In a relief to the Maharashtra Government, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday declined to stay the provisions of its newly-amended law which prohibited the possession and consumption of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks even if the animals were slaughtered outside Maharashtra, pending the final hearing of a bunch of petitions scheduled for June 25.
Holding that it could not stay the Sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the new Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act until the final hearing of a bunch of petitions that it was hearing, a HC division Bench headed by Justice VM Kanade directed the State Government to file a detailed affidavit within next four weeks. The Bench also allowed the petitioners and intervening parties to file rejoinders two weeks thereafter.
The HC Bench scheduled the final hearing of the petitions for June 25. The High Court is hearing three petitions challenging Sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act which prohibit possession and consumption of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks even if the animals have been slaughtered outside Maharashtra.
The three petitions were filed in the HC soon after the Maharashtra Government enforced the newly amended Act in the first week of March, after it received the Presidential assent on February 26, 2015. The petitioners argued that Sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the Act imposed a ban on the import of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks.
Maintaining that Section 5 (d) of the newly-amended Act was “arbitrary” and against the fundamental right of a citizen, senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, appearing for one of the petitioners in the case, argued before the HC Bench during the hearing of the PIls that if the object of the Act was to preserve cattle in Maharashtra, then the import of meat should be allowed.
In a related development, the HC Bench directed the State not to take any coercive action till pendency of petitions or three months against traders who have been found in possession or transportation of beef.
“This is because the Act had been introduced suddenly and reasonable time was not given to the traders to dispose of their products,” Justices Kanade and MS Sonak said. However, the Judges observed that FIRs could be registered against erring traders but no further action could be taken until the petitions were decided finally or three months whichever is earlier.
The HC Bench also clarified that since the ban on beef continued to be in force in the State under the Act, FIRs could be registered against slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks. The HC, however, went onto caution the State against intruding on the privacy of citizens to find out if they are in possession of beef or any other form of meat.
Holding that the state government should have elicited the views of people involved in the trade before enforcing the ban, the HC bench noted: “There can be no compelling reason for the State to impose ban without giving a reasonable opportunity to traders provided they abided by the rules on food hygiene and safety”.
During the course of earlier hearings, the state government had justified to impose the ban on the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and possession and consumption of their meat, on the ground that "there is a need to protect and preserve these animals as the state’s economy is still predominantly agricultural-based". It had also told the high court that new law did in no way violate the fundamental rights of citizens to have food of their own choice.
Maharashtra’s Advocate General Sunil Manohar Manohar had also told the high court that religion had got nothing to do with its recent ban on the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and consumption and possession of their meat.