Open Access Research Article
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FOOD AND BEEF BAN: CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE AT THE CAUSE OR LOSS OF OTHERS BY: BHAVANA P
Published Paper
Article Details
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FOOD
AND BEEF BAN: CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE AT THE CAUSE OR LOSS OF OTHERS
AUTHORED
BY: BHAVANA P
BA LLB
CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, BANGALORE
Abstract:
The Constitution of
India, 1949, under part III, provides for several basic fundamental rights,
inclusive of Right to food, concurring and inherent with article 21, right to
life and personal liberty, which subsequently advocates for life with dignity.
The National Human Rights Commission has explicitly stated that Right to food
should be read along with several directives of the state, as enshrined in part
IV of the constitution, to foreshorten malnutrition and to also boost public
health. However, The Ministry of Environment, through its infamous prevention
of cruelty to animals’ law, passed a resolution under the Modi-headed
government in 2017, upholding the ban of beef consumption, not in a particular
state, but the whole territory of India as specified in article 1 of the
Constitution of India, 1949, which is exclusively elaborated in Schedule I.
After the said law came into force on May 26, 2017, several slaughterhouses
underwent immediate shutdown, as contrary to other meat stores that sell
chicken and goat meat. This paves way to a serious question- Whether beef ban
is against eating choices, which directly affects one’s fundamental right to
food?
Keywords: Cruelty against Animals, Beef,
Fundamental Rights, right to food, Cow Slaughtering
1. INTRODUCTION
Meat from dairy cattle,
particularly skeletal muscle, is referred to as "beef". Beef has been
consumed by humans from the dawn of time. Beef has large amounts of both
protein and carbohydrates. India consumes the third-most meat worldwide and
produces 25% of the world's meat. The top three beef-eating nations worldwide
are China, Brazil, and the United States.
Despite India holding the
third spot in overall Meat consumption, the Ministry of Environment has upheld
the resolution of beef-ban. Soon after the resolution was passed in the parliament, and
after its enactment as a valid law, several arguments have been raised by
critics as to the in-depth notion of cultivating the law. Most people argue
that it’s a tactic of the Modi government to supress Muslims, adding to their
long-list of crimes against Muslims. Contrary to it, several people uphold and
enthusiastically support the ban as Cows are considered to be Holy animals of
the Hindu religion with several depictions of the same in the archaic Hindu
Mythology.
Only 5 million stray
cattle were reported to be roaming Indian streets in 2012, but current
estimates place the number of unproductive cattle at risk of being abandoned at
40 million or more. Cows are regarded as sacrosanct by the Hindu population of
India, who opposes their killing.
2. CATTLE PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
AND STATE LAWS
2.1. Article 48- Constitution of India, 1949, “Organisation
of agriculture and animal husbandry”
Article 48 of the
constitution aims to safeguard Bos Indicus, a breed or subspecies of domestic
cattle that originated in the Indian subcontinent. In response to recurring
calls from affiliated religions for measures to be made to avoid cattle
slaughter, the government adopted Article 48 for the welfare of cattle and to
take steps to secure the cattle riches of India.
Article 48 of the constitution of India states
that “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”
2.2. 14th and 15th entry of State List
There is a provision in the State List for the
“Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal
diseases; veterinary training and practice” and the “Ponds and the prevention
of cattle trespass” in the 15th and 16th entries, respectively, for cattle
preservation in the state list of the Constitution of India.
In light of the
abovementioned view, the second-most populous state in the country,
Maharashtra, which contains Mumbai, outlawed the consumption of meat and extended
its ban on animal slaughter. A punishment of Rs 10,000 and up to five years in
prison could be imposed on anyone who engage in the practise. The state of
Haryana likewise enacted a similar piece of legislation. Additionally, there
are currently only 7 States and UTs without laws governing the butchering of
cattle.
West Bengal, Kerala, and
the north eastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland,
Tripura, and Sikkim do not have a state prohibition on beef. The majority of
states have made the practise of butchering cows illegal; for instance, in
Tamil Nadu, butchering cows is forbidden and punishable by up to three years in
prison and a fine of Rs. 1000. Similar sentences of six months in prison and a
$1,000 fine are imposed on offenders in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Gujarat
forbids the slaughter of cows, calves, bulls, and bullocks; offenders face
fines of Rs. 50,000 and sentences of 7 years in prison, among other penalties.
