In a submission made before the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra Government on Tuesday justified its decision to impose 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 an HC division Bench of justices VM Kanade and AR Joshi, Chitrakala Suryavanshi, Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Agriculture, Dairy Development and Fisheries Development Department, 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.
“It is considered that the economy of Maharashtra was still predominantly agricultural and cow progeny is its backbone. Bulls and bullocks are useful not only as draught animal but also for agricultural purposes and breeding. They never cease to be useful as their dung is also a form of rich manure. Considering their usefulness, it was felt necessary to preserve and protect this cow progeny, including bulls and bullocks,” the affidavit stated.
In its affidavit filed in response to a bunch of petitions challenging section 5 (d) of the recent Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act that banned the possession and consumption of meat of animals like cow, bull and bullock, the state government said that sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the newly amended legislation did not suffer from either lack of legislative competence or violation of any fundamental rights.
“Section 5 (d) is essential so as to prevent practical difficulties in the administration of law. It would otherwise be very difficult to implement the policy of the Act,” the affidavit added.
The State Government, in its affidavit, contested the petitioners’ stand that the petitioners’ contention that Maharashtra government “cannot prohibit import of meat of animals slaughtered outside the state” by saying: “Having received an assent from the President of India, the law made by the state legislature would prevail over existing law”.
The affidavit also contended the new legislation was enacted to give effect to several Articles mentioned in the Constitution. “Article 51— A (g) imposes fundamental duty on the citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures,” the affidavit pointed out.
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 previous 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.