Following a petition by the Qureshi Welfare Trust, a committee led by retired judge Abhay Thapsey will clarify rules on slaughtering unprofitable animals
NEW DELHI/MUMBAI — In a significant move that resonates deeply with the Muslim community involved in traditional animal slaughter, the Bombay High Court has constituted a committee to draft clear guidelines on the classification and licensing of animals suitable for slaughter. This follows a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Qureshi Welfare Trust, which raised serious concerns about the ambiguity surrounding the Maharashtra Preservation of Animals Act, 1976, and how it affects unprofitable animals – a matter of great importance to Muslim butchers and meat traders.
The lack of precise legal definitions and guidelines has long caused confusion and hardships for Muslim families who depend on this traditional livelihood. The Qureshi Welfare Trust highlighted that without clarity on which animals can be lawfully slaughtered, many Muslim communities face uncertainty and harassment.
Retired Bombay High Court judge Abhay Thapsey will head the committee. It is expected to submit its recommendations within four months, providing a clear classification of animals suitable for slaughter, including those that no longer produce milk or serve agricultural purposes.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe emphasised the need for clarity, directing the committee to “formulate guidelines that respect the traditions of the Muslim community while adhering to the law.” Justice Makrand Karnik also supported the move, saying, “The court recognises the significance of this issue and the impact unclear laws have on minority communities.”
The petition advocates for recognising animals that are no longer productive as lawful for slaughter, a crucial distinction missing since the 2015 amendment to the Maharashtra Preservation of Animals Act. That amendment, which banned the slaughter of bulls and calves deemed “useful,” was struck down by the court in 2016 for being unconstitutional. However, no guidelines ensued, leaving Muslim butchers in a grey area.
Speaking on behalf of the trust, Advocate MM Vashi said, “Our community has been facing undue difficulties due to the vague legal framework. The committee’s work will help safeguard the livelihoods of many Muslims who rely on lawful animal slaughter for their income.” He added, “It is essential that the law recognises the distinction between animals that serve agricultural or productive purposes and those that do not.”
The petition also pointed out that states such as Himachal Pradesh, Assam, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu have already set standards and classifications for animals suitable for slaughter, providing clearer frameworks that Maharashtra currently lacks.
Advocate AA Siddique, who represented the petitioners, argued, “The Muslim community must be able to carry on their lawful profession without fear or arbitrary restrictions. Clear guidelines would ensure that cultural and religious rights are respected, and unnecessary harassment is avoided.”
Government counsel Milind V More acknowledged the court’s direction but emphasised the need to balance animal welfare concerns with community rights. He stated, “We respect the court’s directive and will cooperate fully with the committee to establish fair and lawful guidelines.”
The formation of this committee comes amid growing tensions over animal slaughter laws across India, where certain groups associated with Hindu nationalist ideologies have sought to impose stricter controls, often targeting Muslim butchers and meat sellers. The Qureshi Welfare Trust’s petition indirectly challenges these pressures by calling for fair and transparent legal standards, ensuring that the Muslim community’s rights and livelihoods are not compromised under vague or discriminatory laws.
Local Muslim leaders have welcomed the court’s decision. “This is a welcome step towards justice for our community. For too long, Muslim butchers have faced harassment based on unclear laws. We hope this committee will bring clarity and protect our religious practices,” said Maulana Yusuf Ansari, a respected community elder.
Similarly, Fatima Shaikh, a small-scale meat trader in Mumbai, said, “Many Muslim families depend on animal slaughter for a living. The lack of clear guidelines has caused fear and uncertainty. We look forward to fair rules that allow us to work peacefully.”
Critics of restrictive slaughter laws argue that such regulations disproportionately affect Muslims, who make up a large part of the butchering and meat trade industry. Some view these laws as part of a larger attempt to undermine minority communities under the guise of animal welfare.
The high court’s directive to classify animals that are “not used for agriculture or other purposes” as potentially suitable for slaughter is a vital recognition of the realities faced by Muslim butchers. It also sets a precedent for other states where similar confusion and discrimination persist.
The committee’s work will be closely watched by minority rights groups and animal welfare activists alike, balancing the need for ethical treatment of animals with respect for religious freedoms and livelihoods.
