The Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1994, the statute banning cow slaughter, clearly shows that the Delhi police had no legal authority to enter and raid Kerala House in search of beef.
Section 11 of the draconian statute passed by the Legislative Assembly in 1994, categorically says it is for the Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Delhi, and the local veterinary officer to enter and inspect any premises for the banned “agricultural cattle” meat.
The same section distinguishes this from the police’s authority to “enter, stop and search” vehicles for banned meat, which was not the case in the Kerala House incident. Even this authority is derived from the Delhi government.
In short, it was not in the hands of the police, but up to the Delhi government, to take a call on Kerala House.
However, the Act goes to great lengths to protect persons who acted in “good faith” to preserve its intent.
Section 17 throws a total blanket of protection on such persons, saying, “No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person for anything which is done by him in good faith or intended to be done under this Act or the rules made there-under”.
The 1994 Act, a short piece of legislation extending to the whole of Delhi, is a forbidding one.
It bans the slaughter of agricultural cattle which means cows and calves of any age, bulls and bullocks. The Act spares the buffalo.
However, Sections 8 and 9 make even the mere possession, intentional or unintentional, of the flesh of agricultural cattle an offence. Offences under the Act are non-bailable, thus placing the 1994 Act in the category of draconian laws like NDPS meant for combating heinous drug offences.
To make matters worse, Section 14 says that the onus is on the person accused of possession to prove that the meat he possesses is not the flesh of agricultural cattle. “In any trial for an offence under this Act, the burden of proving that the slaughter, transport, export, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of agricultural cattle was not in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall be on the accused.”
