In 2005, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court1, overruled a series of earlier decisions

and upheld a law that sought to impose a total ban on the slaughter of cows and
their progeny. Its reasons for doing so are entirely dubious. Even if a cow ceased to give
milk, its dung and urine, Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti wrote for the majority, still possessed
enormous value for the purposes of producing manure and fuel. The argument that there was
at stake here the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of butchers employed at
slaughterhouses, and various others employed in other connected industries, was brushed
aside in one fell stroke. The court ruled that to give effect to Article 48 any element of
restriction on a persons freedom of trade and business was defensible. As a consequence,
therefore, we have been left not with a harmonious interpretation between Parts III and IV of
the constitution that the court had until then advocated, but with the creation of a hierarchy
where unenforceable goals have somehow been accorded priority over fundamental rights.

The argument is that for the purpose of slaughter, cattle can be sourced directly from the
farms/farmers, resulting in better tracking and adherence of safety standards. The Rules have
come in the backdrop of lynching of bona fide traders of cattle since no trader can bring their
cattle to animal markets for the purpose of slaughter. Similarly, no buyer can purchase cattle
for slaughter from animal fairs. and does not categorise slaughter of animals for food as
cruelty on condition that it does not accompany pain and suffering.

However, this fails to take into account that rural farming economy is substantially dependent
on the local animal markets, where buying and selling of animals is fundamental to the trade.
In an animal market, buyers and/or sellers have the freedom to negotiate the prices, to have a
wide range of options to choose from, as well as impose other conditions, if needed. By
removing the animal markets from the supply chain from where cattle can be sourced for
slaughter, including buffalo, one is severely limiting the options before both farmers and
buyers, who could them for economic reasons, stop engaging in cattle breeding altogether.
Further, it will deal a body blow to the beef industries as well as to other ancillary trades,

1
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, AIR 1998 Guj 220.
which are heavily dependent on buffalo. If the intention of these Rules is to protect animals
from cruelty, then they ought to regulate the dairy industry first, wherein the maximum
exploitation of cattle exists.

1) PETITION FOR AD-INTERIM STAY

2) For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this Honble
Court may be pleased to grant an AD-INTERIM STAY of the operation of Rule 22(b)(iii) and
Rule 22(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulations of live Stock Markets) Rules
2017 pending disposal of above writ petition and thus render justice
3) vCounsel for Petitioner

4)
5)
6)
7) The Parliament by the Act of 1960 had exhaustively provided the acts which in the
wisdom of legislature amounts to cruelty, which is sought to be prevented by the Act
of 1960. The legislature had not categorize slaughtering of animals for the purpose of
food to be an act of cruelty, sought to be in any way prevented by the Act of 1960. In
fact, the legislature has positively provided vide section 28, that killing of any animal
in any manner required by the religion of any community to be outside the purview of
the Act of 1960. However, Animal Market Rule 22 mandates that no person shall
bring a cattle to a market unless, he upon arrival furnishes a written declaration signed
by the owner of the cattle that the cattle has not been brought to the market for sale for
slaughter. Similarly Rule 22 (e) prohibits a purchaser of a cattle from selling the
animal for the purpose of slaughter or sacrifice the animal for any religious purpose. It
is to be noted that section 28 of the Act of 1960 specifically permits the killing of any
animals for religious sacrifice, while section 11(3) provides for killing of animals for
food, while by the impugned Rules, the 1st respondent claiming to frame Rules to
give effect in the provisions of the Act had infact acted beyond the power of Rule
making and had legislated Rules prohibiting slaughter of animals, which is
specifically permissible under the parent Act. And hence the rules are ultra vires to
the parent Act.
Whether the notification issued by the Centre infringes upon the federal structure
envisaged by the Constitution of Indistan? (harryshank96@gmail.com)
(varshasukumar114@gmail.com)
S. Selvagomathy (45), an activist-cum-lawyer based in Madurai, filed the PIL petition
on grounds that the statutory rules were repugnant to the parent Act itself since Section
28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960 specifically states that it
shall not be an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any
community. (The Rules also aim at preventing transport of cattle for ritualistic and
religious slaughter. The Rules also aim at preventing transport of cattle for ritualistic
and religious slaughter, practices which have seen the unrestrained culling of millions
of milch animals and have no place in a modern and progressive society) Claiming
that the PCA Act permits slaughter of animals as well as sale of animals for slaughter,
the petitioner said the Centre had no authority to extend its rule making power, under
the enactment, to the extent of banning the sale of animals in a market for the purpose
of slaughter to direct the rule of slaughter (the Rules envisage animals for slaughter to
be bought from the farmers at farms and with a prohibition on transport, the animals
be slaughtered and their meat processed at close proximity to the breeding
locations.)The petitioner stated that prohibiting the sale of cattle for slaughter in
animal markets amounted to interfering with the right to practice any profession or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. The statutory rules banning (not complete ban) sale of cattle for slaughter
amounted to excessive restriction and not reasonable restriction imposed on the right to
trade. Referring to the seventh schedule to the Constitution, the petitioner said the
issues concerning markets, fairs and preservation or protection and improvement of
livestock fall within entry 28 and 15 of the State list and thus only the State legislature
and not the Centre was empowered to enact laws and frame statutory rules on those
subjects.
Cattle slaughter: Supreme
Court notice to Centre on plea
challenging notification
The petitioner has argued that the restrictions placed by the new
notification are in contrary to the very law under which it has been issued.
Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not categorise
slaughter of animals for food as cruelty on condition that it does not
accompany pain and suffering.

