MUMBAI, 30 December 2006 — The Muslim community in Maharashtra has appreciated the Bombay High Court's decision, a few days ahead of the Eid Al-Adha festival staying the its earlier order banning the slaughter of bulls younger than sixteen years till January 4.
Soon after vacation judge Justice Shiavax Vazifdar, gave the order on an oral plea by advocate-general Ravi Kadam, seeking a stay on a December 15, 2006 order of a division bench of the Bombay High Court banning the slaughter of male progeny of cows upto the age of sixteen, and Justice Vazifdar permitting the slaughter of bulls and bullocks below sixteen years of age on the occasion of Eid Al Adha to be celebrated on January 01, 2007, traders from across Mumbai went to Deonar Slaughterhouse and were back in business.
Muhammed Ali Qureshi, the president of the Mumbai Suburban Beef Dealers Association said that the Bombay High Court's decision is welcomed by the Muslim community and that the Muslims will now celebrate the Eid with enthusiasm. Muslims will now be able to sacrifice animals on Eid Al Adha, he said and added that there is still uncertainty about what will happen after Janaury4 but the association and other community leaders are in consultation with their lawyers to find a solution to the problem, Qureshi stated.
A division bench of Justices S. Radhakrishnan and VK Tahilramani had in an interim order, banned slaughter of bulls and bullock below sixteen on the ground that the young male progeny of cows were being butchered indiscriminately, more for their soft leather.
The two judges had banned the slaughter of cows and bulls below sixteen on a writ petition filed by a Hindu organization which had sought that the definition of 'cow' should include her progeny of all ages. Already a law in the country which bans cow slaughter and slaughter of calves upto the age of three is also generally avoided.
The Maharashtra government has already moved the Supreme Court challenging the interim order of the division bench of the Bombay High Court, but the apex court had refused to grant stay and said that it would hear the matter later.
