‘Easier With Akbar Than BMC’: Jain Trusts Urge Full Slaughterhouse Shutdown Before Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court, on August 20, 2025, considered a clutch of Public Interest Litigations filed by various Jain trusts challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision to close slaughterhouses for only two days during the 10 day Paryushan Parva.

The petitioners had sought a complete ban on the operation of slaughterhouses throughout the festival, arguing that the limited two day closure, as decided by the municipal body, was arbitrary and disregarded religious sentiments.

The petitions were heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne.

The primary grievance was against the BMC’s order dated August 14, 2025, which directed closure of slaughterhouses on August 24 and August 27, two non-consecutive days during Paryushan.

The trusts argued that the decision displayed non-application of mind, as it allegedly relied on irrelevant considerations while ignoring the core principle of Ahimsa central to the Jain community’s faith.

According to the petitioners, a continuous closure of slaughterhouses for the entire duration of Paryushan is essential to maintain the sanctity of their religious observances.

The court, however, posed critical questions to the petitioners regarding the legal foundation for their demand.

It observed that no statutory provision, rule, or policy mandates such an extended closure, making it difficult for the court to issue a writ of mandamus without a corresponding legal obligation.

The bench underscored that judicial intervention must rest on an existing legal right or statutory duty, not merely on moral or religious considerations.

While the petitioners relied on Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which articulates a fundamental duty to show compassion to living creatures, and cited a 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding a nine day slaughterhouse closure in Ahmedabad, the bench noted that the precedent was distinguishable. In that case, the municipal body itself had voluntarily imposed the closure, and the Court had only reviewed the reasonableness of that policy under existing law.

In contrast, the present petitions sought the BMC to take an action that it had consciously refrained from adopting.

Senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, representing one of the trusts, highlighted the perceived inconsistency in BMC’s stance, remarking that convincing the civic body was harder than convincing Emperor Akbar, who historically accommodated Jain sensibilities.

The bench responded that while the court respects all faiths, its powers are confined to “the four corners of law,” and it cannot enforce measures based on faith alone.

Significantly, the bench hinted that if the petitioners intended to pursue the matter further, they should consider challenging the BMC’s decision as arbitrary or irrational under administrative law principles, rather than pressing for a blanket ban unsupported by legislation.

Issuing notices to the State of Maharashtra and the BMC, the bench directed them to respond within two weeks.

Government counsel, including the Advocate General’s panel and lawyers representing BMC and other respondents, accepted notice and waived formal service.

The petitions will now be listed for further hearing after two weeks.

At this stage, the High Court has not granted interim relief, meaning the BMC’s order permitting only two days of closure remains in force. 

Case Title: Shree Kalyanvardha K Swetambar Murtipujak Tapagach HA Jain Sangh Trust and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Date of Order: August 20, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne