Delhi High Court sought the response of AAP on PIL against criminalisation of beef eating

Petitioner law student Gaurav Jain, through his lawyer, told the court that a similar matter had emanated from Madhya Pradesh

Image via Shutterstock
<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-75367117.html" target="_blank">Image</a> via Shutterstock
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jul 13 2016 | 2:02 PM IST
Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government on a PIL challenging criminalisation of possession and consumption of beef in the national capital.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal issued notice to AAP government and sought its reply by September 14 to the plea, which has sought setting aside of those provisions of Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act which criminalise possession and consumption of beef in the national capital.

Petitioner law student Gaurav Jain, through his lawyer, told the court that a similar matter had emanated from Madhya Pradesh and is pending in the Supreme Court.

The counsel also said that similar provisions in a legislation of the Maharashtra government was struck down by the Bombay High Court.

The petition, also by an NGO working for development of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, has claimed that the Cattle Preservation Act (CPA) was "a case of legislative over-reach".

They have contended that "prohibition on possession and consumption of beef per se as under Cattle Preservation Act is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and other persons similarly situated, as it infringes on their personal liberty" and causes "hostile discrimination having no nexus with the object of the Act".

"The right to eat the food of one's choice is an integral part of the right to life and liberty," the PIL has said, adding that the Constitution "mandates the State not to make law towards enforcement of a particular religious practice."

The petitioners have claimed that the Act was a "gross encroachment on the rights of the petitioners to chose what they can eat."

The petition has also said SCs and STs "often have diet containing meats" and contended that "these communities are directly affected by enforcement of the Act."
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jul 13 2016 | 1:48 PM IST

Next Story