Two high court judgements and another high court observation in the recent past have received muddled responses in from the public, in the wake of the Union Environment ministry’s controversial rule which prohibits sale/purchase of cattle at cattle fairs for slaughter.
The first ruling was from the Madras High Court’s Madurai bench, which stayed the ministry’s rule. The bench of Justices M V Muralidharan and C V Karthikeyan granted an interim stay of four weeks on separate petitions, filed by S Selvagomathi of Madurai town and by Asik Elahi Baba, from Kalimangalam, near Madurai.
The second, somewhat related judgement (see judgement here) came from the Rajasthan High Court, which has put forward a suggestion that the cow be made the national animal of the country. It also suggested that punishment for cow slaughter be increased to life imprisonment from the current 10 years. The tiger has so far been the national animal.
The third observation, given on May 31, comes from the Kerala High Court, saying that the ban was on sale of cattle for slaughtering at animal markets. It observed that “there was no ban on eating, slaughtering and selling of cattle.” A PIL, calling the Union rule to be declared illegal, was withdrawn.
The union government’s ban has created chaos across the country. The ministry has adopted a clever ploy of using the prevention of cruelty to animals act to show that slaughter of cows for meat amounts to cruelty. The problem is that neither does the constitution ban such slaughter, neither is the new rule vocal about the killing of other animals for food.
The Madras High Court’s order has stayed the rule for now, but it will come up again after four weeks. Meanwhile the Rajasthan High Court’s observation has come up through a PIL calling for better treatment of the animals in a particular gaushala. The PIL did not specifically ask for the cow to be made a national animal and for increased punishment. They were the court’s observations.
The third appeal fell through a technicality.
More court action would be necessary after the interim order of the madras bench expires.
—India Legal Bureau