Why Calcutta HC wants names of lions 'Akbar' and 'Sita' changed

What’s in a name? A lot apparently.

The Calcutta High Court has asked the West Bengal Zoo Authority to rename a lion and lioness named Akbar’ and ‘Sita.’

The court also wondered why a controversy was being created by bestowing such names on lions.

But what happened? And why has the court requested the name change?

Let’s take a closer look:

What happened?

On 12 February, a lion and lioness named ‘Akbar’ and ‘Sita’ were brought from Tripura’s Sepahijala Zoological Park to Bengal’s Safari Park in Siliguri.

According to Moneycontrol, “Sita” is five-and-a-half years old and “Akbar” is seven years old.

They were both born at the Tripura zoo – from where they were brought to Siliguri.

More from Explainers

What happened during Trump's call with Zelenskyy and European leaders? Trump-Putin summit: Why Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1867

According to Live Law, the VHP then filed a case against the decision to keep the lions in the same enclosure.

The VHP claimed the names of the lions hurt the religious sentiments of a section of citizens.

“Sita cannot stay with the Mughal emperor Akbar,”  VHP’s Anup Mondal was quoted as saying by The Guardian.

The Times of India quoted VHP lawyer Subhankar Dutta as saying, “It has hurt the religious sentiments of numerous people. We have, therefore, moved the Jalpaiguri circuit bench of Calcutta HC demanding rechristening of the lioness.”

Impact Shorts

View All

'My god, what have we done': The 2 US pilots who dropped atomic bombs on Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki

US is making it tougher to obtain green card for married couples. Here’s why

“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. Such act amounts to blasphemy and is a direct assault on the religious belief of all Hindus,” the plea stated according to Live Law.

But West Bengal forest department official, Dipak Kumar Mandal was quoted as saying by The Guardian that  “the lion and the lioness are now kept separately."

The single judge bench of Saugatta Bhattacharya said last week,“It may be named out of affection, we worship lions during Durga Puja. It depends on the mental orientation of the person. Can we imagine Durga without a lion?

However, the lawyer representing West Bengal claimed that the two animals were named in Tripura and not in Bengal and there are documents to prove it.

The bench then asked the state counsel to determine where and when the lions were named and adjourned the matter.

On Thursday, Additional Advocate General (AAG) told the court the animals were named by zoo authorities in Tripura.

The state’s lawyer submitted that two animals were brought to West Bengal under an exchange programme, for which permission was granted by the central government.

He claimed that the lion and lioness received from Tripura bore the names of ‘Akbar’ and ‘Sita’ as per the documents sent by the Sepahijala zoo authority.

The state’s lawyer said the lion and lioness were born in Tripura in 2018 and 2016 respectively, but there was no protest about the names thus far.

Only when the animals were brought to Bengal that the petitioners woke up, he contended.

But Indian Express reported that the lions were named ‘Ram’ and ‘Sita.’

‘Why create controversy?’

The judge in today’s hearing remarked that it is frequently said by leaders that “What Bengal thinks today, the rest of the nation thinks tomorrow”. So, the state should show the path by renaming the two animals, he observed.

When informed by the petitioner’s lawyer that a lioness at Alipore Zoo in Kolkata has the name ‘Sruti’, the judge said that this kind of name should be given to avoid controversy.

“These are the uncontroversial names. Will you name a lion after a Hindu deity, a Muslim prophet or Christian god or freedom fighter or nobel laureate? Generally anyone who is revered or respected by the people of our country?” the bench was quoted as saying by Live Law.

An animal should not be named after any deity or figure belonging to any religion, the judge remarked.

The court also wondered why a controversy was being created by bestowing such names.

The Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench asked whether an animal can be named after gods, mythological heroes, freedom fighters or Nobel laureates.

It then went on to ask whether a lion could be named after Swami Vivekananda or Ramakrishna Paramahansa.

“You are a welfare state and it is a secular state. 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. Very successful and secular Mughal emperor. If it is already named, the state authority should shun it and avoid it,” Justice Bhattacharyya was quoted as saying by NDTV.

Observing that West Bengal is already burdened with several controversies starting from school jobs appointments to several other issues, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya said,

“Therefore, take a prudent decision, avoid this controversy.”

Maintaining that this would not be reflected in his order, the judge suggested to the state’s lawyer that he use his good offices and ask the zoo authorities to give different names to the lion and the lioness.

The court said that India is a secular country and every community has the right to pursue or follow their own religion.

“Why should you draw controversy by naming a lioness and a lion after Sita and Akbar?” The judge said Sita is worshipped by a large section of citizens, while Akbar “was a very successful and secular Mughal emperor.”

Justice Bhattacharya said he did not support the names of both animals.

The court said that if the naming was done there, then the zoo authority in Tripura needs to be made a party to the matter.

The judge said in his order that since a social organisation and two individuals came up with petitions claiming that the naming hurts the religious sentiments of a section of citizens of the country, it appears that the “personal right” of the petitioners is not in breach.

He said that the petitioners have rather espoused “the cause of a greater section” of people of India who belong to a particular religion.

The writ petition in its present form is not maintainable, the court said in its dictated order, holding that it can, however, be reclassified as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Noting that naming of the two animals has already been done, Justice Bhattacharyya granted leave to the petitioners to reclassify the petition as a PIL.

The court directed that if the reclassification is done by Friday, the registry will transmit the same to the regular bench hearing PIL matters for consideration within 10 days.

The judge then directed that the matter be released from the list in his court.

With inputs from agencies