J&K beef ban on hold
Govt had pleaded communal harmony should not be disrupted on account of conflicting orders
SC puts the J&K high court ban in abeyance for two months, orders a special bench to decide on conflicting orders issued by two benches of the HC
The Supreme Court on Monday put in abeyance for two months the Jammu bench order of the J&K high court, which directed the local police to take action against those selling beef in the state.
A bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu also asked the state high court chief justice to constitute a three-judge bench at its Srinagar bench to decide a petition that has urged the court to declare the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) provision — which bans voluntary sale of beef in J&K — ultra vires.
The SC order came on the J&K government’s petition against the conflicting orders issued by the two benches of the HC on the contentious subject.
The Jammu bench had on September 8 asked the police to strictly enforce the ban on selling beef as laid out in the RPC. A week later, the Srinagar bench issued a notice to the state government on the PIL with an observation that a pending case shall not bar the state to amend the law.
Visibly upset with the second order by the state high court, the CJI said, “The observation by the Srinagar bench was not required. It was unnecessary.” He disagreed with the counsel appearing for the petition- ers before the two high court benches that the orders were not conflicting.
“One bench says don’t sell it. The other agrees to hear a petition against the law that bans it. Don’t you think it’s conflicting? We think it is and it is for us to take a call,” he told the advocates.
Giving liberty to the chief justice to appoint the judges, the SC also left it to him to decide whether the petition before the Jammu bench should be transferred to the Srinagar bench.
The PDP-BJP government led by Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, through senior counsel Amarender Sharan, pleaded that communal harmony in the state should not be disrupted on account of the conflicting orders and wanted the SC to resolve the issue.
After the order was declared, Sharan asked whether the SC order meant stay of the HC verdict. The CJI replied: “The order is kept in abeyance. I have not stayed it.”