Introduction:

In a significant development, the Bombay High Court addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Al-Quraish Human Welfare Association and others against the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners challenged an order by the Principal Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department, which rejected their representation seeking clarity on the definition of ‘animals not suitable for milching, breeding, draught, or agricultural purposes’ under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. The petitioners argued that the absence of a clear definition led to arbitrary decisions regarding the slaughter of such animals.

Arguments:

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The petitioners contended that the term ‘not useful’ was ambiguous and lacked a precise definition in the Act. They argued that this vagueness resulted in inconsistent and arbitrary decisions by authorities, adversely affecting those involved in the lawful slaughter of animals no longer fit for agricultural purposes. The petitioners sought the establishment of clear guidelines to determine when an animal could be deemed ‘not useful’ and thus eligible for slaughter under the Act.

State’s Response:

The State of Maharashtra, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, informed the court that a committee had been constituted on February 20, 2025, headed by a former judge of the High Court. The committee’s mandate was to develop guidelines to identify animals that are no longer useful for milking, breeding, draught, or agricultural purposes, thereby providing clarity on permissible slaughter under the Act.

Court’s Judgment:

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik, acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns regarding the lack of a clear definition for ‘not useful’ animals in the Act. Recognizing the potential for arbitrary enforcement, the court directed the state-appointed committee to formulate appropriate guidelines within four months from the receipt of the order. Furthermore, the court granted the petitioners the liberty to present their views before the committee, ensuring a participatory approach in the guideline formulation process.