A day after it contented that that it was not a fundamental right of citizens to eat beef and that it could regulate the consumption of flesh of any animal, the Maharashtra Government told the Bombay High Court on Wednesday 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.
Continuing his arguments opposing a bunch of petitions challenging the ban introduced under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, State Advocate General Sunil Manohar said, “The State Government’s contention is not that the ban is introduced due to religion” Manohar was responding to an argument put forth by the lawyers appearing for several organisations, which have filed intervening application supporting the ban, that cow progeny was considered sacred in the country and that it needed to be protected and preserved.
Alluding to the State’s contention that the religion was not linked the ban on the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and consumption and possession of their meat, a HC bench of Justices VM Kanade and MS Sonak said, “According to the State Government, religion has got nothing to do with the ban. This contention has neither been argued by the petitioners nor the State. So you (intervenors) please do not expand your arguments to this issue”.
The judges, however, said it would, as part of judicial review, try to ascertain the real purpose behind the ban. Manohar had broached the issue of religion after the advocates representing intervening organisations, including Vardhaman Parivar, rooted for protection of the cow progeny on the ground that the animal was sacred.
Advocate Subhash Jha, appearing for Vardhaman Parivar, pointed out that it had been advocated in Hindu scripture “Mahabharat” that the cow progeny needed to be protected and preserved. He also brought to the attention of the court that Mangal Pandey, the Indian soldier who had played a key role in the events preceding the first war of Indian Independence, had refused to touch cow meat.
Advocate Rakesh Kumar, representing another intervening organisation, contended that cow progeny was earlier not considered as sacred but now it was now, considering its utilities. The High Court is hearing petitions that have have challenged only Sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the Act, which prohibit possession and consumption of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks even if the animals have been slaughtered outside Maharashtra.
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, had argued before the HC bench during the hearing of the PIls held on April 6 that if the object of the Act was to preserve cattle in Maharashtra, then the import of meat should be allowed. At the hearing held on Tuesday, State Advocate General Manohar had contested the petitioners’ argument that a person could eat anything he wished to other than human flesh.
“It is not a fundamental right of a citizen to eat beef. It cannot be said that the Government cannot take away these rights. The State legislation can regulate consumption of flesh of any animal the source of which is reprehensible. Under the Animal Protection Act, there is a prohibition on consumption of wild boar, deer and other animals,” Manohar had argued. The arguments will continue in the HC on Thursday.