Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 4214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.V. Muralidaran, C.V. Karthikeyan, JJ.
S. Selvagomathy, B. Asik Ilagi Bava - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
WMP(MD) Nos. 7769 and 7771 of 2017 in WP(MD) Nos. 10128 and 10129 of 2017
Decided On : 30-05-2017
For the Petitioner:Ajmalkhan for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocate, V.A. Dhana Aravindha Balaji, Advocate
For the Respondent:G.R. Swaminathan, ASGI, Assisted, K.R. Laxman, Advocate, B. Pugalendhi, Additional Advocate General Assisted by R. Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader
Headnote:
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules, 2017 - Rule 22(b) (iii) and Rule 22(e) - Instant Public Interest Litigation - Petitioner is attempting to draw the attention of this court as to whether the government of India can impose a restriction upon the choice of food on its citizen in order to justify the case, the petitioner is also attempting to bring the notice of this court - Held, submissions of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India have also been taken up for consideration - However, this Court is not in full agreement that a presumption is in favour of the Central Government when a particular rule is introduced, not by the Parliament, but by the Executive, because the primary aspect is that the subject of the law under consideration is in the State list in Entry No.15 - In addition to that, it is also to be kept in mind that the subject of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is also in the Concurrent list in Entry No.17 - At the same time, so for as slaughtering of animals is concerned, it is exclusively in the State list - Under the above background, it should be tested whether the impugned Rule is within the Constitutional and/or legal frame work and have consideration over and above the State enactments in this secular Country - Further, this Court also keeps in mind that the subject of the law under consideration is also in the Concurrent list - Under the above observations, it is necessary to grant the interim relief of stay of the further proceedings of the impugned enactments - Ordered accordingly.
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
This writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10128 of 2017 has been filed to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare Rule 22(b)(iii) and Rule 22(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulations of live Stock Markets) Rules 2017 as ultra vires the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and Article 14, 19, 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution of India.
2. This writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10129 of 2017 has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 dated 23.05.2017 notified by the second respondent and to declare the same as unconstitutional and illegal.
3. The public interest litigation writ petitions are filed challenging the validity of the recent Rule 2017 which amended section 22(b) and section 22(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 by introducing Rule 22(b)(iii) and Rule 22(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulations of live Stock Markets) Rules, 2017.
4. By filing the instant public interest litigation, the petitioner is attempting to draw the attention of this court as to whether the government of India can impose a restriction upon the choice of food on its citizen. in order to justify the case, the petitioner is also attempting to bring the notice of this court in respect of the following aspects:-
(i) Whether the government of India is empowered to decide the choice of food on its citizen?
(ii) Whether the constitution of India is empowered the government of India to make amendment in a particular act which would against the habit of the larger community adopting their food habit since time immemorial?
(iii) Whether the recent amendment would curtail various state enactments in respect of dealing slaughtering of animals?
(iv) Whether the recent amendment is against the constitutional rights guaranteed to the citizens of India in respect of right to life including food?
(v) Whether the Union of India by introducing the new rule to section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is interfering with not only the domain of the State Enactments and the existing laws relating to the slaughtering of animals?
5. It is the case that the petitioners are renowned persons and they are part of several social welfare and women welfare organization. They have filed the instant writ petition challenging the rule introduced by way of amendment in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. For the better understanding the crux of the recent amendment in the above said rule is as follows;
22.(b) no person shall bring a cattle to an animal market unless upon arrival he has furnished a written declaration signed by the owner of the cattle or his duty authorised agent.
(iii) stating that the cattle has not been brought to market for sale for slaughter;
(e)(i) not sell the animal for purpose of slaughter;
(iii) not sacrifice the animal for any religious purpose;"
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned provision, Rule 22(b)(iii) by prohibiting the purchaser of the cattle from sacrificing for religious purpose is against the object of the parent Act. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the choice of food will depend upon the person to person and the same cannot be curtailed by enacting a law. Further, the Union of India by introducing the new rule to section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is interfering with not only the domain of the State Enactments and the existing laws relating to the slaughtering of animals, but it is also an act of interference in the food habit of the citizen which is ever lasting since time immemorial. The Union of India by way of recent amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 trying to usurping the powers of the state legislature and the same is unconstitutional and ultra-virus. Further he has also pointed out though the centr
