The petitions arose in response to directives issued by the Director of Archaeology and Museums, the Superintendent of Police, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, all of which sought to enforce a ban on animal slaughter at the Vishalgad protected monument. The justification for this ban rested on the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962, which prohibits cooking and consuming food on the premises of protected monuments. This ban was further supported by a 1998 Bombay High Court ruling that restricted animal slaughter in public places. With Bakri Eid approaching, the petitioners argued that the prohibitions would infringe upon their religious practices, prompting urgent judicial consideration.

Representing the state, Ms. Vyas argued that the communications were justified under the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960, specifically referencing Rule 8, which prohibits cooking and consumption of food within protected monuments. The state maintained that since slaughtering is intrinsically linked to food preparation, it too should be banned in these areas.

The court's deliberations centered on defining what constitutes a "protected monument" versus a "protected area." The Vishalgad Fort was designated a protected monument, and the court scrutinized the relevant notification declaring the site as such. Notably, this notification defined the protected area as encompassing 333 acres and 19 gunthas surrounding the fort.

A pivotal argument emerged regarding whether the entire protected area fell under the same restrictions as the monument itself. The court expressed skepticism about applying Rule 8(c) universally to all activities within the broader protected area, especially in light of the fact that approximately 575 residents lived within this zone.

Taking into account the festival timeline and the implications for the local community, the court granted temporary permission for animal slaughter specifically for Bakri Eid and the subsequent Urus festival, provided that these activities occurred within private premises at Gat No. 19. This ruling aimed to balance respect for cultural practices while ensuring compliance with legal frameworks.

The court emphasized that slaughtering should not take place in public spaces, and the petitioners assured that the activities would be conducted discreetly in designated closed premises.

The court clarified that this interim relief was limited to the upcoming festival and would not impact any other legal requirements the petitioners might need to fulfill. The matter is set for a final hearing on July 11, 2024, allowing for further judicial scrutiny of the broader implications of the case.

MAHARASHTRA ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS ACT, 1960