The Central governments new notification has imposed a blanket

prohibition on the slaughtering of cattle (cows, bulls, buffaloes,
camels, heifers) brought from animal markets. Issued on May 23,
the notification bans the sale of cattle for culling and also restrains
sacrificing the animals for religious purposes.
The notification has engrafted new norms in accordance with the
rule-making power of the Central government under the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act. The new rules called the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets)
Rules, 2017, therefore tend to put a full stop on the slaughtering of
not just the cows but also other animals defined as cattle under the
Act.
However, the attempt to strengthen the hands of the Central
government at the state level is fraught with dangers to the federal
structure envisaged under the Constitution, which has specifically
demarcated the areas of jurisdiction for the two units of the federal
democracy.
Entry 15 in the State List of the Seventh Schedule under the
Constitution says that it is a state government which is empowered
to make laws on preservation, protection and improvement of stock
and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice.
Besides, Article 243 also entitles a state government to delegate to
panchayats and municipalities power to make regulations for animal
husbandry, dairy, tanneries etc.
The PCA Act is within the dominion of the Central government and
the provisions made under it apply to the entire country. However,
this authority with the Centre, ideally, cannot be used to usurp a
State subject. When livestock has been put in the State List, there
is a constitutional duty cast upon the Central government to make
sure the wisdom of the state legislature prevails on such subjects.
But when the subjects are overlapping animal cruelty and
livestock, the situation becomes complex. For, a law made by the
Central government on a subject apparently within its jurisdiction
will not become bad on the face of it.

