The High Court of Bombay has given time of four weeks to the Maharashtra govt. so as to submit its reply to the petitions opposing provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, which proscribes transportation, possession and consumption of meat of cow, bullocks and bulls even if the animals have been slaughtered outside Maharashtra.
A division bench of Justices VM Kanade and BP Colabawalla allowed time after acting Advocate General, Anil Singh, communicated to the Court that their reply was not ready.
In April, however, the Court had declined to stay the ban on transportation, possession and consumption of beef in the state. Nonetheless, the Court had asked the government not to take coercive action against those found in possession of beef till July. The court had moreover added that FIRs could be registered against such traders, but no further action can be taken until the petitions are decided finally or till three months, whichever is earlier.
The petitions filed challenge sections 5(d) and 9(a) of the concerned Act. The government had opposed the petitions, contending that consumption of beef is not a fundamental right of a citizen and thus the state can regulate the right of a person’s choice of food. The government further argued that if section 5(d) of the Act, which prohibits possession of meat, is struck down, then the Act would remain only on paper and will defeat the very purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide protection to the cow progeny.
A division bench of Justices VM Kanade and BP Colabawalla allowed time after acting Advocate General, Anil Singh, communicated to the Court that their reply was not ready.
In April, however, the Court had declined to stay the ban on transportation, possession and consumption of beef in the state. Nonetheless, the Court had asked the government not to take coercive action against those found in possession of beef till July. The court had moreover added that FIRs could be registered against such traders, but no further action can be taken until the petitions are decided finally or till three months, whichever is earlier.
The petitions filed challenge sections 5(d) and 9(a) of the concerned Act. The government had opposed the petitions, contending that consumption of beef is not a fundamental right of a citizen and thus the state can regulate the right of a person’s choice of food. The government further argued that if section 5(d) of the Act, which prohibits possession of meat, is struck down, then the Act would remain only on paper and will defeat the very purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide protection to the cow progeny.