Calcutta HC Refuses to Stay Bengal's Bakrid Slaughter Notification, Directs Inclusion of Additional Conditions

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday declined to stay the West Bengal Government's notification regulating animal slaughter ahead of Eid-ul-Azha, holding that the May 13 notification merely implements directions previously issued by the High Court in 2018 and therefore warrants no judicial interference at the interim stage.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen was hearing a batch of writ petitions and PILs challenging the State's decision to strictly enforce the provisions of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 ahead of Bakrid.

The controversy arose from a government notification requiring a "fit for slaughter" certificate before the slaughter of specified categories of cattle, including bulls, bullocks, cows, calves and buffaloes. Under the statutory framework, such certificates may be granted only in respect of animals above a prescribed age or those rendered permanently unfit for work or breeding due to injury, deformity, age or incurable disease.

Among the petitioners were organisations representing cattle traders and members of the Muslim community, who contended that the notification would severely impact the observance of Eid-ul-Azha and adversely affect livelihoods dependent upon the cattle trade.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing in one of the matters, argued that qurbani under Islamic practice contemplates the sacrifice of healthy animals and sought invocation of the exemption power contained in Section 12 of the 1950 Act for the upcoming festival.

Rejecting the challenge to the notification, the Bench noted that the impugned notice was issued pursuant to directions contained in the High Court's earlier judgment in Rajyashree Chaudhuri v. State of West Bengal.

Observing that the 2018 judgment had attained finality, the Court held that the notification merely operationalised those directions and therefore could not be stayed or set aside.

The Court observed that a comparison between the conditions incorporated in the impugned notification and those directed by the Court in 2018 made it clear that the State had only reduced the earlier judicial directions into an enforceable administrative framework.

While refusing to interfere with the notification, the Bench accepted a separate plea seeking stricter implementation of safeguards relating to animal slaughter.

Accordingly, it directed the State Government to amend the notification by incorporating two additional conditions that had also formed part of the Court's earlier directions.

First, the State must expressly state that slaughter of animals, including cows and buffaloes, in open public places is strictly prohibited. Secondly, the notification must clarify that sacrifice of a cow is not an essential religious requirement under Islam, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar.

The Court observed that these conditions had already been directed to be included in public notices issued in connection with Eid-ul-Azha and found no reason why they should not be expressly incorporated in the present notification as well.

In a significant development for petitioners seeking permission for Bakrid sacrifices, the Bench directed the State Government to take a decision within 24 hours on requests seeking exemption under Section 12 of the 1950 Act.

Recording the State's stand that Section 12 is an enabling provision empowering the Government to grant exemptions where warranted, the Court noted the urgency arising from the approaching festival dates and ordered an expeditious decision.

The High Court also considered petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950.

Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya argued that the legislation had become outdated and impractical in present-day circumstances and questioned its continued operation.

However, the Bench declined to grant interim relief, reiterating the settled principle that every statute carries a presumption of constitutionality unless declared otherwise by a competent court.

The Court held that no case for interim intervention had been made out and directed that the constitutional challenge would be examined after completion of pleadings.

Consequently, while most of the petitions were disposed of, the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the 1950 Act remains pending before the Court.

Case Title: Ramkrishna Pal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

Date of Decision: 21.05.2026