SC refuses to urgently hear plea against order allowing animal slaughter for Eid-ul-Azha at 'dargah'
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to accord urgent hearing on a plea challenging the Bombay High Court order which permitted animal slaughter for Eid-ul-Azha and Urs at a 'dargah' at Vishalgad fort in Maharashtra's Kolhapur district.The fort is a protected monument, citing which the authorities had prohibited slaughtering of animals and birds on the premises.The plea challenging the high court's June 3 order was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma.
"Tomorrow, Bakri Eid is there and in a protected monument, Vishalgad, in Maharashtra, the high court has permitted slaughter," the counsel, who mentioned the matter, said. He said the high court has allowed animal slaughter in the protected monument area also for Urs till June 12.
"In protected monuments, so many religious activities are going on," the bench observed.The lawyer claimed there was a specific notification of the state of Maharashtra which said animals cannot be slaughtered in the protected area.He said last year, animal slaughter within enclosed premises was permitted by the high court.The counsel said the high court has said in its order that restrictions which were there last year, would apply this year also."Be it of any religion or faith, in a protected monument, so many activities are going on," the bench observed."Let me tell you, sitting in Tripura (high court), I had banned animal slaughter there and then this court modified the order to say, in an enclosed place it would be carried out," Justice Karol said.The counsel then urged the bench to list the matter for hearing next week.
"What is the urgency? The matter would be infructuous," the bench observed.
A vacation bench of the high court had heard an application by Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan Dargah Trust, seeking permission for slaughtering animals. The high court had permitted animal slaughter for Eid-ul-Azha to be celebrated on June 7 and the four-day Urs (fair) to be held from June 8 to 12 at the 'dargah' at Vishalgad fort.It had said the order shall extend not just to the 'dargah' trust but to other devotees too.The high court had said similar permission was granted last year too.It had added that conditions imposed last year like carrying out the animal slaughter only in private and enclosed space specifically at Gate No. 19, which is privately-owned by Mubarak Usman Mujawar, and not in public areas, shall apply this year too.
The Deputy Director of Archaeology had prohibited animal sacrifice at the fort, citing the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act.
The trust argued that the sacrifice was an "age-old practice" conducted on private land 1.4 km away from the fort, and that the meat was distributed to pilgrims and villagers nearby.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
KPCTA to launch stir against FYUGP ‘lapses' in Calicut varsity
The Congress-aligned Kerala Private College Teachers' Association (KPCTA) is launching an agitation against the alleged deficiencies in the implementation of the four-year undergraduate programme (FYUGP) in colleges affiliated with the University of Calicut. According to the Senate and Syndicate members of the KPCTA, the university recently revised a clause related to selection of minor (subsidiary) courses in the regulations for the FYUGP. They claimed on Wednesday that this would deprive students an option to decide the minor course of their choice. They said that the students pursuing undergraduate courses in 33 subjects, including commerce and Afzal-ul-Ulama, would be forced to pick minor courses that they may not like to study. The Senate and Syndicate members alleged that though the original clause in the regulations was more student-friendly, it was changed on the direction of the State Higher Education Council. Syndicate members T.J. Martin and P. Madhu and Senate members V.M. Chacko, Manoj Mathews, P. Sulfi, E. Sreelatha, R. Jayakumar, and G. Sunil Kumar sent letters to Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, also the Chancellor of the university, expressing their concerns. The KPCTA regional committee will organise a protest outside the academic block of the university on July 3.
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.
