SC Upholds Stay on Cattle Slaughter Rules – What Happens Next?

A review of the Supreme Court’s proceedings on the cattle slaughter rules and a breakdown of what can happen next.

(Photo: The Quint)

• Centre to revise recent rules that effectively ban cattle slaughter
• As a result, SC upholds Madras HC stay of rules No decision on merits of petitions
• New rules also likely to be vulnerable to similar challenges – no authority, unconstitutional, discriminatory
• Centre will need to consult and give time to challenge

The Verdict

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (technically) upheld a stay of the Central Government’s controversial rules that effectively banned cattle slaughter.

Also read: SC Orders Nationwide Stay on Centre’s New Cattle Slaughter Rules

This means that it is business as usual in the cattle trade and slaughter industry; things remain as they were before the Centre announced the rules on 23 May. As a result, the meat and leather industries are not restricted from functioning by these central government rules, though they continue to be regulated by existing State Government legislations.

The Madras High Court had, on 30 May 2017, stayed the operation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market) Rules, 2017, pending responses by the Central and State governments. Several petitions were then filed in the Supreme Court as well, which were the subject of Tuesday’s hearing by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar.

Why Were the Rules Challenged?

Rule 22 of the central law requires the buyer and seller of any cattle to certify that it is being bought for agricultural purposes, not cattle slaughter. It also prevents a purchaser from further selling the animal for slaughter. Additionally, under the Rules as they currently stand, only agriculturalists are allowed to trade in cattle.

These aspects of the Rules have been viewed by many as imposing a de facto ban on the slaughter of cattle and beef, extending beyond the various State Government legislations regarding cow slaughter.

The move to introduce the Rules was met with significant opposition, with challenges raised in the Kerala, Bombay and Madras High Courts. State Governments in Kerala and West Bengal refused to implement the Rules, and there were widespread protests, including the organisation of beef-eating parties.

(Photo: The Quint)

Also read: Decoded: Cattle Market Rules, ‘Beef Ban’

The main petition before the Supreme Court was filed by Fahim Qureshi, a lawyer based in Hyderabad and president of the All India Jamiatul Quresh Action Committee. His petition challenged the Rules as being discriminatory and unconstitutional, preventing cattle traders and people working in industries involving cattle from earning their living.

Reason for the Supreme Court Decision – the Centre Backs Down

The Centre appears to have been taken by surprise with the public’s reaction, and admitted during Tuesday’s proceedings that they needed to consult further with stakeholders. They have confirmed that they will revise the rules and publish a new set towards the end of August.

The Central Government had indicated at the initial hearing itself on 15 June that they would tweak the rules. According to The Times of India, law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had stated at a press conference on the day that:

The NDA government does not intend to bring in any law that would in any manner interfere with the eating habits of any community.

As the Central Government had accepted that new rules were going to be formulated, the Court held that the petitions challenging the Rules were no longer necessary.

Crucially, the Centre is not challenging the Madras High Court’s stay order. The Supreme Court, therefore, clarified that the stay on the Rules will continue to remain operational across the country until the new rules are promulgated.

The petition before the Madras High Court argued that the prohibition on sale of cattle for slaughter in the Rules violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, the basis on which the Rules had been prepared.

The petition also argued that the Rules impinged upon the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as well as the right to “food, privacy and personal liberty”.

Takeaways From Supreme Court Proceedings

Were the rules struck down?

1. It needs to be emphasised that the Supreme Court has not made any decision on the substance of the Rules, and nor has the Madras High Court. The Rules have not, therefore, been declared unconstitutional, or ultra vires in any other way.

2. By disposing of the petitions, the Supreme Court will not be going into the merits of the existing Rules. The Madras High Court is still seized of the matter (the stay passed by them is an interim order), but is unlikely to go into the merits of the matter till the end of August at least, in light of the Centre’s clarifications.

Does the Central Government have the authority to make such rules?

3. While the Centre’s move to prepare a new set of rules avoids assessment of merits in the existing petitions, any such rules will be vulnerable to the same challenges. The primary issue is that regulation of animal markets and animal slaughter are State subjects in the Constitution, meaning that the States have the right to pass laws relating to them, not the Centre.

Yes, the Centre does have the right to legislate on animal cruelty, but the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 itself recognises that animal slaughter does not constitute animal cruelty. Therefore any rules promulgated under this Act cannot impose restrictions on cattle slaughter.

4. Of course, the Centre may just decide to create rules which do effectively ban cattle slaughter and fight it out in the courts, arguing that the Act only says that killing animals can’t be an offence, and the Rules don’t do that automatically.

What Constitutional challenges can be made against such rules?

5. The other challenges raised in the Madras High Court would then come to the fore, including the right to freedom of occupation.

This right is subject to reasonable restrictions, but the kind of restrictions that have been generally upheld by the courts have not restricted an entire category of transactions (here, the sale of animals for slaughter).

The right to “food, privacy and personal liberty” may prove more difficult to establish.

Also read: Ban on Cattle Slaughter Is a Direct Attack on Right to Occupation

6. The Centre would also have to take care to see whom the new rules would apply to. The Rules as they currently stand only envisage people who are agriculturalists as buying and selling cattle. Many cattle traders do not own their have farmland, and to prohibit all other persons from trading in cattle seems excessively arbitrary. This could invite a strong challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Is the Central Government under any procedural restrictions?

7. The government has said they will be engaging with stakeholders (one assumes this includes cattle traders and slaughterhouses) when coming up with their new rules. One of the things that will come up if such consultations are held is that no such restrictions should be placed on the slaughter of any animals apart from cows. The Rules as they stand apply to buffaloes, bullocks, etc, as well. To include other animals would have a severe socio-economic impact.

8. The CJI also clearly indicated that the government cannot bring the new rules into force the moment they are announced.

A sufficient period of time for implementation will need to be provided so that potential challenges can be raised. This is a welcome step by the Court, especially in light of their own disregard for a time as seen in the Aadhar matters of late.

The importance of this requirement cannot be overstated as the earlier rules had no such implementation period, resulting in no transitional planning and severe losses for people in the industry.

Also read: Why Marathwada’s Farmers Dread The New Cattle Law