The Bombay High Court on Thursday reserved its ruling on a bunch of petitions challenging the recent ban on the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and possession and consumption of their meat. After the advocates representing the petitioners, the State and intervening organisations completed their arguments in the case, a HC division Bench of Justices VM Kanade and MS Sonak said it would pass its order next week.
The reservation of the ruling by the HC came after it heard a bunch of petitions that had challenged only Sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the new 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.
Some organisations had moved the High Court last month soon after the Maharashtra Government enforced the ban on the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and also consumption and possession of their meat. Three petitions were soon filed challenging 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 that if the object of the Act was to preserve cattle in Maharashtra, then the import of meat should be allowed.
On its part, 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". In an affidavit filed before a HC division bench of justices VM Kanade and AR Joshi, Chitrakala Suryavanshi, Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Agriculture, Dairy Development and Fisheries Development Department, had stated that the ban imposed under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, which had received a Presidential assent, did in no way violate the fundamental rights of citizens to have food of their own choice.
Subsequently, the State Advocate General had also argued before the HC bench saying that it was not a fundamental right of citizens to eat beef and that it could regulate the consumption of flesh of any animal. 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. His argument was in response to the submission made 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.
Agreeing with 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 V M Kanade and M S Sonak had observed: “According to 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”.