Pune: Legal Notice Issued To PMC Commissioner Over Proposed Privatisation Of Animal Slaughterhouse At Kondhwa

Jain Samaj Pune, and 28 other Temple trusts, Ganesh Mandals from Kondhwa and adjoining areas have opposed the Pune Municipal Corporation’s move to the proposed privatisation of PMC’s Animal Slaughter House At Salunke Vihar road in Kondhwa. 

Giving more details about the issue, Adv Satya Muley stated, “My clients Jain Samaj Pune duly represented by their authorized representative Acharya Virag Sagar ji Maharaj (Dighambar Jain Maharaj) Aagam Mandir Katraj

 Shri Bahiroba Mandir and Mahadev Mandir Devasthan Trust’s Sanjay Lonkar

Shri Pandurang Seva Bhajni Mandal Trust’s Pandharinath Lonkar, Sankat Haran Mahadev Mandir ‘s Tanaji Lonkar, Shri Bhairavnath Talim Mandal’s Suraj Kote

Navshakti Tarun Mandal’s Sunil Lonkar, Vetaal Mitramandal’s Bharat Choudhary

Shrimant Sainath Tarun Mandal’s Yogesh Babar, Sai Pratishthan Sarvajanik Ganesh Utsav Mandal’s Umesh Mohol, Akhil Kondhwa Shri Pandurang Sevabhaavi Trust’s Ashok Sonawne, Shri Siddhivinayak Mitra Mandal’s Sachin Limbore, Shri Sant Tukaram Bhajni Mandal’s Bhishma Sutar, Shri Mauli Kripa Sampradayik Mandal Trust’s Shrikant Pawar, Jay Bajrang Tarun Mitra Mandal’s

 Amit Korde, Chhatrapati Shivba Tarun Mitra Mandal’s Satish Gote, Jay Bhavani Mitra Mandal’s Ravindra Patil, Samvedna Foundation’s Ganesh Mali

 Shivgarjana Foundation’s Akshay Gaikwad, Mahatma Phule Tarun Mandal’s Kiran Mahapure, Samrat Ashok Mitra Sangha’s Vishal Gaikwad

 Hanuman Azaad Mandal Trust’s Rakesh Kamthe,  Bholenaath Tarun Mandal Trust’s Vicky Kamthe, Shivraj Tarun Mandal’s Shrikant Kamthe, Sainath Mitra Mandal Trust’s Rohit Nikam, Shri Ganesh Mitra Mandal Trust’s Mukesh Deshmukh, Navnaath Pratisthan’s Sumit Salve, Laxminagar Mitra Mandal’s Vinayak Kondhke, Dharamveer Shambhuraje Mitra Mandal Trust’s Arjun Pandhare, Swaraj Mitra Mandal Trust’s Akshay Aadhav brought to my attention that the Pune Municipal Corporation is contemplating the privatization of the animal slaughterhouse in Kondhwa. This decision has raised significant concerns among the community regarding its potential adverse impacts on the environment, public health, social harmony, and cultural ethos.” 

The operation of slaughterhouses inherently poses environmental challenges, including nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and waste management issues. Government-operated facilities are subject to strict environmental regulations to mitigate these risks. However, privatization may lead to a lack of oversight, potentially resulting in environmental degradation and harm to surrounding ecosystems.

Slaughterhouses play a crucial role in ensuring food safety and preventing the spread of diseases. Government-operated facilities adhere to stringent hygiene standards. Privatization could compromise these standards, posing risks to public health through improper sanitation practices and inadequate inspection procedures. Privatization could lead to long-term socio-economic challenges, including job losses and economic disparities. Moreover, profiteering motives may prioritize commercial interests over community well-being.

Prof. Dr. Medha Vishram Kulkarni’s letter dated 19.03.2024 emphasizes the collective stance of Ganesh Mandals in Kondhwa against the privatization of slaughterhouses. Their objection, alongside Dr. Kulkarni’s, is grounded in the belief that such a move would not only contravene cultural norms but also legal frameworks established by the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. This Act mandates the Municipal Corporation to construct and manage abattoirs in alignment with public needs, suggesting a responsibility to ensure that these facilities serve the local community’s requirements without leading to overexploitation or commercialization that could harm the social and environmental fabric.

The letter argues that the act of exporting meat for significant profit, facilitated by the large-scale slaughter of animals in these houses, directly contradicts the stipulations of the Act. It suggests that such activities are not just ethically and culturally inappropriate but are also illegal, as they deviate from the primary purpose of municipal abattoirs — to serve the local population’s needs rather than to become centers of mass production and exportation of meat. The concern here is that privatization would prioritize profit over public service and welfare, leading to practices that could include overexploitation of animal resources, disregard for local cultural and ethical standards, and potential legal violations related to animal slaughter and meat distribution.

Dr. Kulkarni’s citing of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, is crucial. It underlines the argument that the privatization of slaughterhouses, specifically the Sabab slaughterhouses, is not just a matter of policy preference but a legal issue that could potentially breach statutory duties and responsibilities. This legal framework is presented as a safeguard against the exploitation of animal resources and a protector of the community’s moral and cultural values, which the proposed privatization threatens to undermine.

A gathering of concerned citizens and representatives from various organizations have voiced opposition to the privatization plan, citing legal and ethical grounds. Notable figures, including Former Corporator Praveen Chorbele, have urged the Corporation to prioritize citizens’ welfare over profit-driven agendas.

