ADVERTISEMENT
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ramkrishna Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 May, 2026
21.05.2026
Item Nos.1 to 11
Ct. No.1
W.P.A. (P) 236 of 2026
Ramkrishna Pal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 245 of 2026
Mohammed Zafar Yasin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 253 of 2026
Md. Shakil Warsi
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 250 of 2026
West Bengal State Jamiat-E-Ulama
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 240 of 2026
Vinod Kumar Sharma
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 242 of 2026
Tanweer Khayer
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 243 of 2026
Akhruzzaman
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 244 of 2026
All India Mutawalli Association & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 246 of 2026
Sekh Motiur Rahman
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. (P) 247 of 2026
Citizen Forum For Social Justice & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
2
W.P.A. (P) 248 of 2026
Malay Tewary & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Debjani Dasgupta
.....For the Petitioner [W.P.A. (P) 236 of 2026]
Mr. Meghnad Dutta
Ms. Debarati Das
Mr. Arindam Paul
Ms. Sohini Chowdhury
Ms. Eshika Nandy
Mr. Sudipto P. Ghosh
.....For the Petitioner [W.P.A. (P) 240 of 2026]
Mr. Syed Samsul Arfin
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed
Mr. T. Quassimuddin
Md. Nauroz Rahber
Mr. Mustafijur Rahman
Mr. Afzal Ansari
Ms. Afreen Begum
Ms. Mehbuba Rahman
Mr. Muhammad Jawwad
Mr. H. Rahaman
Ms. Shaheena Parveen
Ms. S. Parveen
Mr. Jennifer Jenni
Mr. Mohammad Arif
Mr. Ataul Mustafa
Mr. Syed N. Islam
Md. E. Akhter
Ms. A. Jana
Mr. Mithun Mondal
Sk. Saidullah
Mr. Altamas Haidar
Mr. Parvej Anam
Syed Nafirul Islam
Md. Arif
Ms. Shreya Das
Md. Ahsanuzzaman
Ms. Mohsina Koyel
Mr. Gholam Shahbaz
Ms. Hareem Fatema
Ms. Afreen Parveen
.....For the Petitioner [W.P.A. (P) 242 of 2026]
Mr. S. Farasat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Babbar
Mr. U. Ali Dewan
Mr. S. Ahamed
Mr. Harshit Anand
Mr. A. Naqui
Mr. K. Warsi
3
Mr. M. Masud
.....For the Petitioner [W.P.A. (P) 243 of 2026]
Mr. T. Quasimuddin
Mrs. Z. Tahur
Md. Rustam
Mr. Gholam Shahbaz
Ms. Hareem Fatema
Ms. Aafreen Parveen
Md. N. Rahber
Mr. A. Ahmed
Mr. M. Jawwad
Ms. S. Parveen
Mr. F. Ahmed
.....For the Petitioners [W.P.A. (P) 244 of 2026]
Mr. Imtiaj Ahmed
Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee
Mr. Syed Nafirul Islam
Md. Babul Hossain
Mr. Yadavendra Siddhant
Ms. Afsana Khan
Mr. Prem Raj Sharma
Mr. Ataul Mustafa
Md. Sayeed Khan
Md. Ejaj Akhtar
Mr. Mithun Mondal
Mr. Parvej Alam Khan
Md. Arif
.....For the Petitioner [W.P.A. (P) 245 of 2026]
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Nandini Mitra
Mr. Samim Ahammed
Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta
Mr. Asish Santra
Mr. Tapas Maity
Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Mondal
Mr. R. Lal Moitra
Syed Chandan Hossain
Mr. Arka Maiti
Ms. Saloni Bhattacharjee
Ms. Ambiya Khatun
Md. Nasirul Haque
Mr. Aminuddin Khan
Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin
Ms. Reshma Khatun
Md. Nazimuddin Siddique
Mr. Huma Shakil
Ms. Shreya Das
Mr. Siladitya Rakshit
Mr. Nazim Uddin Siddiquee
Mr. Enamul Islam
Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya
Mr. Alauddin Ahammed
Md. B. Mir
4
Mr. Asif Iqbal Baidya
Mr. Aminuddin Khan
Ms. Anjana Mehbub
Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty
Ms. Sabnam Mostari
Mr. Altamas Haider
Mr. A. Khan
.....For the Petitioners [W.P.A. (P) 246 of 2026,
W.P.A. (P) 247 of 2026 & W.P.A. (P) 248 of 2026]
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Samim Ahammed
Mr. Arka Maiti
Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya
Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin
Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya
Ms. Ambiya Khatun
Mr. Emanul Islam
Mr. Nasirul Haque
Ms. Reshma Khatun
Mr. Asif Iqbal Baidya
Mr. Huma Shakil
Ms. Sabnam Mostari
Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty
.....For the Petitioners [W.P.A. (P) 247 of 2026
& W.P.A. (P) 248 of 2026]
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M. A. Samad
Mr. Imtiaz Belal
Ms. Priyanka Sharma
Ms. Tanaya Banerjee
Mr. Taher Ahamed
Mr. S. K. Mahbub Hossain
.....For the Petitioner [W.P.A. (P) 250 of 2026]
Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee
Mr. Badrul Karim
Mr. Risabh Ahamad Khan
Mr. Kiran Sk.
