There is something about Indian democracy that makes you want to believe in it even in the worst of times. Just when it seemed hopeless for beef eaters
in Maharashtra, the high court came up with a judgement that swung the pendulum back from the far right to the centre. The court, in an order, upheld the ban on the slaughter of cows and bullocks but struck two sections that criminalized beef eating. While doing so the court upheld the right of a citizen residing in Maharashtra to eat what he or she chooses, where to eat it and at what time to eat it, and severely restricted the government from interfering in the eating
habits of the common citizen.
Following the ban of beef last year, several petitions were
filed in the high court and they all came to be bunched under
Harish Jagtiani versus State of Maharashtra. Jagtiani petition
against the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act 2015 “ passed in March 2015, which prohibited slaughter
of bulls and bullocks as well as possession
and consumption of their
meat in the state, was filed in person
and not as a public interest litigation
because he was affronted by
the government in so much as it was
telling him what to eat or not. This,
he claimed was an assault on this
right to privacy. The petition did not
contest the ban on cow slaughter or
its progeny. It specifically contested
section 5 (d) which provides that no person shall have in his
possession flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered outside
the State and section 9 (b) which made possession of beef a
crime. The argument of the petitioner, which was upheld by
the court was that possession of beef slaughtered legally outside
the state and imported did not constitute a crime and any
action by the government to penalize a citizen for possession
was a violation of his right to privacy.
While many states, Goa included, have enacted laws to ban
slaughter of cows, the Maharashtra act when two steps further
by banning slaughter of bulls and sale and consumption of
beef. Only slaughter of buffaloes was allowed. Prior to the election
of the Narendra Modi government, India was the largest
exporter of beef in the world. Although the BJP claimed that
this distinction was achieved because the previous government
allowed rampant slaughter of animals there are studies
to show that drought years after 2012 contributed to slaughter
of unproductive cattle. A fine balance that exists between
productive and unproductive cattle and in order to ensure that
scarce resources, such as pastures, fodder, water and shelter,
go to the most productive livestock, the unproductive lot has
to be culled.
While a blanket ban on slaughter of cattle could hurt the interest
of farmers in general, it was not contested. The two controversial
sections however, were never right from the start because,
apart from violating the right to privacy, they gave the
government immense powers to prosecute at will. Also, there
were no checks on the power to misuse this section. While no
one contests the ban on cow slaughter, there was resentment
among several quarters against the ban of beef consumption.
The high court order has restored the balance and the belief
that the democratic system is still alive and kicking. It also injected
faith in the judiciary to uphold the fundamental rights
of the citizen and intervene whenever the executive or the legislature
exceeds its bounds.
