Centre’s ‘cattle trade’ ban order challenged in SC

NEW DELHI: The controversial central notification banning sale and purchase of cattle at animal markets for slaughter was today challenged in the Supreme Court which said it would hear the matter on June 15. The matter was mentioned before a vacation bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Deepak Gupta for an early hearing.

The petitioner contended that the provisions in the notification were unconstitutional as they violated the fundamental rights including freedom of conscience and religion and right to livelihood.

The plea claimed that the government notification issued last month was “against the freedom of religious practice to sacrifice the animals” and imposing a ban on slaughter of animals for food violates the right to food, privacy and personal liberty guaranteed to a citizen under the Constitution.

It claimed that states like Kerala, West Bengal, Tripura and Karnataka have said that they would not implement the Centre’s ban as it would impact the livelihood of those involved in this business.

“It is also to be noted that slaughtering of animals for food, the foods and culinary made out of such animal flesh and offering sacrifice of animals is a part of cultural identity of such communities, which is protected from any legislative or executive encroachment under Article 29 of the Constitution of India which is not been subjected to any restriction by the framers of the Constitution...,” the petitioner, Hyderabad- based Mohammed Abdul Faheem Qureshi, said in his plea.

Complete ban of sale or purchase or re-sale of animals would cast a huge economic burden on the farmers, cattle traders who find it difficult to feed their children today, it said.

They would be also required to feed the cattle as it was an offence under Act of 1960 (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) to starve an animal or failure to maintain it and would also “give way for cow vigilantes to harass farmers and cattle traders under the blessing of the impugned regulations”, said the petition filed through advocate Sanobar Ali Qureshi.

The plea further said the 1960 Act was not enacted by Parliament to prohibit or restrict any act of slaughter of animals for food or for religious sacrifice or the sale of animals for it.

It has sought the apex court’s direction to declare these rules of Prevention Of Cruelty To Animal (Regulation Of Live Stocks, Markets) Rules and Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals (Care And Maintenance Of Case Property Animals) as ultra vires and unconstitutional.

The impugned provisions are imposing an absolute ban on slaughtering of animals in the country directly affecting the employment of the butchers and their trade, the plea said. It is depriving the citizens food of their choice and is in violation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution and also inconsistent and violative of section 28 of the parent Act, the plea said. KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday declined to stay the Centre’s ban on the sale of cattle for slaughter.

Considering a batch of petitions challenging rule 22 of the notification imposing restrictions on the sale of cattle last week, Justice P B Suresh Kumar had said that the court would consider the application for the stay of the notification after seeing the Centre’s counter. It had directed the Centre to file its counter affidavit on the impact of the notification banning sale and purchase of cattle for slaughter from animal markets.

The Centre, however, did not inform its stand on the issue on Wednesday.

Posting the case for hearing on June 26, the court today directed the Centre to file the counter affidavit before the next hearing. A division bench had last week declined to entertain a PIL seeking quashing of the Centre’s notification banning sale and purchase of cattle for slaughter, observing that there was no constitutional violation in the rules. NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the decks for admission in PG medical courses through 50 per cent institutional reservation in Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University and extended the time to fill up the vacant seats till June 12.

The apex court set aside the May 29 order of the Allahabad High Court, saying it “overstepped” its jurisdiction and termed the verdict as as “erroneous” as both the AMU and the BHU, the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Union of India were not parties before it. “The high court did not take into consideration the fact that the state (Uttar Pradesh) had no power to control admission to these universities.

“Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the high court overstepped its jurisdiction and the order of the high court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside,” a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Deepak Gupta said.

It said that the 50 per cent institutional reservation in the AMU and the BHU, which had been reflected in their prospectus, was not challenged by anybody before the high court.

“As stated, the AMU and the BHU were not parties before the high court. The MCI and the Union of India were also not parties before the high court,” it said, adding that earlier judgements of the apex court, which upheld institutional preferences in central universities, were also not taken into account by the high court. The apex court said that in central universities 100 per cent admissions for MBBS course are based on all India examination and there is no state quota for seats in central universities like the AMU and the BHU or other central institutions like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). It is, therefore, apparent that the state can have no control over the seats in those medical colleges which are part of the central universities/institutions, it said.

“These seats have to be filled up on the basis of merit and institutional preference could be given to the extent permissible i.e. 50 per cent, as has been held by a catena of decisions including the Constitution Bench judgment of this court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri,” it said.

The apex court also set aside the direction of the high court which denied the benefit of service rendered in remote/ difficult areas to those doctors, who have cleared MBBS examination from a college outside Uttar Pradesh.

It said that Rule 9(iv) of THE MCI regulations clearly provides that an incentive at the rate of 10 per cent of the marks for each year can be given to those in service candidates, who have served in remote or difficult areas subject to the condition that the highest incentive will be of 30 per cent marks. The bench said that the power to notify the remote and difficult areas is vested with the state government which has been upheld by the apex court as Rule 9 (iv) is a complete code in itself.

In fact, Rule 9 (iv) itself only provides for weightage being given for each year of service rendered in remote and difficult areas, it said. The purpose behind this rule is that those doctors who willingly served in remote and difficult areas should be given some preference while considering them for admission to post- graduate courses, the court said.