Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The issue of cow slaughter became a topic of widespread debate after the case of Md. Akhlaq of Dadri near Noida, in Delhi NCR. He was reportedly killed by some people of his village for keeping cow’s meat in his house and reportedly killing a calf. Since then, this issue of beef eating and cow slaughter has taken a new turn and entered mainstream debate. Till date, there have been cases where people claiming to belong to right- wing organizations have lynched people for eating/transporting beef or cow.
This issue of protection of cow in a country with Hindu majority is as old as the civilization of this land. Even freedom fighters emphasized on the need to protect the cow. Gandhiji said, protection of cow is more important than swaraj itself. Having said that, when politicians say that, “I proudly announce that I am a beef eater”, it does become a matter of widespread debate.
On the other hand, considering the fact that India is the largest democracy of the world, is it justified to question the food habits of people? Or how can one justify the government’s interference in someone’s choice of food?
In the constitution: Article 48 of the Indian Constitution states that: “the state shall organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
The laws governing cattle slaughter in India vary greatly from state to state. The "Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases, veterinary training and practice" is Entry 15 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, meaning that State legislatures have exclusive powers to legislate the prevention of slaughter and preservation of cattle. Some States allow the slaughter of cattle with restrictions like a "fit-for- slaughter" certificate which may be issued depending on factors like age and gender of cattle, continued economic viability etc. Others completely ban cattle slaughter, while there is no restriction in a few states. On 26 May 2017, the Ministry of Environment of Indian Central Government led by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) imposed a ban on the sale and purchase of cattle for slaughter at animal markets across India, under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals statutes.
Judicial interference with regards to this issue increased after this notification was released by the govt. Various high courts gave judgments supporting the beef ban and the noztification issued by the Central Govt. while the Madras High Court became the first High Court to stay the Central government’s order declaring it as unconstitutional. The Apex Court of the nation also upheld Madras High Court’s decision.
Justice A M Sapre required the matter to be read placed before the Chief Justice to be assigned to an appropriate bench. In this case Apex Court on 17th August 2016 called for Maharashtra government’s opinion on the movement by“Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh” against The High Court order.
In 2016, a division bench of Bombay High Court struck down two Amendments to Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976 to uphold the constitutionality,Section 52 (incriminating process of flesh of any cow Bullock Bull slotted outside the state of Maharashtra) and Section 9B(casting negative burden on the accused) as it violatesArticle 21 of the Constitution of India.
The challenge to the various provisions of the1976 Act which was amended by the Maharashtra Animal (Amendment)Prevention Act, 1995 was heard by Justice A.S. Oka and Justice S.C Gupte.
A complete ban was put on the slaughter of Bull and Bullock with inclusion of the existing ban on the slaughter of the cow by the Amendment Act. A negative impact was made by the introduction of Section 9B on the accused of certain trail offenses.
The Right to personal Liberty which included the Right to eat food and Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was infringed by the Section 5D was the primary challenge of the petitioners. They also claimed that the object and the purposes of the Animal Prevention Act had no connection with Section 5D. The state failed to establish any compelling evidence that the Section 5D was enacted in the interest of the public. The petitioners also contested Section 5D and 5C (incriminating procession of flesh of any cow Bullock or Bull slaughter in contravention of provisions of the act) as possession in the section does not mean conscious possession. Petitioners presented that slaughtering of cattle on the occasion of Bakrid and every religious festival is a religious practice which is protected under Clause 1 of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
The AG proffered that the Right to eat does not include the Right to the choose the particular kind of food consumed. The AG attempted to find grounds for provisions to show the public interest in the Amendment Act which was enacted with the help of the Directive principles of the state policy integrated in Article 48 and Article 48A and Fundamental Duties highlighted in Clause g of Article 51 A of Constitution of India.
According to Section 5D the courtcontemplated“preventing a citizen from processing flesh of cow,bullock or bull slaughtered outside the state amountsprohibiting citizens from processing and consuming food of his choice.In section 5 D the focus seems to be generally consumption of beef as a food item.Consumption of food which is not injurious to health is a part of individual’s autonomy or his right to be let alone.Hence, it is an infringement of the right to privacy.In our view section 5D violates the right of privacy being an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21”
By upholding the constitutional validity of Section 5C, the court ascertainedthat possession contemplated by that provision shall be conscious possession “it will be possession with knowledge that the flesh of cow,bull or bullock which is slaughtered in contravention of Section 5 of animals prevention act” it ruled
86540
103860
630
114
59824