LAW FOR COW PROTECTION- R. K. Joshi   
(Paper presented before the National Seminar on the need for Central Law for Cow Protection, held at Delhi on 19-20 September, 1998)

continued....from Page 2

This case is also a glaring example of the irreparable loss arising from delays in judicial process. What was desired to be rectified in 1971 1 was ultimately rectified in 1994, went on unchecked for 23 long years causing actual destruction of lacks of young, healthy female cows and further destruction of millions of the progency that would have ensued form those killed cows!

In challenges to the laws imposing total prohibition on slaughter of entire cow progency, the butchers contend infringement of their fundamental right under Article 19(1 )(g). This argument has been consistently upheld by the Courts in various judgements. However, now there is a departure from this. The Allahabad High Court has held in Mohd. Habib and Ors. Vis. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No.38469 of 1994) that it is not anybody's fundamental right to take life and kill animals and the Constitution of India does not permit this. The operative part of the judgement reads as under:

"The Court is of the view that the Constitution of India does not permit any citizen to claim that it is his fundamental right to take life and kill animals. A butcher may have his profession but he cannot claim it as a fundamental right by the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be a negation of the tenets of our Constitution. The Constitution of India has a chapter on Fundamental Duties. This is Chapter IV-A Article 51 A(g) ordains "compassion for living creature".

Thus, the Court is unable to persuade itself that butchery as a profession can be claimed as a fundamental right of a citizen. That a butcher may slaughter and make a business of it is one aspect of the matter, but, the State can regulate this business".

Thus the argument of fundamental right in killing animals now no longer holds good and this case has been relied upon in the appeal.in Gujarat matter before the Supreme Court.

This much for the legal history so far in the matter. Another related legal issue in connection With protection of cows is4he interim custody of the animals being taken for illegal slaughter intercepted by voluntary organisations and individuals and seeking their custody pending trial and final disposal of the matter. In hundreds of such cases Akhil

Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh or its affiliate Institutions/individuals throughout the country have obtained interim custody of the animals. Experience has shown that no accused has ever come to claim custody of the animals upon final disposal of the matter, as such cases take long time and the maintenance charges claimed by the Gaushlas/Panjrapoles for the intervening period exceed the value of such animals for the butchers. More than 2 lac cattle heads mainly consisting of cows, bulls and bullocks and calves have been saved in this process. In some of the cases the appeals by butchers have went right up to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has also upheld the custody given to voluntary organisations. A compilation of such judgements (which are not reported judgements as they are of lower judiciary) has been brought out by Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh and has been approved by Animal Welfare Board of India and hence relied upon as a reference in the lower courts. The most notable judgement in this area is by Justice C.S. Dharmadhikari, Acting C.J. and V.P. Tipnis J. of the Bombay High Court in Krishi Goseva Sangh and Anr. V /s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. This judgement for the first time awarded payment of maintenance charges also at the rate of As. 7/- per day per animal to the Panjrapole/Goshala. This judgement also directed the Government of Maharashtra to appoint a Committee of experts to look into the necessity of suitable amendments to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.  >>>