• Source:JND
Add as a preferred

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the State to consider renaming the lioness called ‘Sita’ to avoid controversy. The high court was hearing the plea moved by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), who objected to naming a pair of wild animals at Bengal Safari Park in Siliguri district after the Hindu goddesses Sita and Mughal Emperor Akbar. 

The pair of lions were reportedly brought from Tripura Zoo as ‘Akbar’ and ‘Sita’ by the West Bengal Zoo authorities. The VHP challenged the naming of a pair of lions and claimed that this hurt the religious sentiments of a large group of people who revered Sita as a goddess.

The State counsel submitted that the naming of the lions was done by the Tripura Zoo authorities and that the State was looking into the possibility of renaming them. The counsel also argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as there was no element of personal rights of the petitioners involved.

ALSO READ: 'Schools Matter Of Joy, Not Stress': MP Schools To Observe Bag Less Day Once A Week From Next Academic Session

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, who heard the matter, orally expressed strong views on the ‘controversial names’ given to the animals. He said that animals should not be named after gods, mythological heroes, freedom fighters or Nobel laureates. He said that naming a lion after Sita and Akbar was drawing unnecessary controversy and that the State should have challenged the names given.

“Why should you draw controversy by naming a lion after Sita and Akbar? This controversy should have been avoided. Not only Sita, but I also don't support the naming of a lion Akbar. He was a very efficient and noble Mughal emperor. If it is already named, the state authority should shun it and avoid it. West Bengal should have challenged the names given,’’Justice Bhattacharyya said as quoted by Live Law.

ALSO READ: Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin Unveils State Policy For Women 2024 To Increase Employment Among Others

The Court also asked the Additional Advocate General (AAG) whether he had any pets and what he had named them. The AAG said that he had three dogs named Toffee, Truffle, and Theo. The Court praised his prudent naming and said that otherwise, the newspaper would say that he named his dogs after national heroes.

The Court also reclassified the plea moved by VHP as a public interest litigation (PIL) and directed it to be placed before the regular bench having determination over PILs.