Therefore, the Modi governments efforts to tighten slaughtering

laws for cows and other cattle have, perhaps, stepped into the
State jurisdiction.
The Centre can assert its authority to make laws on prevention of
cruelty to the animals, which is in the List III. According to List III,
Both Parliament and the state legislature have the concurrent
authority to make laws on prevention of cruelty to animals,
protection of wild animals and birds, prevention of the extension
from one State to another of infectious or contagious diseases or
pests affecting men, animals or plants. The Constitution, as well as
a body of judicial precedents, have made it clear that a Central law
will prevail over the state laws on the subjects mentioned under the
List III, and hence, the new provisions in the PCA Act are not per se
ultra vires.
Can states, such as Kerala and those in the north-east where beef
and cattle meat are a staple diet, now choose to not implement the
new law?
The provisions of the PCA Act are to be implemented ultimately by
the state-level and district-level authorities. So, this move can
definitely be frustrated in its implementation. There is legal recourse
available too against the new law.
A state government can still go ahead and make its own law on
cattle under Entry 15 of the List II something Tamil Nadu
government had done when it wanted to overcome a prohibition
under the PCA Act to use bulls in the traditional festival. However,
since the new law could fall foul of the new provisions in the PCA
Act, a presidential assent is a constitutional requirement.
he Constitution lays down that where there is repugnancy or
conflict between a Central law and a State law, the provisions of
the Central law will prevail. However, if the State law obtains the
Presidents assent, it will prevail over the Central law. So, a state
government will have to go to the President with a draft of the new
law if it wishes to overcome the complete prohibition on slaughter of
cattle under the PCA Act.
Another remedy available to a state government is to challenge the
new notification on the ground of legislative competence. A state
government can move a constitutional court a high court of
competent jurisdiction or the Supreme Court to challenge the
validity of the new law. The state government will have to establish
that the Centres move has disturbed the federal structure by
impinging upon a subject completely within the jurisdiction of State.
It will have to prove that the Central government has made the new
law despite lacking the legislative power to do so.
given the nature of the legal recourse, it is certainly not going to be
easy for a state government to nullify or undo the Central
governments new provisions but what should concern the latter is
whether its populist move has strained the Centre-State relations
and put in peril the sacrosanct federal balance
Quoting article 246 of the Constituion, Mamata Banerjee said the
legislature of the state government has exclusive rights to make power to
make laws in such matters (list II of schedule VIII).
Although Article 48 of the Constitution of India does exhort the State to prohibit
the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle, it is placed in the
Directive Principles of State Policy and hence non-enforceable in court. At the
same time, the Constitution has demarcated the powers between the state and
Centre with respect to cattle. The power to make laws on preservation, protection
and improvement of stock is within the exclusive domain of the state legislature.
It is under this entry(Entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule) that the various
cattle slaughter, regulation and prohibition laws (wherever enacted) have been
made by various states.

On the other hand, the Constitution clearly grants the power to make laws relating
to prevention of cruelty to animals to both the central and the state governments.
Where there is a conflict between a central and a state law relating to animal
cruelty, the central law will prevail as the Supreme Court recently reiterated in
the jallikattu case. The central law on the subject being the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, any state law relating to animal cruelty, which conflicts with this
will be overridden. However, a state law relating to animal husbandry in general,
or cow slaughter in specific, would not be affected by this law and operate as is.
Even if there is no state law expressly governing cow slaughter, the Centre cannot,
through the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act or Rules, try to make a law
banning or regulating cow slaughter.

