• Associate Sponsor

Privacy ruling to have bearing on beef ban cases: SC

“The judgment will have some bearing on these cases,” the bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan remarked while hearing cross-appeals against the Bombay High Court order decriminalising possession of beef in case the animal was slaughtered outside the state even as it upheld the ban on slaughtering of milch cattle.

Written by Ananthakrishnan G | New Delhi | Updated: August 26, 2017 5:02 am
right to privacy, Maharashtra, beef ban, Maharashtra beef ban, Maharashtra beef ban case, beef ban case, india news Some voluntary groups, as well as the State of Maharashtra, have challenged the High Court order. The challenge raised by the Maharashtra government is pending before a different bench of the court.

A day after a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that right to privacy is a fundamental right, a two-judge bench of the court observed that the privacy ruling will have a bearing on the Maharashtra beef ban case pending before it.

“The judgment will have some bearing on these cases,” the bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan remarked while hearing cross-appeals against the Bombay High Court order decriminalising possession of beef in case the animal was slaughtered outside the state even as it upheld the ban on slaughtering of milch cattle.

Some voluntary groups, as well as the State of Maharashtra, have challenged the High Court order. The challenge raised by the Maharashtra government is pending before a different bench of the court. Senior counsel C U Singh, who appeared for some of the petitioners who have challenged the prohibition, referred to the nine-judge bench verdict on privacy as a fundamental right. Senior counsel Indira Jaising, who also appeared for these petitioners, said the privacy judgment protected one’s right to eat food of their choice.

Jaising also sought a review of the Supreme Court’s 2004 judgment in the State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab case in which a seven-judge bench had imposed a total ban on slaughter of bovines even if unproductive.

Jaising said there were other larger issues which she was raising besides privacy and that it should be heard by a larger bench. The court adjourned the matter for two weeks. At the next hearing, it will decide on the plea for a larger bench to take up the matter.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. H
    Hedonist
    Aug 26, 2017 at 8:27 am
    I want to eat Indra Jaising's flesh in "private".
    (0)(0)
    Reply
    1. A
      ak dev
      Aug 26, 2017 at 7:22 am
      According to the logic of Jaising, this should also mean that now one can eat human child meat as one's right to eat whatever one wants to eat. Great stupid analogy by Jaising.
      (0)(0)
      Reply
      1. T
        Thomas George
        Aug 26, 2017 at 8:11 am
        This is what a straw man argument is. You put up an extreme case that is not the issue in question, and then destroy the "straw man" that you created. The issue is simple: Is possession of beef criminal? I don't know about you, but distinguishing between meat of a cow, a bull, and a buffalo is not easy for a customer. There have been instances where dog meat has been passed off as mutton. In that light, criminalising possession is draconian. In addition, the emergence of vigilante groups that kill people (a far greater offence) is getting justification from some quarters. The intent is quite clear -- intimidate red meat eaters into giving it up.
        (0)(0)
        Reply
        1. Ravi Blr
          Aug 26, 2017 at 8:50 am
          In a democracy, legislation reflects the will of the majority. And the will of the majority in most states is that cows will not be killed and eaten. everyone needs to follow the law, or leave the state. If you think the law is unreasonable, try and get it changed, but in the meanwhile, follow the law. Also, if the state does not enforce the law, or if some criminals insist on breaking the law, vigilantism will happen! Here the criminals are the cow smugglers and slaughterers who are breaking the law, not the vigilantes. It is the venality and stupidity of our media that it is projected the other way around!
          (0)(0)
      2. J
        Jemma Thomas
        Aug 26, 2017 at 6:56 am
        One's right to eat anything that they desire under the fundamental right to privacy, you mean cannibalism, is it acceptable? if there is line to everything then the line in India is no beef. you have right to eat, small animals like sheep, lamb and goat. Birds like chicken and duck. If SC wants to politicise it then we are up for it. Let us legislate to ban it nationally.
        (0)(0)
        Reply
        1. Ramakanth Kamath
          Aug 26, 2017 at 9:48 am
          why only eat why not drink i want to drink whisky daily and it should be made available govt shud not order closure of bars even if it is dangerous to health why only beef meat allowed even human body is not programmed to meat consumption will courts lookinto my privacy rights
          (0)(0)
          Reply
        Adda