Sacrifice Of Cow Is No Part Of Festival Of Id-Uz-Zuha: Calcutta High Court Upholds West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Compliance Notice
The Court directed the State to consider adding prohibition on open public slaughter and clarify that cow sacrifice is not an essential Islamic practice; constitutional challenge to 1950 Act kept pending.
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with the West Bengal Government’s public notice dated May 13, 2026 prescribing compliance guidelines under the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950, holding that the impugned notice merely implemented earlier judicial directions that had already attained finality. The Bench directed the State to decide pending exemption requests under Section 12 of the 1950 Act within 24 hours in view of the approaching festival dates.
The Bench further directed the State to consider immediately amending the notice by incorporating two additional conditions earlier mandated by the High Court, namely, that slaughter of animals including cows and buffaloes in open public places is strictly prohibited, and that sacrifice of cows is not an essential religious requirement under Islam, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar 1975 SCC OnLine SC 17.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen while dismissing multiple petitions seeking to quash or stay the notice, noted that the conditions contained therein substantially mirrored directions earlier issued by a coordinate Bench in 2018. It observed, “The Act of 1950 is a statute which is prevailing since 76 years. It is trite that there exists presumption of constitutionality of a statutory provision unless it is specifically declared as unconstitutional. Thus, no case for grant of interim relief is made out. The aspect of constitutionality will be considered after exchange and completion of pleadings by the parties. The prayer for interim relief is declined”.
“…we are inclined to direct that the State shall take a decision in the teeth of Section 12 of the Act of 1950 regarding exemption prayed for by certain petitioners. Considering the fact that the festivals may take place on 27/28th of this month, the State shall take a decision in this regard within 24 hours from the date of communication of this order”, the Bench further directed.
Advocate Debjani Dasgupta appeared for the petitioner and Ashok Kr. Chakraborty, A.S.G.I, Senior Advocates Dhiraj Trivedi, Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Senior Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.
The batch of petitions challenged the State’s public notice dated May 13 2026 issued ahead of the Id-Uz-Zoha festival. Several petitioners argued that the notice-imposed conditions contrary to the 1950 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, while others sought exemption under Section 12 of the Act. Separate petitions also challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the statute.
The State, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and State counsel, argued that the impugned notice merely reproduced directions already issued by the High Court in earlier proceedings, including Rajyashree Chaudhuri v. State of West Bengal & Ors. WP 328 of 2018. It was contended that those earlier orders had attained finality and therefore could not be reopened indirectly through fresh writ proceedings.
Accepting the State’s submission, the Bench observed that a comparison between the 2018 directions and the present notice made it crystal clear that the public notice had been issued solely for implementing prior judicial directions. Since the earlier order remained unchallenged, the Court held that no grounds existed to stay or quash the notice.
At the same time, the Bench noted deficiencies highlighted during the hearing regarding the practical mechanism for obtaining slaughter certificates under the Act. The Court observed that the State should examine whether adequate infrastructure, authorised officers and slaughter facilities existed across West Bengal for lawful implementation of the statute, and expressed hope that any deficiencies would be rectified expeditiously.
While disposing of one PIL, the Court directed the State to consider incorporating two omitted conditions from the earlier 2018 order into the present notice forthwith.
“In our opinion, Act of 1950 takes care of the relief prayed for by the petitioner and we have no doubt that State will endeavour to implement the Act and Rules made thereunder in its true spirit”, it noted.
Cause Title: Ramkrishna Pal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. W.P.A. (P) 236 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioner: Debjani Dasgupta, Advocate.
Respondents: Ashok Kr. Chakraborty, A.S.G.I., Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Rashmi Bothra, Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Standing Counsel, Dhiraj Trivedi, Sr. Adv., Debjani Ghosal, Nilotpal Chatterjee, Tanushree Dasgupta, Bikash Kr. Singh, Sunil Gupta, Anamika Pandey, Amrita Pandey, Sayani Roy Chowdhury, Swapna Jha, Supriti Sarkhel, Advocates.