: Political mercury soared over remarks made by senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh and Samajwadi Party leader ST Hasan on the annual Kanwar Yatra, prompting a sharp counterattack from the BJP. Addressing the media, BJP MP and national spokesperson Dr Sudhanshu Trivedi accused both leaders of spreading an anti-Hindu narrative and attempting to defame a long-standing spiritual tradition. Sudhanshu Trivedi said the statements made by both Singh and Hasan reflect the same ideological framework that has repeatedly opposed Hindu traditions. He alleged that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's participation in foreign conferences like 'Dismantling Global Hindutva' and events aimed at 'eradicating Sanatan Dharma' in Chennai stems from this mindset. 'Digvijaya Singh sees Zakir Naik as a 'messenger of peace,' refers to Osama bin Laden as 'Osama ji,' and calls Hafiz Saeed 'Hafiz Sahab'. But when it comes to the Kanwar Yatra, he suddenly finds communalism in it,' Trivedi said. He questioned ST Hasan's alignment with groups allegedly concealing their identity. 'Why does he stand with people who hide their names and religious affiliation?' Trivedi asked. Continuing his attack, the BJP leader remarked that the Congress is so consumed by anti-Modi sentiment that its leaders are unable to differentiate between truth and misinformation. 'This is the result of being gripped by a distorted 'Modi-Virodhi' mindset,' he said, adding that such an obsession leads to a poor understanding of basic facts. Congress veteran Digvijaya Singh had earlier said that while there is no objection to state governments facilitating the yatra, trouble arises when such religious events are allegedly used to spread hatred. 'In a civilised society, the spread of hatred cannot be justified,' he stated. Former MP ST Hasan had also alleged that during the Kanwar Yatra in Uttarakhand, some Hindu groups were reportedly questioning the religious identity of hotel staff and local shopkeepers. 'Asking people for their names or making them undress to confirm their religion is a form of terrorism,' Hasan said. He compared the alleged incidents to past terrorist acts where victims were targeted based on their religion, referring to the Pahalgam massacre. Trivedi also took a jibe at former police officer and Congress leader Ajoy Kumar, accusing him of lacking basic knowledge about India's geography. 'How can someone who served in the police force be unaware of India's northeastern region unless blinded by political bias?' he said. Addressing a press conference, Kumar, who is a former MP from Jamshedpur, had talked about India's "deteriorating relations" with neighbouring countries and blamed the BJP-led government at the Centre for the situation. He had cited examples of Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and ended up naming 'Sikkim' as well. Expressing surprise, the BJP spokesperson said it is ironic that the Congress—under whose regime the Emergency was imposed—now lectures on democratic values. 'They've forgotten that the darkest phase of Indian democracy happened under Indira Gandhi,' he stated. He asked the Congress to remove their 'anti-Modi lens' and look at the true picture of the country. 'Only then will they be able to see the real map and face of the nation,' he added.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
How basic structure doctrine protects constitutional rights
The Constitution of India enshrines a vision of justice — social, economic, and political — and a commitment to equality in status and opportunity. But history has shown us that these ideals are often contested terrain. In the early decades after independence, as India grappled with urgent demands for land reform, social equity, and economic stability, the pillars of democracy — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary — often stood at odds. From the 1950s until the 1970s, India was crying out for reforms — agrarian and economic. Land redistribution was key, but it clashed directly with the constitutional right to property — then a Fundamental Right under Articles 19 and 31. After years of wars, economic disparities, and political turmoil, public pressure on the government was mounting, and so the government moved to abolish the zamindari system by acquiring private property. But this clashed with the Fundamental Right to Property under Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. These reforms were challenged in courts; some were struck down. In response, Parliament passed the First Amendment in 1951, introducing Article 31A, Article 31B, and the Ninth Schedule to shield such laws from judicial review. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) was the first case to test this. