Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Thursday decriminalised the possession of beef in Maharashtra. Though it upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment to the Animal Preservation Act that bans slaughter of bulls and bullocks in Maharashtra and makes it illegal to possess their meat, the Bombay HC also struck down Section 5D and 9B of the Act.
Read: Beef ban: Court has protected right of accused, says Shrihari Aney
Justice A.S. Oka and Justice S.C. Gupte, in their 245-page landmark judgement, have also upheld the validity of Section 5(c) — which prohibits possession of beef in Maharashtra — but the bench has clarified that the possession contemplated by this section shall be conscious possession. The judges further clarified, “It will be a possession with the knowledge that the flesh is of cow, bull or bullock which is slaughtered in contravention of Section 5 of the Animal Preservation Act.”
While upholding the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act, the court took into consideration what the Supreme Court has held during the hearing of a similar petition when a similar ban was imposed in Gujarat. To decide the validity of the Act, the court took into consideration the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment, which include that the economy of Maharashtra is still predominantly agricultural. In the agricultural sector, use of cattle for milch, draught, breeding or agricultural purposes has always carried great importance. After the cattle cease to be useful for the purpose of breeding or are too old to work, they still continue to give dung for fuel, manure and biogas and therefore cannot, any time, be said to be useless.
Read: Will approach Supreme Court on beef ban issue, says Devendra Fadnavis
The bench also took into consideration the material and affidavit placed on record by the state government. The affidavit included 2012 cattle census, that said cattle which is not used either for draught or breeding was only half a per cent of the total cattle population, there are schemes available for distribution of fodder seeds and other facilities available, reducing number of cattle and their usefulness.
The order reads, “The state has placed on record material to support the stand that it is necessary to preserve cows, bulls and bullocks and to prevent its slaughter in the state.”
“Considering the legal and factual position and what we have discussed above, we find that the stand of the state government that prohibiting the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks is in public interest will have to be accepted,” the bench further said.
The court also accepted contention of the state that ban on slaughter of cows and its progeny is only a restriction on the butchers and it would not amount to a complete ban on their occupation as they can slaughter other animals as well.
The HC also dealt with the petition claiming that the slaughter of a bull or bullock was an essential part of Islam and a large number of Muslim population was poor who could not afford to sacrifice a goat on the occasion of Bakr Id, and instead seven persons got together to sacrifice a progeny of cow.
The division bench said this matter was also decided by the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. Referring to the SC’s observations in the case of Ashutosh Lahiri, the bench said, “It is well settled that what is protected by Articles 25 and 26 (of Constitution of India) is only such religious practice which forms an essential and integral part of the religion. A practice followed may be a religious practice. But, if it is not an essential or integral part of the religion the same is not protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The alleged economic compulsion will not make the alleged practice an essential part of the religion.”
On the question of calling Section 5(d), which makes the possession of cow progeny an offence, infringement on the right given under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), the bench held, “If the state tells the citizens not to eat a particular type of food or prevents the citizens from possessing and consuming a particular type of food, it will certainly be an infringement of a right to privacy as it violates the right to be let alone. If a particular food is injurious to health or a particular food is illegally manufactured, it will be a case of compelling public interest which will enable the state to deprive citizens of the right to privacy by following the procedure established by law. In the present case, Section 5(d) prevents a citizen from possessing and from consuming flesh of a cow, bull or bullock even if it is flesh of a cow, bull or bullock slaughtered in territories where such slaughter is legal. Hence, Section 5(d) is certainly an infringement of right to privacy, which is implicit in the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.”
