MADURAI
It has been a roller coaster ride for the interim stay imposed by the Madras High Court Bench here on May 30 on the operation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulations of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, which banned sale of bulls, bullocks, cows, buffaloes, steers, heifers, calves and camels for slaughter in places defined as ‘animal markets’ with the court on Thursday once again reviving the interim order that had expired for the second time on July 26.
Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Sathish Kumar extended the interim stay by a week before adjourning further hearing on two public interest litigation petitions filed against the rules and an intervening application filed by an animal rights activist in support of the rules. The stay was originally ordered for a period of four weeks by Justices M.V. Muralidaran and C.V. Karthikeyan on the PIL petitions filed by activist S. Selvagomathy and B. Asik Dagi Bava of Madurai.
Subsequently, on June 28, when the four-week period came to an end, another Division Bench of Justices A. Selvam and N. Authinathan extended the stay till July 7 since a counsel representing the Centre sought time to file a counter affidavit. On July 7, the matter was listed before a Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and G.R. Swaminathan and the latter recused himself since he had represented the Centre in the case during his tenure as Assistant Solicitor General.
The stay expired on that day since the judges could not extend it further. Thereafter, the two PIL petitions were listed before the Division Bench led by Mr. Justice Sundresh on July 20 and the Bench revived the interim order by extending the stay for a week. However, on July 26, the High Court Registry listed the case once again before a Division Bench comprising the administrative judge, Mr. Justice Sasidharan, and Mr. Justice Swaminathan who recused himself for the second time.
The stay order got expired on that day for the second time and was revived only on Thursday. In the meantime, Joshine Antony (34), an animal rights activist from Bangalore, filed an intervening application, and claimed that the Centre was perfectly right in framing the rules in accordance with directions issued by the Supreme Court in a case related to transportation of animals for mass sacrifice during Gadhimai festival in Nepal.