Md. Danish
Ms. Shreya Das
Ms. Saumili Karmakar
Mr. Arif Khan
.....For the Petitioner [W.P.A. (P) 253 of 2026]
Mr. Ashok Kr. Chakraborty, Ld. A.S.G.I.
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari
Ms. Rashmi Bothra
.....For the Union of India
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Ld. Sr. Standing
Counsel
Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dibasis Basu
Mr. Arun Bandyopadhyay
Ms. Tanushree Ghosh
Ms. Sudipa Banerjee
5
Ms. Debjani Ghosal
.....For the State of West Bengal
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta
.....For the K.M.C.
Mr. Dhiraj Kr. Trivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bikash Kr. Singh
Mr. Sunil Gupta
Ms. Anamika Pandey
Ms. Amrita Pandey
Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury
Ms. Swapna Jha
Ms. Supriti Sarkhel
.....For the Police Authorities
DICTATED BY SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:
1. In this batch of matters, the principle
challenge relates to the notice dated
13.05.2026 with regard to the guidelines to be
followed or compliance of West Bengal
Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 (Act of
1950). In few matters the constitutionality of
certain provisions of Act of 1950 and the said
notice dated 13.05.2026 are called in
question. Thus, with the consent of parties,
these matters were analogously heard and
present common order is passed.
WPA (P) 242 of 2026, WPA (P) 244 of 2026,
WPA (P) 245 of 2026 & WPA(P) 250 of 2026:
2. In this batch of matters the principle relief of
petitioners is directed against the said notice
dated 13.05.2026 whereby the Government of
West Bengal has prescribed certain conditions
mentioned from Clause (a) to Clause (h). The
learned Counsel for the petitioners has taken
6
pain to submit that the above public notice
runs contrary to the Act of 1950 and the Rules
made thereunder. In support of their
contentions, they placed reliance on certain
judgments as well.
3. Mr. Ashok Kr. Chakraborty, Ld. A.S.G., Mr.
Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Ld. Sr. Standing
Counsel for the State of West Bengal and Sri
Nilotpal Chatterjee, Standing Counsel for KMC
and Sri Dhiraj Kr. Trivedi, Learned Senior
Advocate for the Police Administration,
Government of West Bengal took a common
stand that the public notice dated 13.05.2026
shows that it is passed in compliance of order
dated 16.08.2018 passed by this Court in WP
328 of 2018 and certain other matters. The
orders passed by this Court mentioned in the
first para of the public notice have attained
finality in absence of any challenge. Thus, if in
the notice the directions issued by this Court
are reduced in writing, this coordinate Bench
has no occasion to interfere with the same.
4. In WPA(P) 240 of 2026, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
upon receiving instructions from KMC urged
that the corporation has slaughter houses
which are equipped with necessary
infrastructure. The corporation has also
provided appropriate officials/persons to issue
necessary certificate for the purpose of
7
slaughter. The emphasis is bid by Mr.
Chatterjee on his contention that till date
corporation has not received any application
seeking certificate/permission for slaughter of
animals from the petitioners.
5. Sri Nilotpal Chatterjee for KMC submitted
that the certain relevant provisions are there
in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act,
1980. For Example, Section 428(2) of the Act
is relied upon. Furthermore, Section 610 is
highlighted to submit that it is a penal
provision. Both sides relied on certain
judgments of this Court.
6. We have heard the parties at length. During
the course of hearing, this fact was not
disputed by either of the parties that the
impugned notice dated 13.05.2026 is issued
in compliance of certain orders passed by this
Court details whereof are mentioned in the
first paragraph of the notice.
