'Killing Of Animals For Food Permissible Under Law' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Switch Over To Lab-Grown Meat
story
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn a plea seeking to curb the killing of animals and to switch over to lab-generated meat for human consumption. A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna granted the petitioner liberty to withdraw the plea after hearing arguments for a while. During the hearing, Justice Joseph pointed out that the statute (Prevention of Cruelty to...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn a plea seeking to curb the killing of animals and to switch over to lab-generated meat for human consumption.
A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna granted the petitioner liberty to withdraw the plea after hearing arguments for a while.
During the hearing, Justice Joseph pointed out that the statute (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) itself permits the killing of animals for food. So, how can there be a policy contrary to the legislation, the judge asked.
"Your principle ground is that there shouldn't be any cruelty to animals. In law, this comes under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Section 11 (Treating animals cruelly) permits eating (of animals). What are you asking the Court? Can the government frame a policy which is contrary to the existing law?"
It is one of the grounds in which a policy can be challenged apart from it being arbitrary, unconstitutional or contrary to fundamental rights".
Executive action can't be contrary to a statute, the court further observed.
At this juncture, Justice Nagarathna weighed in, saying that considering the large population in the country, consumption of meat can't be banned.
"Under the Act, eating of animals is permitted as per certain parameters....having regard to the population of the country and you virtually want to ban meat-eating in the country?"
The petition is not for banning but to have alternate sources instead of killing animals, the petitioner clarified.
The Court asked whose fundamental rights were affected for the petitioner to move a plea under Article 32.
"We suggest you withdraw it and move at a later stage", the Bench added which prompted the advocate to do the same.
The petitioner Advocate Sachin Gupta, who had recently completed his Bachelors in Law, was appreciated by the Court during the previous hearing for his drafting and research skills.
Case Title: Sachin Gupta vs UOI | WP (C) 1145/2022