If the operations of private slaughterhouses result in the exacerbation of religious sentiments among communities, Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) would come into play. This legal provision is designed to curb actions that promote enmity or disharmony between religious groups. In the scenario where private slaughterhouses contribute to communal tensions or discord by offending religious sensitivities, they could be deemed in violation of Section 153A. The section serves as a safeguard against activities that threaten social cohesion and religious tolerance. Consequently, private slaughterhouse operators must be vigilant to ensure that their operations do not inadvertently incite religious animosity or disrupt communal harmony, lest they face legal repercussions under Section 153A of the IPC.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 227 highlights the necessity for strict adherence to Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) guidelines regarding various aspects of slaughterhouse operations, including animal transportation, loading and unloading, effluent disposal, solid waste disposal, and periodic inspections by State Animal Welfare Boards. This directive stresses the superior ability of state and central governments, alongside appointed committees, to ensure compliance with these regulations compared to private entities. Government-operated slaughterhouses benefit from robust regulatory oversight, greater accountability, enhanced resources and expertise, and alignment with broader public interest objectives. In contrast, privatization of slaughterhouses may compromise regulatory compliance, accountability, and ethical considerations, making government control essential for upholding standards of animal welfare, environmental protection, and public health.

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the right to life and well-being of animals. Privatization of slaughterhouses raises concerns about the potential for increased animal cruelty and exploitation due to profit motives, which could contravene the spirit of Article 21 as it applies to animals. The case clearly establishes that animals have a right to dignity and a life free from unnecessary suffering, a principle that could be compromised with privatization.

With regard to Article 21, the Supreme Court notably held: Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Article 48 emphasizes the state’s duty to organize animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and expressly mentions the prohibition of the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. Privatization could challenge these principles by prioritizing efficiency and profit over the well-being of animals and the preservation of breeds.

It is imperative to acknowledge that buffaloes, capable of providing milk until the age of 13 years, should be encompassed within the definition of milch animals. Moreover, it’s noteworthy that bulls or male buffaloes hold utility in agricultural activities and, therefore, should not be subjected to slaughter. This recognition emphasizes the multifaceted roles that buffaloes play in agriculture and dairy production, warranting their protection and exclusion from slaughter practices. 

Article 48 A lays down the directive for the state to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. Privatization could lead to environmental degradation due to lax enforcement of environmental standards and increased pressure on wildlife habitats. Article 51A (G) emphasizes the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Privatization might lead to a scenario where these duties are sidelined in favor of economic interests, thus diluting the constitutional mandate for compassion and protection towards animals.

The integration of Article 51A (h), which promotes the development of scientific temper and humanism, with animal welfare indicates that decisions regarding animal life and their treatment should be informed by scientific understanding and ethical considerations, not merely by economic efficiency.

In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) where the Supreme Court held that Article 48 envisions a total ban on the slaughter of cows and their progeny. It observed that cattle which have served the human species must be treated with compassion in their old age even though it is useless. The Court also ruled that “it was evident from the combined reading of Articles 48 and 51- A(g) of the [Indian] Constitution that citizens must show compassion to the animal kingdom. The animals have their own fundamental rights. Article 48 specifically lays down that the state shall endeavour to prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves, other milch and draught cattle”.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court heard a public interest litigation in the matter of air pollution in Delhi. The Court observed that Articles 39, 47 and 48A by themselves collectively cast a duty on the State to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment.

In Sachidanand Pandey & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (1987), the Supreme Court held that Article 48A must be kept in mind whenever a matter regarding maintenance of the ecology is brought before the Court. 

The Fundamental Duties of the citizens of India are enshrined in Article 51A (Part IV-A) of the Constitution. The Article was brought in by way of the 42nd Amendment of 1976 to bring the Indian Constitution in accordance with Article 29(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While Fundamental Duties are unenforceable in courts, they are often resorted to in the interpretation of constitutional and other matters.

In the context of animal rights, the relevant clauses of Article 51A read as follows:

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India:

. . . (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures;

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform . . .

Article 51A (g) places a duty on the citizens of India to protect and improve the natural environment and have compassion for all living creatures. As interpreted in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014), compassion for all living creatures includes concern for their suffering and well-being. In the case, the Supreme Court regarded 51A (g) alongside the duty to develop scientific temperament under 51A (h) as the magna carta of animal rights jurisprudence in India.

Muley further said, “The use of cash in cattle trade for slaughterhouses can lead to unaccounted cash. This unaccounted cash might be used for illegal activities, creating disruptions in the social harmony of Kondhwa and nearby areas, possibly leading to tensions among communities. That it’s crucial to highlight the clandestine picking up of stray cattle from the Kondhwa neighborhood over several years, leading to their subsequent slaughter. If privatization is allowed, this situation could worsen and picking up stray cattle will become rampant. It is imperative to highlight that Kondhwa has emerged as a hub for illegal slaughterhouses. Numerous police complaints have been lodged with the Kondhwa police station regarding the unlawful transportation of cattle from outside areas to slaughterhouses within Kondhwa. These complaints are hereby annexed as Annexure A.” 

Given the array of concerns voiced by the community and the persuasive arguments opposing privatization, we vehemently implore the Pune Municipal Corporation to halt its decision regarding privatisation of the abovementioned sector.