7. This Court in WP 328 of 2018 (Rajyashree
Chaudhuri vs. The State of West Bengal &
Ors.) issued similar directions which are
reproduced for ready reference:
"a) No person shall slaughter any animal
thereby meaning (Bulls, Bullocks, Cows,
Calves, Male and Female Buffalos, Buffalo
Calves and Castrated Buffalos) unless he has
obtained in respect thereof a certificate that
the animal is fit for slaughter;
b) The Chairman of a Municipality or the
Sabhapati of a Panchayat Samity and a
Vetrinary Surgeon may issue a joint certificate
regarding fitness of an animal for slaughter, if
8
they are both of the opinion to be recorded in
writing that the animal is over 14 years of age
for work or breeding or the animal has
become permanently incapacitated due to
age, injury, deformity or any incurable
disease.
c) In case of refusal to issue such certificate,
the aggrieved person may prefer an appeal to
the State Government within 15 days of
communication of such refusal.
d) An animal, in respect of which a certificate
has been issued, shall be slaughtered only in
a Municipal Slaughter House or any other
Slaughter House identified by the local
administration.
e) Nobody shall resist inspection of any
premises by a person authorized by the
Chairman of a Municipality or the Sabhapati
of a Panchayat Samity as the case may be or
the Veterinary Surgeon for implementing the
provisions of the West Bengal Animal
Slaughter Control Act, 1950.
f) Whoever contravenes any of the above
provisions of law, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for upto six months or with fine
upto Rs.1000/- or with both. All offences
under the 1950 Act shall be cognizable
offences.
g) The relevant decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and the Calcutta High
Court are available in the official website of
the Department being http://wbard.gov.in."
8. If the conditions mentioned in the impugned
notice are examined in juxtaposition to the
conditions mentioned by this Court in WP 328
of 2018, it will be crystal clear that the
impugned public notice is issued for
implementing the order passed by this Court
in WP 328 of 2018. This is also not in dispute
that the order passed by the coordinate Bench
in WP 328 of 2018 has attained finality. In
this view of this matter, we find no basis to
stay or set aside the public notice dated
13.05.2026. Thus, these petitions are
9
dismissed so far notice dated 13.05.2026 is
concerned
9. We are also inclined to observe that it will be
lawful for the State to examine whether there
exists proper mechanism for issuance of
necessary certificate under the Act of 1950
and Rules for slaughter of animals. In
addition, whether responsible officers are in
place in the State for issuing such certificate
and whether the necessary infrastructure is at
place in the entire State where slaughter can
take place. If any deficiency is found by the
State, we hope and trust that same shall be
cured at the earliest.
WPA(P) 240 of 2026:
10. Interestingly, in this petition also
challenge is mounted to the same notice dated
13.05.2026. The principle prayer is to include
two conditions in the said notice dated
13.05.2026. The conditions are (i) the
authorities be directed to incorporate two
additional points relating to slaughter of
animals including the cows and buffalos in
any open public place is strictly prohibited
and (ii) sacrifice of a cow is not part of any
religious requirement/ festival. The ancillary
interim prayer is prayed for in Clause (o), (q)
and (r). The learned A.S.G. and the Standing
Counsel for the State, Police and KMC have
10
not opposed the prayer. We have considered
the arguments on this aspect and in view of
various orders passed by this Court, find
substance in this contention. In GA 2325 of
2018 in WP 328 of 2018 (Rajyashree
Chaudhuri vs. the State of West Bengal &
Ors.) this Court opined as under:
"However, since the State pleads its inability
to immediately implement the provisions of
the 1950 Act because of lack of machinery, as
stated in the paragraphs extracted above, on
the assurance given to us by the learned
Advocate General on instruction from Sri
Swapan Paul, Additional Secretary to the
Government of West Bengal, Home
Department who is present in Court to the
effect that the State will be in a position to
strictly implement the provisions of the 1950
Act before observance of IDUZ-ZOHA next
year, we modify our aforesaid order by
permitting the State to issue public notice in
the manner it was done last year. However,
two additional things must be mentioned in
the said notice. Firstly, slaughter of animals
including cows and buffalos in any open
public place is strictly prohibited. Secondly,
sacrifice of a cow is no part of the festival of
ID-UZ-ZOHA and is not a religious
requirement under Islam as held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hanif
Quareshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar.
