On Friday, June 6, the Supreme Court declined to grant an urgent hearing on a petition challenging a recent order by the Bombay High Court. The High Court had permitted animal sacrifice to be performed at a Dargah located within Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur during the upcoming Bakri-Eid celebrations. The petition against this decision was presented before a bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, with the petitioner’s counsel urging for an immediate hearing due to the festival falling the very next day.
The counsel argued that Vishalgad Fort is officially designated as a "protected monument" under a specific notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra. They contended that carrying out animal sacrifice at such a historically and culturally significant site raises serious legal and preservation concerns. Furthermore, the petition highlighted that the High Court's order not only permitted animal sacrifice on Bakri-Eid but also extended the permission for such rituals during the Urus festival, scheduled from June 8 to June 12.
Justice Karol observed that numerous religious activities of various faiths regularly take place within protected monuments. He questioned the urgency of the petition, especially since the High Court had imposed certain conditions and restrictions on the practice of animal sacrifice. The judge appeared confident that the High Court had carefully considered all aspects of the matter before arriving at its decision.
The petitioner’s counsel reminded the bench of last year’s situation when a similar order was passed, allowing animal sacrifice to be conducted within enclosed premises inside the protected monument. The counsel mentioned that the same conditions had been applied in the current order. Justice Karol responded by stating that despite the diverse religious practices taking place within such monuments, the court had to balance these activities with the preservation and maintenance of these sites.
Justice Karol also recounted his personal experience from his tenure as Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court. There, he had issued a ban on animal sacrifice, citing law and order concerns. However, this order was subsequently modified by the Supreme Court, which allowed the practice to continue but strictly within enclosed areas to minimize disruption and maintain decorum. He emphasized this point by stating, "When I was in Tripura, I had prohibited animal slaughter, but the Supreme Court altered the order to permit it within enclosed premises."
The bench acknowledged that while religious sentiments must be respected, they should be harmonized with the need to protect historically significant monuments and maintain public order. Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to intervene immediately, relying on the High Court’s measured approach and restrictions to manage the situation responsibly during the upcoming religious events.
