Beef Ban row: High Court notice to J-K govt

Will oppose move to revoke beef ban: BJP

Amid differences between the two coalition partners — PDP and BJP— on beef ban verdict of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the saffron party has toughened its stand on the issue and asserted that it would not allow passage of any Bill in the Assembly which aims at revoking the ban.
“Our stand is clear on the issue. We are of the strong opinion that the decision taken by the High Court to ban beef in the state must be strictly implemented,” said Jugal Kishore Sharma, state BJP president.
When his attention was drawn towards the statement of PDP president Mehbooba Mufti that beef should not be banned in J&K, Jugal Kishore said: “I don’t know what the PDP president had stated but one thing is clear. We will not allow passage of any Bill in the Assembly which revokes the existing ban on slaughtering of bovines in the state.”
When asked about the party’s stand in case the PDP came out in support of the Bill, likely to be introduced by the National Conference (NC) in the Assembly, he said: “It is purely a hypothetical question. Let the NC bring the Bill, then only will the situation be clear.”
The BJP president, however, said those favouring bovine slaughter and sale and purchase of beef in the state for petty political gains should keep in mind the sentiments of the minority community of the state.
“Just for political gains, political parties should not hurt the sentiments of the minority community. In a secular set-up such as ours, due respect should be given to emotions and sentiments of the minorities to make democracy more vibrant and accommodating,” he added.
Meanwhile, Union Minister of State for Agriculture Sanjeev Balyan has advocated action against those who defy the High Court direction on beef ban in J&K.
“The decision taken by the High Court must be strictly implemented. Definitely, action must be taken against those who defy the ruling of the High Court,” Balyan told reporters in Jammu.
Replying to a question on why the BJP was silent on slaughter of bovines openly, he said: “The BJP is not silent. The decision (of the High Court) has to be strongly implemented. The BJP has not failed (in the implementation of ban) anywhere. The BJP has implemented it in Haryana, Maharashtra and the party will implement it everywhere.”
Cong remains non-committal
Srinagar: J&K Pradesh Congress Committee president GA Mir on Tuesday said his party would first examine the resolution of the NC on revoking the beef ban in the state and then decide whether it will support it. “Let them (NC) bring the Bill (in the Assembly). Once we have a look, only then we will decide,” Mir told reporters here. He was reacting to reports of the NC announcement that the party would bring a Bill seeking amendment to the law banning sale and slaughter of bovines. Mir said the Congress would raise issues faced by the people in the upcoming autumn session of the legislature and question the delay in rehabilitating the victims of the last year’s September floods.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has issued notices to the state government in a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Section 298-A and 298-B, which regulate the ban on bovine slaughter and beef sale in the state.
While issuing the notices in the petition filed by SM Afzal Qadri, a retired Kashmir University Law Professor, through his lawyer Faisal Qadri, the court has asked the respondent government to file its reply within one week.
The petition said that the Sections 298-A and 298-B are ultravires to the constitution and violate the freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of India as enshrined under the Articles 13, 21 and 25.
The Section 298-A of the J-K Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) makes killing of bovine animals, including cow or an ox, a punishable offence, while the Section 298-B of the RPC makes mere “possession of such slaughtered animal” a punishable act.

Srinagar, September 16

The J&K High Court today issued notices to the Mufti Mohammad Sayeed-led PDP-BJP government and other respondents seeking their reply to a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of law regulating the ban on bovine slaughter and beef sale in the state.

The court observed that Sections 298-A and 298-B of the Ranbir Penal Code “should have been scrapped long before” or even the legislature could have “done away” with it.

The court made it clear that the pendency of the petition “is no bar” for the state government or legislature to amend or repeal the two sections besides Sections 298-C and 298-D, which have also been challenged. While dealing with a public interest litigation seeking implementation of the Sections 298-A and 298-B, the Jammu wing of the J&K High Court had on September 9 cited this 150-year-old law and asked the state police to ensure “strict compliance” of the “existing law”, which bans “voluntarily slaughtering or killing cow or the like animals as being unconstitutional”.

While one section (Hindus) of the society seeks a ban on bovine slaughter for it being “sacred”, the other (Muslims) opposes it arguing no court could ban food. “One week’s notice to the respondents for filing a reply,” a division Bench of Justice Muhammad Yaqoob Mir and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat said in its orders passed on the petition filed by SM Afzal Qadri, a retired Kashmir University law Professor through his lawyer Faisal Qadri.

“We would like to make it clear that if the state (government) or legislature (Assembly) contemplate or take steps for scrapping or amending the provision (298 A to D of the RPC) as are under challenge, the pendency of this writ petition shall not operate as a bar,” the Bench observed.

It was the responsibility of respondents to delete the said provisions from the Ranbir Penal Code on account of being directly in conflict with the fundamental rights of the people of the state, the petition argued. Before admitting the petition, the Bench during the course of the arguments by the counsel for petitioner raised queries with respect to the presumption of the constitutional validity and necessity, and intent of such a legislation.

The Bench observed India was a secular country and the state could not be identified with a particular religion.