The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging the slaughter of buffaloes inside two zoos in Gujarat for feeding wild animals kept there.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with an earlier order of the Gujarat High Court, which had dismissed a PIL filed against the practice followed at Sakkarbaugh Zoo.

During the hearing, Justice Mehta remarked that the rules cited by the petitioners mainly apply to slaughterhouses where animals are slaughtered for human consumption. He also observed that if the petitioners were genuinely concerned about cruelty to animals, they could have questioned the existence of zoos themselves.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel argued that slaughtering animals inside zoo premises should still be regulated, even if the meat is not meant for commercial or human consumption. He relied on the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India and submitted that several regulations governing slaughter procedures should apply in the present case as well.

He argued that unlike most zoos in India, where processed meat is supplied through contractors, two zoos in Gujarat allow live buffaloes to be brought inside the premises and slaughtered there. According to him, the process could have environmental and regulatory implications, including issues related to pollution and animal welfare laws.

However, the Bench said it was not convinced by the arguments and dismissed the petition.

The case originated from a PIL before the Gujarat High Court, where the petitioners had alleged that buffaloes were being slaughtered inside the zoo without a recognised slaughterhouse or proper regulation.

The zoo authorities defended the practice, stating that the zoo functions under the Wildlife Protection Act and regulations framed by the Central Zoo Authority. They also argued that Food Safety and Standards Regulations do not apply because the meat is not intended for human consumption.

Rejecting the plea earlier, the Gujarat High Court had held that the reliance placed on food safety regulations was misplaced in a case involving food meant for wild animals housed in a zoo. The High Court had also noted that the petitioners failed to show any public harm or inconvenience caused to zoo visitors due to the practice.