Supreme Court Upholds Zoo Buffalo Slaughter Practice

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the slaughter of buffaloes inside two Gujarat zoos for feeding wild animals. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with a Gujarat High Court order that had dismissed a public interest litigation filed by two charitable trusts against the practice at Sakkarbaugh Zoo.

Justice Mehta observed that the rules cited by the petitioners were meant for slaughterhouses where slaughter is done for human consumption. He stated that the zoo authorities should be allowed to manage the zoo as they see fit. He also suggested that the petitioners could have filed a PIL to remove the zoos altogether, as keeping animals in zoos could also be considered cruelty.

Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, appearing for the petitioners, argued that slaughter of animals within zoo premises required regulation, even if not for commercial purposes. He referred to a 2017 Supreme Court judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India, which identified 24 regulations governing pre-slaughter, slaughter, and post-slaughter stages. He argued that only one regulation might not apply since the meat was not for human consumption, but the remaining regulations should still be followed.

Goel submitted that unlike other zoos in India where processed meat is supplied through tenders, these two Gujarat zoos permitted live buffaloes to be brought in and slaughtered on the premises. He argued that this caused pollution and water impact, and that slaughtering animals inside the zoo amounted to operating a slaughterhouse, requiring compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and licensing requirements.

The Gujarat High Court had previously dismissed the PIL, noting that the zoo functioned under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and Central Zoo Authority regulations. The court held that the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011, did not apply since the meat was not for human consumption. The court also found no evidence of harm to the public or distress to zoo visitors.