Few Days ago Uttar Pradesh government passed a UP prevention of law slaughter
(Amendment) Ordinance 2020 The main objective of this ordinance is to preventing
the slaughtering of cow and protect the sentiment of Hinduism . Some of the
provision of Ordinance are follows a:
- Section 3 of the principal Acts prohibits cow slaughter, or its attempt
or abetment, and Section 5 of the Act prohibits sale or transport of beef.
Violation of these provisions is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to seven years.
- Through this Ordinance, the government has enhanced the maximum
punishment for both the offences with rigorous imprisonment of a minimum
term of 3 years which may extend up to 10 years, and fine of minimum Rs. 3
lakh and maximum Rs. 5 lakh. In case of repeated offenders, the punishment
prescribed above will stand doubled.
- The name and photo of a person accused for violation of Section 5 will
be published at any such important place in the locality where the accused
normally resides or at such public place where he hides himself from the law
enforcement," the press release issued by the Government states
The Ordinance further fixes liability on the driver and owner of the vehicle
that is used to transport beef. It provides that if beef is found in a vehicle
or it is discovered that cows are being transported illegally, the driver and
the owner of the vehicle shall be charged for cow slaughter, unless they prove
that they had no knowledge of the same.
Critical Analysis of Ordinance Our preamble states that India is a secular....
But This amendment show the intention and motive of government they want to gain
a vote bank through Majority appeasement why they does want to ban the
slaughtering of Pork . Slaughtering of beef is also sin in the Islam.
In the case of SR Bommai v Union of India
while delivering the verdict
Supreme Court Observed that Secularism is one of the basic features of the
Constitution. While freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons in India,
from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person
To the State, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters
of State, religion has no place. No political party can simultaneously be a
religious party. Politics and religion cannot be mixed. Any State Government
which pursues unsecular policies or unsecular course of action acts contrary to
the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article
Whether Right to eat beef includes the right to eat through Article 21 In our
Constitution Article 21 is a one of the major Article which protected various
rights of citizen as well as non Citizen now question whether the right to eat a
beef of cow is a fundamental right protected under Article 21.
My view is that:
The Term right to personal liberty means a personal liberty of individual what
he she eat, wear it should not be decided by the any one even though state that
Is why Ban on beef is a violation of Article 21 In the case of In 1996, in
Hasmattullah v State of Madhya Pradesh
case the MP imposed total ban on
slaughter of bull and bullock but Supreme Court quashed it saying cattle above
the age of 16 years are of no use for breeding, draught and agricultural purpose
hence slaughter could not be banned as it is unreasonable and violate the right
to trade and profession.
Cow protection under Directive principle of state policy It is defined in
It reads as follows:
The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern
and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and
improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and
other milch and draught cattle As I earlier states that Right to beef includes a
right to eat through Article 21 but cow must not be useful to giving milk.
Thus We can says that Both Article are inconsistent of each other Fundamental
Rights are for individual rights while Directive principle of state policy is a
duty of states When the Rights and Duties will Clash than obviously Fundamental
Rights will prevail Because Article 37 Clearly states that Application of the
principles contained in this Part The provisions contained in this Part shall
not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are
nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the
duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws So from the language
of Article 37 it is clear that Directions given from Article 36 to 51 can not be
enforceable by court while if we talk about the Article 21.
It is under the fundamental rights and in the case of violation of any
fundamental rights individual Can directly approach supreme Court under Article
32 or high court under Article 226 And publishing the identity of accused
persons is a violation of his / her privacy under Article 21 of Indian
Constitution and during disclosing of identity of CAA protestor by state
government Allahabad high court said same thing So to sum up I want to says that
Such type of laws for appeasement of vote bank of hindu bigots can not be
allowed Our constitution give us Article 21 to live with own choice now what
anyone will eat , wear it should not be decided by the government.
- AIR 1996 SC 2076