Bombay High Court refuses urgent plea to shut slaughterhouses for nine days during Paryushan

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) declined to grant urgent relief to several Jain charitable trusts seeking a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses in Mumbai during the ongoing Jain festival, Paryushan Parv. The Court said while it respects the community’s sentiments, it cannot pass such an order without statutory backing. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing petitions filed by Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities, Swetambar Murtipujak Tapagachha Jain Sangh Trust, Sheth Bherulalji Kaniyalalji Kothari Religious Trust, and Shree Tapagachha Uday Kalyan Jain Swetambar Muntipujak Trust challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) August 14 order, which permits closures of slaughterhouses only on August 24 and August 27 (Ganesh Chaturthi). 

“We respect your sentiments. But tell us, from where do you derive the right to ask for slaughterhouses to be closed for 10 days? You are seeking a writ of mandamus. For that, there has to be a mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that that slaughterhouses must be closed for 10 days?” the Bench asked. 

Representing the petitioners, senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, advocates Abhinav Chandrachud and Shreyash Shah argued that Paryushan Parv is the most sacred period in Jainism, marked by fasting, meditation, and ahimsa (non-violence). They submitted that animal slaughter during this time causes emotional and spiritual distress and violates their rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee the freedom to practice and propagate religion.  

The petition said, “The ongoing practice of animal slaughter during Paryushan not only contradicts the ethos of the festival but also deeply hurts religious sentiments.” 

The petition relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 judgment in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat, which upheld a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses in Ahmedabad during Paryushan as a reasonable and constitutional restriction. 

Advocate Chandrachud argued that the principle applies more strongly in Mumbai, where the Jain population is 5.38%, higher than Ahmedabad’s 3.6%, yet the BMC denied similar relief, adding that the plea does not seek a permanent prohibition on meat sales but only a nine-day temporary restriction, “This is a minimal and reasonable accommodation balancing competing rights in a pluralistic society.” 

The Bench pointed out that the Ahmedabad precedent cannot apply directly because, in that case, the municipal corporation itself imposed the ban, “In Ahmedabad, the corporation had taken a decision. In this case, there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, no policy, no legally enforceable right requiring slaughterhouses to be closed. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction.” 

The BMC in its August 14 decision considered logistical factors, highlighting that the Deonar abattoir caters not just to Mumbai but also the entire Mumbai Metropolitan Region. A nine-day shutdown, it said, would disrupt meat supply chains. 

It further noted that the State government already mandates 16 annual closure days for religious festivals, including Mahavir Jayanti and Ganesh Chaturthi. 

Advocate Dhakephalkar argued that the BMC wrongly considered the total population of Mumbai, “They must have considered the population of Jains in comparison only to non-vegetarians. They even counted vegetarians against the Jains. In fact, there is also Shravan going on in Maharashtra, so half the non-vegetarians aren’t eating non-veg.” 

Citing the petition of Hinsa Virodhak Sangh in SC, he added, “If Emperor Akbar could forbid meat-eating for six months in a year in Gujarat, is it unreasonable to abstain from meat for nine days in a year in Ahmedabad today?”  

The court advised the petitioners to amend their plea to directly challenge the BMC’s August 14 order instead of seeking a blanket court directive. The court issued notice to BMC and adjourned the matter for two weeks.