| Tuesday , April 7 , 2015 |
Beef ban gets a roast taste- Maharashtra govt asked to explain | |
| Our special correspondent and PTI | |
 The court wondered: "Why has the state banned (the slaughter) of only cows, bulls and bullocks? What about other animals like the buffalo?" Maharashtra's counsel replied that the state was thinking of banning the slaughter of other animals, too - to which one of the judges said: "Don't consider a ban on fish, though." On March 3, the President had cleared a Maharashtra law prohibiting the slaughter of bulls and bullocks and criminalising the possession of beef in the state. Since then, an array of petitions questioning the decree has been filed in Bombay High Court. One of the first petitioners was Shaina Sen, a student from Bengal. Her petition contends that the new law violates her right to quality of life. The bench of Justices V.M. Kanade and A.R. Joshi asked questions on Section 5D of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act. The section bans consumption and possession of beef derived from not just bulls and bullocks slaughtered in Maharashtra but even those slaughtered outside the state. Cow slaughter and consumption of cow meat had been banned in Maharashtra in 1973 by the then Congress government. "Section 5D, which is under challenge, does not prohibit slaughter of cattle outside the state. Why should a person be prevented to eat or possess beef that has been slaughtered outside? Indirectly you (the government) are prohibiting slaughter of animals outside the state, too," Justice Kanade told Maharashtra advocate-general Sunil Manohar. Manohar replied: "How can the state say slaughter of cattle in Maharashtra amounts to cruelty but one can slaughter outside the state. That will also amount to cruelty. The act, incidentally, prohibits import also." It was then that the bench asked why the ban was confined to cows, bulls and bullocks. Meat of buffalo, goat, lamb and chicken is on the permissible list so far. The advocate-general said: "This is just the start.... We may consider banning slaughter of other animals too. As of now, the state felt it was necessary to protect cows, bulls and bullocks." "That may lead to migration from the state. Don't consider a ban on fish, though," Justice Kanade said. The meat industry is the source of livelihood for many families, including many from the minority community. The question on Section 5D was the basis of a petition filed by one Arif Kapadia of Jogeshwari, a Mumbai suburb. "The section banning possession is excessive, arbitrary and draconian," Kapadia said in his petition. The court will hear the case again on April 20. |