The Bombay High Court granted limited interim permission for Bakri Eid and Urs, subject to the closed-premises condition at Gat No. 19 and the prohibition against sacrifice in an open or public place.
Law News | Bombay High Court
Vishalgad Dargah Animal Sacrifice: Bombay High Court Orders from 2024 to 2026
Originally reported: 15 June 2024 | Updated: 5 September 2026
Current legal position covered by this report: In June 2024 the Bombay High Court granted limited interim permission for slaughter of specified animals and birds during Bakri Eid and Urs at Vishalgad, subject to strict location and public-place restrictions. Similar relief was granted in 2025 and again on 28 May 2026, with additional hygiene, traffic and law-and-order undertakings. The 2026 order also recorded the Supreme Court's earlier request that the High Court decide the main petition on merits instead of continuing with yearly interim orders.
- Main case
- Writ Petition No. 7121 of 2023
- Petitioner
- Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah, Vishalgad
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Subject
- Challenge to communications restricting slaughter of animals and birds at Vishalgad, Kolhapur district
What the Bombay High Court held in June 2024
The dispute arose from communications issued by State and local authorities that sought to prohibit slaughter of animals and birds at Vishalgad. One justification relied on Rule 8(c) of the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962, which regulates cooking and consumption of food within a protected monument.
On 14 June 2024, the Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla formed a prima facie view, for the limited purpose of interim relief, that Rule 8 did not justify the blanket restriction in the manner asserted by the authorities. The Court permitted slaughter during Bakri Eid and the Urs period, but imposed clear restrictions.
Conditions imposed by the Court
The Court directed that the actual killing or sacrifice of animals or birds could take place only inside the closed premises at Gat No. 19, described in the order as private land owned by Shri Mubarak Usman Mujawar. It expressly prohibited such activity in an open place or a public place.
On 18 June 2024, the Court clarified that the interim permission was not confined only to the trustees. It extended to devotees of the petitioner-Dargah during the permitted period, while retaining the same location and public-place restrictions.
Subsequent developments: 2025 and 2026
The Court clarified that the interim order also applied to devotees of the Dargah, while directing strict compliance with the conditions already imposed.
The High Court again granted limited permission on similar conditions for the relevant festival period.
The Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal No. 18302 of 2025, requested the High Court, considering the sensitivity of the matter, to take up the main petition and decide it on merits rather than continue passing interim orders.
The Bombay High Court again permitted slaughter of sheep, goats and hens for Bakri Eid and the Urs celebration, applying the earlier conditions. It also required maintenance of hygiene, disposal of waste and carcasses, cooperation with the administration and police, smooth traffic flow, and maintenance of law and order.
Law governing the monument area
The controversy has involved the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960 and the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962. The 2024 interim order specifically considered Rule 8(c), which concerns cooking and consumption of food within a protected monument.
The High Court's interim orders should not be read as creating an unrestricted right to conduct animal sacrifice anywhere in or around a protected monument. The relief was fact-specific, time-bound and subject to express restrictions concerning location, public places, hygiene and public order.
Important: This page reports interim judicial directions and later procedural developments. The final legal position depends on the ultimate adjudication of the main writ petition and any subsequent appellate orders. Readers should verify the latest case status and court orders before relying on the report for legal purposes.
Why the 2026 order matters
The 28 May 2026 order is important because it both continued the earlier festival-specific arrangement and recorded the Supreme Court's direction that the principal dispute should be decided on merits. Accordingly, the recurring interim permission should be understood as temporary judicial relief pending resolution of the underlying challenge.
Case reference
Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah, Vishalgad v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 7121 of 2023, Bombay High Court, including interim orders dated 14 June 2024, 18 June 2024, 3 June 2025 and 28 May 2026.