Thursday, Apr 25, 2024
Advertisement

No irreparable damage if beef ban continues: State tells High Court

The state also tried clarifying that the move was in no way a complete ban on import of meat.

Beef ban, maharashtra beef ban, beef ban mumbai, fadnavis givt, Devendra fadnavis, mumbai news, Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, Section 5D, city news, local news, mumbai newsline One of the interveners in the case said through his lawyer said that according to Hindu mythology, even Arjuna wanted to save cow progeny.

The Maharashtra government told the Bombay High Court on Wednesday that staying Section 5D of the amended beef ban law would “open the floodgates” and that no irreparable damage would be caused if the section is not stayed.

Section 5D of the newly enforced law prohibits anyone from possessing beef even if it is brought from outside the state. Continuing from where he left off Tuesday, state Advocate General Sunil Manohar said the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act is a partial regulation and that there are plenty of other things to eat.

One of the interveners in the case said through his lawyer said that according to Hindu mythology, even Arjuna wanted to save cow progeny. “Chewing gum is banned in Singapore. There are countries like Italy and the US where other substances are banned. You can go to Goa if you want to have beef,” the lawyer said. He added, “Even marijuana is banned here, but if you want to have opium you go to Afghanistan where it is present aplenty.”

[related-post]

Advertisement

The HC was hearing intervention applications filed in the beef ban case. Around half a dozen interventions have been filed, contesting the claim of the petitioners in the case. Some of the interventions state that Right to Life and Liberty in the Indian Constitution is applicable to animals as well.

“The choice of food cannot be out of necessity….Humans have no right over the life of animals. Bulls and bullocks are are saying ‘save our lives’,” said an intervening application by Akhil Bharat Krushi Gau Seva Sangh and Dr Vinod Kothari.

Festive offer

The petitioners had argued that Section 5 D was bereft of any real meaning and had no “nexus” with the entire Act enforcing beef ban in Maharashtra. They had said if an animal was legally slaughtered outside the state, how could the state stop people from procuring it.

Meanwhile, with the HC stating that the beef ban should not be seen as a religious issue, the state government seconded this, saying views relating to mythology put forth by various intervenors in the case must be curtailed.

Advertisement

The Maharashtra government had on Tuesday defended its decision to ban beef in the state by telling the court that eating it was not a fundamental right. The state said that the ban on the possession and trade of beef was aimed at “perfect” implementation of the Act as allowing people to bring it from outside would defeat the law’s purpose. In its arguments, the state also tried clarifying that the move was in no way a complete ban on import of meat.

mumbai.newsline@expressindia.com

First uploaded on: 23-04-2015 at 00:42 IST
Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
close