ALSO READPetition challenging Saeed's detention filed in Pak court Sasikala files review petition in SC against her conviction SC dismisses Kerala's curative petition seeking death for rapist Quetta carnage report: PPP to file contempt petition against Chaudhry Nisar K'taka Govt. files review petition in Jayalalithaa DA case
Issuing notice on a petition by All India Jamitul Quresh Action Committee challenging two notifications issued on May 23, the vacation bench of Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul gave the central government two weeks' time to respond and directed the listing of the matter for July 11.
The petitioner, the All India Jamitul Quesh Action Committee, moved the top court through its president Mohammed Abdul Faheem, who is also an advocate.
The bench also refused to pass any order on a plea by another petitioner Sabu Steephan, who told the court that a very large number of farmers in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and other states were being affected by the ban order.
As Additional Solicitor General P.S. Narasimha wanted to make a statement on the intent behind the two notifications issued on May 23, the bench asked him to say all this in response.
Narasimha told the bench that the intent behind the notification under challenge was to bring into existence some kind regime regulating the sale of cattle for purposes other than live stock.
All India Jamitul Quresh Action Committee has challenged the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, Abanning sale of cattle for slaughtering and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 which provides for the seizures, recovery of the cost of transportation, maintenance and treatment of seized animals.
It has been contended by the organisation that both the rules banning sale of cattle for slaughtering and the other regulating the transporting of livestock were arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.
It also argued the rule that the purchaser of cattle "shall not sacrifice the animal for any religious purpose" was contrary to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, whose Section 28 says it is not an offence to "kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community".
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)