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, a zamindar, challenged the First Amendment Act, arguing that the State cannot make any law which takes away fundamental rights. But the Supreme Court disagreed. The court ruled that Parliament could indeed amend the Constitution — including the part on Fundamental Rights. Soon after Shankari Prasad, a Jalandhar-based family, the Golaknaths, which owned vast farmlands, reopened the same questions, challenging the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953. Once again, the spotlight was on a single, seismic question: Could Parliament rewrite the Fundamental Rights? In Golaknath, the Supreme Court — by the slimmest of margins, 6:5 — drew the line. Fundamental Rights are 'transcendental' and 'immutable' — and therefore are beyond the reach of Parliament. This sent shockwaves through political corridors. Riding on a landslide victory in the fifth Lok Sabha elections, the government wasted no time in flexing its muscle. Within five months Parliament bulldozed through the 24th Amendment, expressly granting Parliament the power to amend any provision of the Constitution and tied the President's hands by mandating assent to any constitutional amendment bill. The battle wasn't over. The clash between Parliament's desire for reform and the judiciary's role as guardian of the Constitution was about to reach its biggest showdown in the history of India — Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala (1973). Kesavananda Bharti challenged the limit of property one can hold under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The question — can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights — rose again. The courtroom witnessed the finest from the Bombay Bar — Nani Palkhivala, Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee — defending the petitioner and a determined HM Seervai represented the government in what would become India's longest argued case with the largest constitutional bench ever assembled. The Supreme Court overturned the Golaknath verdict, ruling that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its 'basic structure'. That structure — a democratic, secular, federal republic which preserves separation of powers — is the very DNA of India. It gave birth to the basic structure doctrine, a safeguard against unchecked parliamentary power. But, this legal victory was only the beginning. Two years later, the judiciary faced the same questions at a time when India's political waters churned with unrest. Severe fiscal and oil crises resulted in bold economic reforms. An electoral triumph in light of powerful social movements led a presumptuous government to take drastic steps to cling to power. On June 25, 1975, a national Emergency was declared. Civil liberties were suspended, dissent was crushed, and the very essence of democracy was threatened. The Emergency was more than a political crisis — as the government suspended fundamental rights, the Constitution's basic structure was once again under siege. As we mark 50 years since that day, the lessons remain urgent. The 'basic structure' isn't just a legal doctrine — it's the first and last line of defence. The memory of this dark day urges us to protect judicial independence, civil liberties, and tolerate dissent — because without checks, freedoms, and the liberty to speak out, democracy is just a word. Insiyah Vahanvaty is an author and journalist and Ashish Bharadwaj is professor and dean of BITS Law School. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Court's pivot on social justice
Caste-based reservation in employment is an important feature of the social justice architecture envisaged in the Indian Constitution. It covered the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the early years after Independence, and was extended to the other backward classes (OBCs) after the Centre accepted the Mandal Commission in 1990. Meanwhile, political mobilisations provided the thrust to the making of a legislative climate favourable to the introduction of laws mandating quotas in various public institutions. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, supported these moves and, in fact, nurtured the vision that some form of affirmative action is necessary to realise the Constitutional ideal of building an egalitarian democracy through judgments that fine-tuned the reservation policy. Ironically, the Supreme Court, which is authorised by the Constitution to set its own rules on its functioning, had forgotten to implement this vision in its institutional structure, though multiple high courts had introduced reservations. PREMIUM Importantly, Justice Gavai's initiative to adopt a reservation-in-promotion policy for the apex court will have a bearing on other public institutions as well. (ANI) Which is why Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai's June 24 curricular, first reported in HT, that introduced a formal policy of reservation in the direct appointment and promotion for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) staff working in the apex court, is historic. To be sure, the policy does not extend to the appointment of judges, though the collegium is trusted to ensure that the judiciary is representative of the larger society. Nor does it extend to OBCs: The lack of compatibility between state and central lists make extending reservation to the OBCs a tricky affair, but surely, the Court will work its way around the problem. Importantly, Justice Gavai's initiative to adopt a reservation-in-promotion policy for the apex court will have a bearing on other public institutions as well. Legal and procedural complications had stymied affirmative action in promotions leading to skewed representation in higher posts. The establishment of a model roster and an updated register are steps that should help ensure internal accountability in promotions. The Supreme Court's experience could offer a template for other institutions, which have been reluctant to crack the glass ceiling in promotions. Besides cementing the legacy of Justice Gavai, only the second Dalit CJI, the initiative has sought to address a major incongruence in the working of the Constitution's social justice vision. Representation is an essential feature of constitutional democracy in India. It's a welcome step when it aligns the apex court with that vision.
