The Calcutta High Court ordered the reclassification of a petition filed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as a public interest litigation. It directed that the case be placed before the regular bench responsible for handling PILs.
Earlier, Live Law had reported on the proceedings before Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya's single bench, during which the State counsel was instructed to obtain information regarding whether the pair of lions brought in from Tripura Zoo had been named 'Akbar' and 'Sita' by the West Bengal Zoo authorities. On this occasion, the State counsel stated that the naming of the lions had occurred in Tripura, making it the responsibility of the Tripura Zoo authorities. Additionally, the counsel argued that the writ petition filed by the VHP would not be maintainable since it did not involve any element of personal rights of the petitioners. Furthermore, it was mentioned that the State itself was exploring the option of renaming the lions.
Can we name a lion after Tagore? Calcutta High Court asks State in VHP’s plea against lioness being named Sita. The State expressed concern over the negative impact caused by the circulation of certain remarks and connotations on social media, particularly regarding the names 'Akbar' and 'Sita'. It emphasized that such discourse was detrimental as it was creating an unfavorable image of the state. The court remarked that if any of the individuals involved were tasked with naming lions, they likely wouldn't have chosen 'Akbar' and 'Sita'. Additionally, the court posed the question of whether it would be appropriate to name a lion after Tagore.
The state's assertion is that the decision hinges on the individuals involved, with the director of the zoo in question bearing responsibility.The court's query about whether to name a lion after a national hero draws attention to the fact that Sita, a revered figure, is also worshipped by many. The state's argument emphasizes that lions, too, hold a place of reverence, underscoring the significance of their rich heritage.
The Additional Advocate General representing the State passionately argued that the naming process was conducted by the Tripura zoo authorities and that the West Bengal authorities were contemplating renaming the lions. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the case had sparked controversy on social media, resulting in a negative portrayal of the State.
After considering these arguments, the Bench concluded that due to the nature of the petition, which advocated for the rights of a significant group of people and asserted that naming a lion after Sita, a figure revered by many Hindus, could potentially offend their religious sentiments, the petition would need to be reclassified as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Consequently, the current bench would lack the authority to adjudicate on the matter. The court advised to heed your conscience and avoid controversy.Hearing ends, matter over.