So far as issuance of public notice for the next
year before observance of IDUZ-ZOHA is
concerned, such notice must be in line with
the order that we had passed on 16th August,
2018 and must be published at least one
month before the observance of the festival of
ID-UZ-ZOHA."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Pertinently, the points canvassed by leaned
Counsel for the petitioiner were considered by
a Division Bench in WP 328 of 2018
(Rajyashree Chaudhuri vs. the State of
West Bengal & Ors.) and this Court opined
as under:
11
"However, since the State pleads its inability
to immediately implement the provisions of
the 1950 Act because of lack of machinery, as
stated in the paragraphs extracted above, on
the assurance given to us by the learned
Advocate General on instruction from Sri
Swapan Paul, Additional Secretary to the
Government of West Bengal, Home
Department who is present in Court to the
effect that the State will be in a position to
strictly implement the provisions of the 1950
Act before observance of IDUZ-ZOHA next
year, we modify our aforesaid order by
permitting the State to issue public notice in
the manner it was done last year. However,
two additional things must be mentioned in
the said notice. Firstly, slaughter of animals
including cows and buffalos in any open
public place is strictly prohibited. Secondly,
sacrifice of a cow is no part of the festival of
ID-UZ-ZOHA and is not a religious
requirement under Islam as held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hanif
Quareshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar.
So far as issuance of public notice for the next
year before observance of IDUZ-ZOHA is
concerned, such notice must be in line with
the order that we had passed on 16th August,
2018 and must be published at least one
month before the observance of the festival of
ID-UZ-ZOHA.
The State authorities shall take all necessary
steps to ensure that the provisions of 1950
Act are implemented prior to observance of
the festival of ID-UZZOHA next year. The
State should also ensure that there is no
slaughter of animals in any open public
place."
12. A careful perusal of this above para shows
that two conditions were directed to be
mentioned in the notice. Firstly, slaughter of
animals including cows and buffalos in any
open public place is strictly prohibited.
Secondly, sacrifice of a cow is no part of
festival of Id-Uz-Zuha and is not a religious
requirement under Islam as held by Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi &
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (1975 SCC OnLine
SC 17).
12
13. In view of this authoritative
pronouncement of the coordinate bench, we
find no difficulty in directing the State to
consider amendment of the impugned notice
by inserting aforesaid two conditions
forthwith. We order accordingly. This petition
stands disposed of with the above direction.
14. So far, the question of grant of exemption
under Section 12 of the Act of 1950 is
concerned regarding which prayer is made in
several writ petitions including WPA(P) 243 of
2026, learned Senior Standing Counsel on his
specific query from the fact fairly admitted
that Section 12 of the Act of 1950 is an
enabling provision and State has no hesitation
to take a decision regarding necessity of grant
of exemption by invoking Section 12 of the
said Act.
15. In this view of this matter, we are inclined
to direct that the State shall take a decision in
the teeth of Section 12 of the Act of 1950
regarding exemption prayed for by certain
petitioners. Considering the fact that the
festivals may take place on 27/28th of this
month, the State shall take a decision in this
regard within 24 hours from the date of
communication of this order.
13
WPA (P) 236 of 2026
16. In this PIL, it is prayed that the respondent
authority be directed to take effective steps to
prevent illegal slaughter of cows in the State of
SPONSORED
West Bengal particularly during the upcoming
festival. Furthermore, it is prayed that Special
Task Forces at District level for monitoring the
same be directed to be constituted.
17. In our opinion, Act of 1950 takes care of
the relief prayed for by the petitioner and we
have no doubt that State will endeavour to
implement the Act and Rules made thereunder
in its true spirit.
18. The PIL is disposed of.
WPA(P) 253 of 2026, WPA(P) 246 of 2026,
WPA(P) 247 of 2026 & WPA(P) 248 of
2026:
19. The constitutionality of Sections 4, 6, 7, 8
and 11 of the Act of 1950 are called in
question in these petitions. Sri Bikash Ranjan
Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel had
argued at length and urged that the Act of
1950 was sought to be made applicable only to
Kolkata City and municipalities for which
notifications have been issued. It does not
apply to the entire State. He raised certain
other contentions as well. Sri Nilanjan
Bhattacharya, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel
14
submits that he intends to file an affidavit-in-
opposition in this matter.
20. We have heard the parties at length. The
Act of 1950 is a statute which is prevailing
since 76 years. It is trite that there exists
presumption of constitutionality of a statutory
provision unless it is specifically declared as
unconstitutional. Thus, no case for grant of
interim relief is made out. The aspect of
constitutionality will be considered after
exchange and completion of pleadings by the
parties. The prayer for interim relief is
declined.
21. As a result, except WPA(P) 246 of 2026,
WPA(P) 247 of 2026, WPA(P) 248 of 2026 and
WPA(P) 253 of 2026 all other writ petitions are
disposed of.
(SUJOY PAUL, CJ.)
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
