The Calcutta High Court in the case Viswa Hindu Parisad And Ors. vs State of West Bengal And Ors was hearing the petition filed by Vishva Hindu Parishad, VHP against the naming of a lioness at Siliguri’s Safari Park as ‘SITA.’
The petitioner in the plea stated that Vishwa Hindu Parishad has with deep anguish observed that a species of cat family has been named after the name of ‘SITA’ the consort of Lord Rama and she is sacred deity to all Hindus across the world. Further, the court stated that such kind of act amounts to blasphemy and it being the direct assault on the religious belief of all Hindus. The single judge bench headed by Justice Saugata Bhattacharya was hearing the present matter.
The petitioner in the plea argued before the court that they were praying for a direction that no animal shall be named after a deity. Further, the petitioner stated that if this amounted to slander, and if it is being allowed, then people would resort to naming ‘donkey after a religious deity’ as well.
The bench while referring the lion at the feet of the Goddess Durga, remarked that, it may be named out of affection, we worship lions during Durga Puja. Thus, it depends on the mental orientation of the person. Can we imagine Durga without a lion?
The counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended before the court that the only reason why a lion was at the feet of Goddess Durga was because it was meant to attack evil on all sides, and that the lion was not given any name. Further, the bench noted that petition moved by the VHP was in the nature of a public interest litigation and therefore had to be converted into a PIL and placed before the bench having determination over PILs. The counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that the rights of the people belonging to a particular religion had been infringed and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would apply in such a case. It was also submitted before the court that there was a great amount of confusion regarding the naming of the lioness, that had come as part of a pair, from Tripura Zoo.
The petitioner also argued that the Tripura Zoo authorities had not named the lions, and that a media report revealed that the State Zoological department had named the lion Akbar, and the lioness Sita, but that the State was shirking responsibility for the same and would contend that the pair had not been named. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has directed the State counsel to obtain instructions regarding whether or not the lions had been named, and posted the matter for hearing at a later date.
