The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Maharashtra government on a batch of petitions challenging the Bombay High Court decision upholding a State law banning bovine slaughter.
A Bench comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and D.Y. Chandrachud issued notices to the State on petitions including one by the All India Jamiatul Quresh of Maharashtra and Delhi alleging that the ban affected their livelihood and is being used as a political tool.
The petitions contended that the members of Qureshi community be allowed to slaughter bulls and bullocks which have crossed the age of 16 years as they are of no use to farmers.
The Bombay High Court had upheld the beef ban imposed by the State after enactment of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act banning the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, besides cows.
A few days ago, the Bench had agreed to hear a diametrically opposite petition regarding the same May 6 High Court ruling. While upholding the slaughter ban in Maharshtra, the High Court had also struck down certain amendments in the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1976, this time banning even the possession of beef imported from a State where cow slaughter was not illegal. This part of the High Court judgment had been challenged by the Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh.
The Bench has tagged both issues and scheduled the cases for hearing in six weeks.
The High Court had held that punishing a person for mere possession of beef amounted to State intrusion into a citizen's right to life and personal liberty — a freedom assured under Article 21 of the Constitution.
But the High Court justified its decision in favour of the ban, saying that its purpose was to protect the cow and its progeny and not prevent people from eating beef.
“The State government has justified the prohibition imposed on slaughter of a cow, bull or bullock by contending that the cow progeny excreta is recognised as a source of rich organic manure which enables farmers to avoid the use of chemicals as well as inorganic manure…” the High Court observed.
Right to foodChallenging this reasoning, the petition contended that the High Court ended up favouring a State law which robs a large number of the poor their only inexpensive source of protein. The petition argued that the Maharashtra law's provisions, upheld by the High Court, provides a “restriction on the right to food of those for whom beef is an indispensible part of their diet”.
