by Sanjay Pandit
The amendment of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act , 1976 came in for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in article 48 of the Constitution of India. The act notwithstanding anything in any other “law for the time being in force or any usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter cause to be slaughtered or offer for slaughter any cow, in any place in the State of Maharashtra”.
However the current decree amendment has taken this law to its progeny.
The judgment is a resonance of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act (Gujarat), 1995. The act permitted cows and its progeny from being slaughtered on the grounds of it utility for the country’s health and farmer wellbeing. Many of us are confused whether the act is about banning cows from being slaughtered. No, it is not. Cows had been banned long back this law is to protect bulls, bullocks, and calf.
The argument put forth is that all these animals are integral in provision of milch and draught in agrarian country, India. In interest of the general public an ordinance was passed in 1993 by the Gujarat government to prohibit slaughtering of cows and progeny. This was done towards securing the principles laid down in article
47, 48, and clause article 39 (a) and (b). The high court of Gujarat felt that it was an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights and therefore ultra vires the constitution. Hence slaughtering of cows and progeny above the age of 16 was also allowed.
The aggrieved parties, State of Gujarat, Akil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh filed an appeal. Shree Amihsa Armay Manaav Kalyan Jeev Daya Caritable Trust had also filed an appeal by special leave. On 17th February 2005, a 3 judge bench in the Supreme Court was filed on the terms that issue involved interpretation of the provision of the constitution of India especially in regards to status of the directive principle vis – vis to the fundamental rights as well as the effect of the article 31C and 51A in the constitution.
The challenge to the above mentioned judgments were found on the basis of three grounds:
1. Total ban offended the religions of Muslims as slaughter of cows is sanctioned by Islam on particular days.
2. Such ban offended the fundamental rights guaranteed in article 19 (1)g to the Kasais and not a valid restriction on their rights and that
3. Total ban was not in the interest of the people.
The court referred some very important judgments for this case.
These were:
1. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and ors. V state of Bihar and Ors. – Bihar preservation and improvement of animals act 1956, imposed a total ban on slaughter of all categories of animals belonging to the bovine cattle.
2. In Uttar Pradesh , Uttar Pradesh prevention of cow slaughter act 1955 banned slaughtering the progeny of
cows which included bulls, bullocks(male or female, adult or calf), and calves as well.
3. In MP, C.P. and Berer Animal Prevention act (Act LII of 1949) which also included buffaloes.
The jury decided in favor of the government of Gujarat banning on the following grounds:
a. The first challenge was rejected on the grounds that that it was known that it was not necessary for cows to be slaughtered on the day of Bakarid or any other day. No specific verse from the Koran was shown
b. The second challenge was rejected on the grounds that cows and its progeny are important to the Indian agriculture. They require more protection. Male Buffaloes and cattle are not half as useful as Bullocks and sheep and goat give very less milk and have no utility as draught.Since the classification of these animals is done on the basis of their usefulness the classification of the butchers should also be done on the basis on the effect that their work has on the society due to their occupation. Whatever may be the objections against the validity of the impugned act protection of law, prima facie, does not seem to be one of them. (State of West Bengal and others. Vs. Ashutosh Lahiri and others)
c. The decision on whether the ban was in the interest of the general public was affirmed as the lordships concluded that if the purpose of sustaining the health of the nation by the usefulness of the cow and her progeny was achieved by impugned enactment the restriction thereby could be held reasonable in the interest of the general public.
The judgment will be referred to again in case of Maharashtra. One of the major drawback of the case seemed that there was no discussion over losses incurred by the government or the livelihood and indemnification of the workers. There still has been no rehabilitation plan rolled out by the government. It is an inconsiderate and insensitive move against the kasais hereditary and others engaged in the red meat business. We may also think that skills are not easily acquired. Hence pushing them in new areas could be economically losing out. While we can only suggest and protest, we wait till the decisions are made.
English