SC: Privacy verdict to have a bearing on beef ban cases

SC WAS HEARING PLEAS FILED AGAINST THE BOMBAY HC VERDICT DECRIMINALISING THE POSSESSION OF BEEF IN CASE OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED OUTSIDE STATE

A day after nine judges of Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled privacy was integral to one’s life, liberty and freedom protected by Indian Constitution, a top court bench on Friday remarked the verdict will have a bearing on the beef ban cases in Maharashtra.

“Of course the judgement will have an impact on these cases,” a bench of justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said during the hearing of cross-appeals against Bombay High Court May 2016 verdict that decriminalised possession of beef but upheld ban on slaughtering of milch cattle in the state.

While some have moved SC to oppose the ban, petitions have also been filed against permission given to keep beef in one’s houses. Maharashtra government too has filed an appeal - one and half years after the verdict claiming state authorities can search and seize houses because there is no right to privacy.

The judges made their oral observation when senior advo- cate CU Singh- whose clients have questioned the ban - contended the petitions would now have to be heard in the wake of privacy verdict.

His colleague, Indira Jaisingh, too raised the point and said after the verdict right to eat food of your choice is protected under right to privacy and is a fundamental right.

The line of arguments by Singh and Jaising were aimed at the State and self-proclaimed cow protection groups who want the top court to revive the state rules making possession of beef illegal.

The counsel also raised a new point before the bench and demanded a relook at the SC’s 2004 judgement (Mirzapur) that imposed a complete ban on slaughter of bovine, even if unproductive. Jaising said the 7-judges bench decision should be reconsidered because it affected other rights of citizens and not just privacy.

The bench agreed to look into her plea and said it would first hear all the parties and then take a call on whether the Mirzapur verdict needs a review.

“I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State as to what they should eat or how they should dress or whom they should be associated with either in their personal, social or political life,” said justice J Chelameswar in his personal conclusion in the right to privacy case.

CONTINUED ON P 5