Judgement Dealing With Subject Of Slaughter Of Animals In Light Of Indian Constitution

SR No.: 269193
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: C K Chaturvedi
Publisher: Akhil Bharat Krishi Go Seva Sangh
Total Pages: 40
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 8 MB

Page 6

defence of both of these two defendants, and taking note of indisputed fact or killing of very large number of livestock and other animal population, passed the following Order:
"Despite enough opportunities, no reply or written statement has been filed by Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, who are though represented by a Counsel. He (Counsel) states that despite his regular writing to these Ministries, no response has come. I am, therefore, constrained to STRIKE-OFF the defense of these two Ministries in the case. The case, in fact, has deep concern with ANIMAL or living creatures component of the environment, as well as, obligations of the STATE to protect livestock population of India, from being slaughtered. It is most unfortunate that both the Central and nodal Ministries, whose concern is raised in the suit have missed the EYE OF THE STORM raised in the suit. The suit primarily also concerns the killing of approximately 3 lakhs of cattle heads every month or 36 lakhs in a year, in Delhi alone. Such a large number of Killings necessarily brings into sharp focus the relationship of MAN & ANIMALS. which has an environmental impact. The question of location or relocation of slaughter house, at a particular place is secondary and subordinate to the primary and fundamental question of legal relationship between Man and other Living creatures, on Earth. The matter obviously has great urgency. No question of location etc. of slaughter house can be considered, unless the primary question is answered. The case is, therefore, adjourned and listed for 10/4/92, for announcing Order on this primary question. The question of considering the case of MCD, DDA, Ministry of Finance or Slaughter House, will be governed by answer to the first primary and fundamental question, if necessary. Written Statement of Defendant No.3, be filed on record. To come up on 10/4/92."
19. The aforesaid order of 23/3/92, and the other facts mentioned above, thus describe how this Order has been necessitated.
20. The suit of the plaintiffs challenges the legality of the unregulated slaughtering permitted hy STATE in the Public Slaughter Houses, and questions it, also from the Environmental and Cultural points of view, and thus opposes the setting up or shifting of a slaughter house at their door step. In my view, people in any area have independent right to oppose a move, which they consider nuisance, obnoxious, illegal or outrageous to Cultural Ethos and to seek Injunctions.
21. This Court had called upon the Counsel to supply the copy of the pending writ in High Court. The question in the writ, is question of Public Nuisance created by the Slaughter Houses by the poor maintenance of the slaughter houses, and non-implementation of orders of Ministry of Environment to take pollution control measures. The petitioner Mohd. Iqbal Qureshi, assumes legality of Slaughtering but seeks mitigation of pollution etc., while plaintiffs in this suit questions the legality of slaughter itself from Cultural, Environmental and other points of view. Therefore in my considered view, there is no merit in the plea of the Corporation that matter in two courts is identical. This plea is, therefore, rejected. It cannot be lost sight of that with the implementation of National Capital Region Plan, around Narela, the new slaughter house at Narela, will face the similar problems, are as today faced at Idgah. Thus, this will be a case of constant shift from one place to another and, generally, people will oppose the move to station slaughter in their area, as slaughter house at ny place necessarily attracts and necessitates ready markets of animals, families earning their livelihood out of the end products of slaughtering, dealers and butchers etc.. which presents in-human scenes and generate pollution and foul air.
22
With this background, I have considered the case in the suit. As already stated, the issue of slaughtering is central to respondents, Ministry of Environment and Department of Animal Husbandry
5