The state statute
mentioned above demonstrates that no state law specifically forbids the
consumption of beef. There is a lack of consistency in the state legislation
governing cattle slaughter. Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu
and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand have the
strictest regulations prohibiting the slaughter of cows and their offspring,
including bulls and bullocks of all ages. Some states forbid the complete
slaughter of cattle in any way, but animals are also slaughtered illegally
across the border. Because of the country's diverse population, strong
religious beliefs, and realistic economic considerations, there has not yet
been an explicit law that wholly bans beef slaughter throughout the territories
of the nation as specified in Article 1 of the constitution.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES
The abecedarian right of right to life in the
Indian constitution appears to be getting violated on the put of beef ban or
cow slaughtering in the certain states of the country. The law of the land says
that no person in the country should be deprived of their life unless
subordinated to any procedural emendations of the law made by the courts of
India. The conception of " living" is way farther than just merely
existing. The right to live includes the right to life inclusive of the
absolute musts of life, like sufficient nutrition, apparel and sanctum, and the
right to live with and live- in mortal quality, as held in the case of
Francis Corralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi Aministrator.[1]
As a result, in the landmark case of Shantisar
Builders v. Administrator of Union Territory Delhi[2],
it was determined that the fundamental right to life includes not only the
right to live but also the right to nourishment. In Rajagopal v. Tamil Nadu[3],
another precedent-setting case, it was determined that the right to privacy and
the right to life are intertwined. In this sense, one cannot challenge the
other person's dietary preferences or demand that he eats what he can for his
survival because it is his right to pick what he can eat for his survival.
3.1. Malnutrition in Children
Serious worries about child malnutrition have also
been sparked by the beef ban. One of the least expensive sources of protein for
India's most socially disadvantaged youngsters is cow flesh. As a result, more
kids than ever are struggling with inadequate nutrient intake. A new World Bank
report states that India currently has the most malnourished children
worldwide. Children underweight by 44% are 5 years old.[4]
Children who are malnourished are more susceptible to infectious infections,
which cause more than half of the mortality in children under the age of five.
4. MODI GOVERNMENT’S APPROACH AND PERSPECTIVE
All forms of cow slaughter were outlawed
countrywide, with the exception of Jammu and Kashmir, by the Environment
Ministry's "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock
Markets) Rules, 2017" notice, which was released in May 2017. It comprises
all varieties of cattle, such as bulls and camels.
“The environmental
ministry released the Press Information Bureau on ‘Rules on prevention of
cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market) to ensure the welfare of
Animals & Protect Animals from Cruelty.’[5]
The Rule's primary goal is to protect the welfare
of animals in cattle markets by providing enough housing, feeding, processing
of feed, water supply, water troughs, ramps, ill animal cages, veterinary care,
and other amenities like proper drainage. Two committees are established to
advance this, namely the Animal Market Committee for market administration at
the local government level and the District Animal Market Monitoring Committee
for animal market registration. The fundamental goal of the rule is to protect
animals from suffering, not to control the current cow traffic in
slaughterhouses. It is planned to assure bovine protection on the market and
sell only healthy animals to farmers.
Farmers will be required to purchase cattle for
slaughter during this phase, which will transform the livestock markets into
major centres for the sale of farm animals. The announced restrictions will end
the unlawful sale and trafficking of animals, which is a significant problem.
Only animals that are purchased and sold in the designated livestock markets
and animals that are seized as case properties are subject to the specified
regulations. Other areas are not covered by these rules[6].
In India, where only 30% of the cattle that are
killed are consumed for human consumption and the other 70% are traded for
industrial purposes, this prohibition is absolutely unprecedented.
There was a massive nationwide protest. Similar to
how people in Kerela organised meat fests in several regions of the state to
protest the recent ban on beef imposed by the centre, which was organised by
activists and students. A special resolution was issued by the state
legislature requesting the centre to Because it violated peoples' rights to eat
what they want; the slaughter ban should be lifted. The center's statewide ban
on cow slaughter sparked a protest in Tamil Nadu, and the meat fest was held at
IIT Madras as a show of opposition.
5.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PRESENT
GOVERNMENT ORDER
The Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, were challenged by
the petitioners in the case of Mohammed Abdul Faheem Qureshi v. Union of
India, 2017[7]. In the
case, the petitioner asserted in his appeal that the Constitution's protections
for a citizen's right to freedom of religion, conscience, security, and
personal freedom were violated by putting a restriction on the slaughter of
animals for food. This notice was against the freedom of religious practise to
sacrifice animals.
When Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru was the prime minister of India in 1960, the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act was approved by Parliament. In 1982, while Indira Gandhi was the
prime minister of India, she revised this law. This Act has not changed since
the Indira Gandhi administration revised it 37 years ago. Only the Centre has
the authority to enact rules governing animal care, as stated in Section 38 of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Environment Ministry's
announcement is supported by Section 38 of the Act. Rule 22 of the
notification, which aims to ensure that the selling and buying of bovine
animals on authorised animal markets can only be done for agricultural reasons
and not for slaughter, proved to be the most problematic.
The government has
challenged the regulation of cow slaughter in several cases, either directly or
indirectly, before the petitioner in the issue now before the Court.
Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar[8], a
case involving the identical issue, was determined by a five-judge Supreme
Court panel in 1958. The slaughter of all animals from the bovine cattle
species was outlawed completely by the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of
Animals Act of 1956.
The petitioner opposed
the law on the grounds that it violated the right to freedom of religion, of
speech, and of association, and that the complete ban was bad for the general
populace.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the
complete ban on the slaughter of cattle was just, legitimate, and in line with
the Directive's guiding principles as outlined in Article 48. But the supreme
court ruled that a blanket ban on keeping unprofitable cattle within its
purview was unjustified and violated the butcher's right to freedom of trade
and occupation. In the case of Mirzapur Moti Kureshi v. State of Gujarat[9],
the Supreme Court overturned its almost 50-year-old holding that a bovine
cattle's inability to provide milk, breed, or serve as a drought animal did not
render it useless, revisiting its own judgement from 1958.
In the present case, the
Supreme Court upheld the stay on Centre’s ban on cow slaughtering and said that
the direction of the Madurai bench of Madras High Court in the case of S. Selvagomathy
v. Union of India[10]
of suspending centre ban on sale and purchase of beef in India will be
applicable to rest of India.’ ‘It also said to the government that the law
itself allows cattle slaughtering. It also said that the ban on cattle
slaughtering is under the state list which implies that state governments are
authorized to make law on the issue and it also infringes the right to carry
out free trade.’
6. CONCLUSION
Although it is
understandable that the Indian government would not support cow slaughter due
to religious concerns, neither the burden placed on farmers nor the harm done
to Indian children should be disregarded. The problem of unproductive cattle
overpopulation and the malnutrition problem affecting India's young population
require a solution.
Given the diversity of
opinions and ideologies held by people, as well as historical experiences,
there are some discussions in a democracy where everyone is free to express
themselves that no one can provide a convincing response to the general public.
It is not surprising that the Constituent Assembly chose not to pursue a
national statute on the subject, upholding the sanctity of the country's
cultural variety. Even now, calling for national legislation is foolish and
absurd, and the implementation which, in all likelihood, will result in
increased acts of violence across the nation.
Experience suggests that
the best course of action up to this point has been to leave the decision to
the individual states' better judgement. There is no denying that on some
cases, when vote bank politics were in play, states' judgement was not used in
a legitimate way.
For instance, while beef
consumption is outlawed completely in Maharashtra, the neighbouring state of
Goa—which is governed by the same party—does not share this restriction for the
simple reason that it has a sizable Christian population. This might be viewed
as one of the drawbacks of granting state autonomy over legislation governing
animal killing.
However, this flaw does
not by itself have sufficient gravity to warrant the creation of a national law
on the subject. The Supreme Court has argued that the scope of judicial
investigation is limited to inquiries into whether the government has ordered
the courts to refrain from interfering with its policy decisions because it
opposes all statutory provisions, violates citizens' fundamental rights, or
opposes the Constitution's clauses.
In a country like ours,
it is practically impossible for a law to satisfy the aspirations of each
individual, and this is where the concept of welfare state creeps in. Every law
formulated has a particular objective, and unless this objective frustrates the
constitutional fabric itself, it must be understood to be for the welfare of
the people. Thus, the formulation of laws banning the slaughter of cattle in
multiple states by our very own representatives, and its confirmation by the
judicial system is imperative to give essence to the ideal of socialism
enshrined in our preamble. Criticism and scrutinization of executive action and
judicial decisions, leading to a healthy public debate, is a unique and
welcomed feature of a democracy. However, caution must be exercised so that
such debates and discussions are not used as a forum to create a sense of
insecurity and mistrust towards constitutional institutions, which may prove to
be a hindrance to the growth and development of democracy in the long run, and
to further ensure that our faith in the pillars of our democracy is not easily
misplaced.
[1] AIR 1981 SC 746
[2] 1990 1 SCC 520
[3] AIR 1995 SC 264
[4] Save the Children India. Save the
Children India: Malnutrition in India Statistics State Wise. 2017. Available at: https://www.savethechildren.in/articles/malnutrition-in-india-statistics-state-wise
[5] Ministry of environment
[6] ‘Rules on Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market) to Ensure Welfare of Animals &
Protect Animals from Cruelty: Environment Ministry’
accessed 9 October 2019
[7] Mohammed Abdul Faheem Qureshi v.
Union of India [2017] MANU 25572 (SCOR)
[8] Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others
vs The State of Bihar [1959] SCR 629
[9] Mirzapur Moti Kureshi v. State of
Gujarat [2005] 8 SCC 534
Article Information
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FOOD AND BEEF BAN: CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE AT THE CAUSE OR LOSS OF OTHERS BY: BHAVANA P
Authors: BHAVANA P
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/05/06
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.