Karnataka Cattle Slaughter Prevention Act: High Court Permits Implementation Of S.5 Which Restricts Cattle Transport

A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar said,

"We have considered the submission, the validity of the Act is under challenge which is under consideration of the court. Since the rules have been framed as such the order dated Jan 21, 2021 is required to be modified to the extent that the state government is permitted to implement the provisions of section 5 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. However, the same would be subject to final decision in the writ petitions."

The petitioner had opposed the application saying that they have challenged the validity of the Act itself and legislative competence to enact any such act. The implementation of the Act and its Rules, would cause great prejudice to several sections of society.

The State government had in its application said since an Act (to the effect of Ordinance) has now been put to force, the Government has sought modification of the January order. "The above order was passed when the enactment was not yet made. Subsequently, the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020 was enacted with effect from 15.02.2021. Thereafter, by notification dated 24.05.2021 published in the Gazette dated 25.05.2021, the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle (Transportation of Cattle) Rules, 2021 are framed referable to the rules contemplated under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act," the plea states.

The application adds, "In view of the undertaking given before this Hon'ble court that, "No, coercive action shall be initiated by the State Government for the breach of violation of Section 5 until the rules are framed", no coercive action could be taken by the Government, notwithstanding the enactment and publication of the Rules. Hence, now the State Government would seek the permission of this Hon'ble Court to implement the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and seek the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to modify the earlier order, dated 20.01.2021."

It mentions that the Government has allocated a considerable extent of land for Goshalas in the 16 districts and the process for allotment of land for Government Goshala in 14 districts is under process. The numbers of cases registered under the 2020 Act are 413 as on 30.09.2021. There are only 26 authorised/ registered Slaughter houses in the State.

Background

The development ensued in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The petition filed by one Mohammed Arif Jameel states that the law violates the fundamental rights of citizens and is unconstitutional. Further it is said that Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India guarantees citizens to carry out trade and business, subject to reasonable restriction as mentioned in clause 6 of that Article.

A complete ban on sale/ purchase or resale of animals would cast a huge economic burden on farmers, cattle traders, who find it difficult to feed their children but would be required to feed the cattle as it is an offence under the law to starve an animal or failure to maintain it, states the plea. It is also said that it would lead to the rise of "Cow Vigilantes".

The petition claims that the new law is in violation of Right to Livelihood, under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further it is said that the Right to choose food is a part of the Right to personal liberty, consciences and privacy. By imposing a ban on slaughter of animals for food the citizens with a choice to eat the flesh of such animals will be deprived of such food which is in violation of Article 21.

The petition also states that Beef is an integral part of Mangalorean cuisine. The ordinance prevents them from consuming beef which is an integral part of their culture and thus violates Article 29 of the Constitution. The petition prays to declare the Act as unconstitutional by way of interim relief to stay the same.

Case Title: Mohammed Arif Jameel v. State Of Karnataka

Case No: WP 508/2021