Ban of sale of cattle for slaughter- Unsustainable, Unconstitutional and Void

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules 2017 notified by the Central Government with effect from 23.05.2017 is unsustainable in law to the extent it imposes ban of sale of cattle in animal markets for the purposes of slaughter.  

The said Rules is yet another instance of mischievous and deceptive law making practice which is being followed by the Union Government for some time. This colourable law making practice involves camouflaging a controversial provision with seemingly progressive and innocuous provisions, in order to deceive and mislead general public. It was done in the case of Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill, wherein the provisions introducing limit on third party insurance were sugar-coated with provisions increasing penalty for traffic violations, thereby making people believe that it was a ‘Road Safety Bill’. Likewise in AADHAAR Act, which was introduced as a money bill, touted to be having the objective of plugging subsidy leaks, provisions permitting private entities to use AADHAAR data for their private purposes were sneaked in. Following the same manipulative tactic, the said Rules have been framed. The Rules predominantly contain provisions to control cruel behaviour meted out to cattle, which are laudable. However, the prohibition imposed in the Rules for selling cattle for slaughter(vide Rule 22(b)(iii), 22(e)(i)), sticks out like a sore thumb in the Rules, as the said prohibition does not fit in logically into the scheme of the Rules.

The Ban is contrary to the parent Act.

It is important to remember that the said Rules are made under the Prevention of Cruelty Act 1960, particularly in exercise of powers under Section 38(1), which enables the Central Government to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. The objective of the Act, as revealed by its preamble is to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.

Now, it is very pertinent to note that the Act does not prevent slaughtering of animals. In fact, the Act saves and permits killing of animals for the purposes of food. It is very clear from the proviso of Section 11, which excludes acts done for destruction of any animal for food of mankind, on the condition that such destruction was not accompanied by unnecessary pain and suffering.

Here the Rules imposes ban of cattle in markets for slaughter. Also, the purchaser of cattle is totally prohibited from selling the cattle further for slaughter, whether in an animal market or elsewhere. This ban of sale of cattle for slaughter operates as an indirect absolute ban of slaughter of cattle. When the parent Act expressly permits slaughter of animals for food, how can the Rules impose a ban on sale of cattle for slaughter? When slaughter for food is not prohibited by the parent Act, how can the Rules impose ban of sale for slaughter? This is the apparent anomaly of the Rules, which makes it ultra-vires the parent Act. It is well settled principle that if the Rules made under an Act are contrary to the parent Act, then such Rules will be void an inoperative.

So the ban of cattle for slaughter introduced in the Rules is void, inoperative and ultra-vires, as the same is repugnant to the parent Act.

                             (Kerala Beef Fry. Image source :- A little bit of spice)  

Expansive definition of “Animal Markets”

One may feel that the ban is only with respect to sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets, and that one is still free to sell cattle elsewhere. But, the definition of “animal market” given in Rule 2(b) is quite wide and expansive than the common understanding, and negates such possiblities. It reads as follows:

“animal market” means a market place or sale-yard or any other premises or place to which animals are brought from other places and exposed for sale or auction and includes any lairage adjoining a market or a slaughterhouse and used in connection with it and any place adjoining a market used as a parking area by visitors to the market for parking vehicles and includes animal fair and cattle pound where animals are offered or displayed for sale or auction;(emphasis supplied)

The phrase “lairage adjoining a market or a slaughterhouse is doing the mischief here. ‘Lairage’ refers to a place where animals are kept before slaughter. Most slaughter houses keep the animals to be slaughtered near. Even if one animal is kept near the slaughterhouse, the place occupied by the animal would be a ‘lairage’, and consequently it would become an ‘animal market’ as per the definition of the Rules. This is actually a ploy to efface the differences between ‘animal markets’ and ‘slaughterhouses’. As a result of this, one can’t even seek to sell cattle directly to a slaughter house.

This will have a far reaching impact on small scale operators of slaughter houses and abattoirs Small scale operators are in effect precluded from procuring cattle for slaughter, driving them out of their trade.. The result of the Rules is that only those persons who rear cattle on their own in their farmyards can slaughter them. So the ban is nearly absolute.

Infringement of fundamental rights.

The rules infringe one’s fundamental right to practise trade and business, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The said right can be restricted only by means of an enacted law, and not through a delegated legislation framed by the executive. The Rules also infringe one’s right to livelihood, which emanates from Article 21. The impact on one’s food choices, which forms part of right to privacy, is also evident.  

The Rules harm many, by infringing their rights, and benefit none, except certain animals, upon whom no explicit fundamental rights are conferred by the Constitution. This seemingly man-vs-animal plot in effect sets men against men, and has potential to vitiate the harmonious atmosphere of our society. Ignoring all other pressing needs of this country, the government has come up with these legally unsound and constitutionally void Rules, without any moral support or rational basis, possibly eyeing a future where cattle might enjoy voting rights as well. 

[ Published by 'Outlook' and 'Live Law']