The stay imposed by Madras High Court Bench in Madurai on May 30 on the operation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulations of Livestock Markets) Rules of 2017, which banned sale of cattle in animal markets , lapsed on Friday as the High Court refused to extend the interim order.
A Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and G.R. Swaminathan directed the High Court Registry to post a public interest litigation petition, challenging the statutory rules, before another Division Bench in which one of them (Justice Swaminathan) was not a party.
The direction was issued as Justice Swaminathan had appeared in the case on behalf the Centre when he held the office of Assistant Solicitor General.
Though petitioner's counsel urged the court to extend the interim stay till the case was heard by another Division Bench, Justice Sasidharan told him that such an extension order cannot be passed by the Bench in which Justice Swaminathan was a party.
Originally, a Division Bench of Justices M.V. Muralidaran and C.V. Karthikeyan granted the interim stay on May 30 for four weeks. Subsequently, another Bench of Justices A. Selvam and N. Authinathan extended it till July 6 as counsel representing the Centre sought time to file a counter affidavit.
Supreme Court hearing
When the case came up for hearing on Friday, the court was informed that a similar PIL was filed in the Supreme Court too and that it was coming up for hearing on July 11. Hence the Bench led by Justice Sasidharan decided to post the present case sometime after July 11 before some other Division Bench.
S. Selvagomathy (45), an activist-cum-lawyer based in Madurai, filed the PIL petition on grounds that the statutory rules were repugnant to the parent Act itself as Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960 specifically states that it shall not be an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.
The petitioner claimed that the PCA Act permitted slaughter of animals as well as sale of animals for slaughter. The Centre had no authority to extend its rule making power, under the enactment, to the extent of banning the sale of animals in a market for the purpose of slaughter, she said.
‘Animal slaughter a cultural identity’
Ms. Selvagomath contended that the new rules offended the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 and the protection of interests of minorities under Article 29 of the Constitution. She said the slaughtering of animals for food and offering sacrifice in religious places were a part and parcel of the cultural identity of most of the communities in the country.
The petitioner stated that prohibiting the sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets amounted to interfering with the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The statutory rules banning the sale of cattle for slaughter amounted to excessive restriction and not reasonable restriction imposed on the right to trade.
Ms. Selvagomathy said the farmers and traders involved in the sale of cattle, slaughter houseowners and their employees would be deprived of their livelihood, as the rules defined the term ‘animal market’ to be a market place or sale yard or any other premises or place to which animals were brought from other places for sale or auction.
The definition also included any lairage adjoining a market or a slaughterhouse and used in connection with it and any place adjoining a market used as a parking area by visitors to the market for parking of vehicles and included animal fair and cattle pound where animals were offered or displayed for sale or auction.
Further, the rules defined the term ‘cattle’ to mean a bovine animal, including bulls, bullocks, cows, buffaloes, steers, heifers and calves and camels. “Therefore, by the impugned regulations, a complete ban has been imposed on the trade of sale or purchase of animals defined as cattle and it is in violation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution,” she asserted.
The petitioner went on to state, “The right to choice of food [non-vegetarian or vegetarian] is a part of the right to personal liberty, conscience and privacy. By imposing a ban on slaughter of animals for food, the citizens with a choice to eat the flesh of such animals would be deprived of such food and it violates the right to food, privacy and personal liberty.”
Referring to the seventh schedule to the Constitution, the petitioner said the issues concerning markets, fairs and preservation or protection and improvement of livestock fall within entry 28 and 15 of the State list and thus only the State legislature and not the Centre was empowered to enact laws and frame statutory rules on those subjects.
