Cat­tle sale ban stayed for 4 weeks by Madras HC

Deccan Chronicle - - FRONT PAGE - GOKUL VANNAN

The Madu­rai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wed­nes­day stayed for four weeks the central no­ti­fi­ca­tion ban­ning the sale and pur­chase of cat­tle for slaugh­ter in an­i­mal mar­kets be­cause the sub­ject of the law un­der con­sid­er­a­tion is in the state list.

The High Court de­nied the ar­gu­ments ad­vanced by the ad­di­tional solic­i­tor gen­eral of In­dia that rules are to be pre­sumed as framed by Par­lia­ment. “...This court is not in full agree­ment that a pre­sump­tion is in favour of the Central govern­ment when a par­tic­u­lar rule is in­tro­duced, not by the Par­lia­ment, but by the Ex­ec­u­tive, be­cause the pri­mary as­pect is that the sub­ject of the law un­der con­sid­er­a­tion is in the State list,” said a di­vi­sion bench com­pris­ing jus­tices M.V. Mu­ralid­ha­ran and C. V. Karthikeyan.

The High Court passed the in­terim or­der on two writ pe­ti­tions filed by se­nior coun­sel Ajmal Khan and ad­vo­cate Dhana Aravinda Balaji chal­leng­ing the con­sti­tu­tional va­lid­ity of Rules (22) b (iii) and 22 (e) of the Pre­ven­tion of Cru­elty to An­i­mals (Reg­u­la­tions of Live Stocks Mar­kets) Rule 2017 that was no­ti­fied by the Cen­tre on May 23.

The judges pointed out that the sub­ject of the Pre­ven­tion of Cru­elty of An­i­mals Act is also in the con­cur­rent list.

OR­DER COMES fol­low­ing protests in some states in­clud­ing Tamil Nadu and Ker­ala.

The Madu­rai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wed­nes­day stayed for four weeks the Cen­tre’s no­ti­fi­ca­tion ban­ning the sale and pur­chase of cat­tle for slaugh­ter in an­i­mal mar­kets be­cause the sub­ject of the law un­der con­sid­er­a­tion is in the state list.

As far as the slaugh­ter of an­i­mals was con­cerned, it is ex­clu­sively in the State list, said the court.

“Un­der the above back­ground, it should be tested whether the im­pugned Rule is within the Con­sti­tu­tional and/ or le­gal frame­work and have con­sid­er­a­tion over and above the State en­act­ments in this sec­u­lar coun­try”, Jus­tice Mu­ralid­ha­ran said.

This court has taken note of the ques­tion raised by the pe­ti­tioner that in­tro­duc­tion of new rules was not only in­ter­fer­ing with the do­main of State en­act­ments and the ex­ist­ing laws re­lat­ing to the slaugh­ter­ing of an­i­mals, but it was also an act of in­ter­fer­ence in the food habit of the cit­i­zens which is ev­er­last­ing since time im­memo­rial.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.