No doubt there are valid concerns on the operation of this law and its potential to
make the lives of farmers and pastoralists more difficult. It could very well make it
more difficult to dispose of cattle and livestock in animal markets given the
harassment and red tape that farmers may have to go through. That may only mean
that private sales, where not prohibited under the law, will continue as is and
slaughter, where regulated and permitted under the state law, will go on, as is.
The cattle market notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
on May 23 has heated up the debate on cow slaughter. The notification is flawed
on two counts. One, it imposes a total ban on the sale of the cattle in the cattle
market for slaughter. Prohibition of slaughter of cattle falls in the State List under
the Constitutions Seventh Schedule.`
The Centre cannot make a law or subordinate legislation on this subject. It is rather
disingenuous to argue that the notification deals only with sale or purchase of
cattle. It clearly and directly prohibits slaughter and is, therefore, outside the
jurisdiction of the Centre. The argument that sale of cattle for slaughter outside the
cattle market is not prohibited has no merit as that is not the subject matter of the
above notification.
Secondly, rule 22 of the notification is outside the scope of the parent act, namely
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. When Parliament makes a law it
delegates to the government the power to make rules for its implementation. The
rules cannot exceed the scope of the Act under which it is made. They cannot
propound a policy which is not germane to the parent law.
The Supreme Court has delivered a number of judgments on the exact scope of the
rules made under an Act. In Shiv Kirpal Singh vs. V.V. Giri (1970) the Court held
that any rule made in contravention of the provisions of the Act would be declared
void on the ground that it goes beyond the scope of the power conferred on the
government. Similarly, in Hukam Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1972, SC2427)
the Court observed the extent and amplitude of the rule making power would
depend upon and be governed by the language of the section. If a particular rule
were not to fall within the ambit and purview of the section, the Central
government in such an event would have no power to make that rule.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was enacted to prevent the infliction of
unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. This law was not enacted to prohibit the
slaughter of cattle. It is interesting to note that Section 11 (3) (e) of this law says
that any act committed in the course of killing an animal for human food does not
come within its purview. But the caveat is that such act should not be accompanied
by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.
How can the government, then, issue a notification prohibiting the sale or purchase
of cattle in the cattle market for slaughter, in effect prohibiting slaughter of cattle?
This rule amounts to saying that selling or purchasing cattle for slaughter is an act
of cruelty. Obviously, the rule is in violation of the parent Act. As per the
observation of the Supreme Court, quoted above, the Centre has no power to make
such a rule.
Cow slaughter has always been a sensitive issue in India. It hurts the sentiments of
millions of people in the country. No representative government can afford to
ignore the matter. Article 48 of the Constitution says that the State shall take
special steps for prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves. However, the
Constitution makers were wise enough to recognise the diversity of food habits in
different parts of the country. Therefore, instead of keeping prohibition of
slaughter of cows in the Union List, they put it under the State List. Thus, there is
no Central law on prohibition of cow slaughter. Many states have passed stringent
laws prohibiting the slaughter of cow. But the problem arises when the Centre
attempts to do what the states alone can do under the Constitution.
The May 23 notification does have number of measures aimed at preventing
cruelty to animals. Those are well within the scope of the Parent Act. But Rule 22
sticks out like a sore thumb. A revised notification without this rule will put an end
to the needless controversy. Going strictly by the Constitution is the safest way for
any government to deal with sensitive issues

The centre act has been seen as a steady dissolution of constitutional values as the centre
government has brazenly defied the constitutions text and spirit, showing little regard for
considerations of due process. The latest notification made on May 23 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 [hereinafter referred
as Animal Market Rules] is aimed at eviscerating the constitution of its federal character.
Although drafted cleverly, the Animal Market Rules, which, through its operation, imposes a
virtual ban on the sale of cattle in animal markets for the purposes of slaughter, militates is
against the constitution at various different levels. First, its plainly evident that the rules are
an exercise in colourable governance. There might be no question that Article 48 of Indias
constitution requires the state to endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on
modern and scientific lines, in particular by taking steps for preserving and improving the
breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
This article, however, placed as it is in Part IV of the constitution, which contains the
directive principles of state policy, is not justiciable in law. In other words, while a duty is
cast on the state to make laws based on the urging of the various directive principles, no
person can question the state in a court of law on the ground that a provision in Part IV stands
violated by either the governments action or inaction, as the case may be2.
(*in the Minerva Mills v/s Union of India(1980) case, The Supreme Court held that the Constitution exists
on the balance of part III and Part IV. Giving absolute primacy to one over other will disturb the harmony
of the Constitution. This took the Article 31(C) to its prior condition that a law would be protected by
article 31C only if it has been made to implement the directive in article 39(b) and (c) and not any of the
articles included in Part IV.)
Moreover, in any event, the duty imposed by Article 48 has to be read in conjunction with the
federal structure that Indias constitution imposes. Mainly the Seventh Schedule to the
document, which contains three separate lists, defines the differing roles of governance
respectively played by the Union and the state governments. On issues contained in List 1,
the constitution provides that parliament alone can make laws; on issues mentioned in List 2,
it is the state governments that have the exclusive power to make and enforce legislation; and,
on issues contained in List 3, both the central and the state government can legislate, subject
to the caveat that parliamentary law would prevail in the case of any conflict, except in
certain limited circumstances.
Under this design, by virtue of Entries 14 and 15 of List 2, it is the states alone that have been
granted the power to make and enforce laws on issues concerning agriculture and the
preservation, protection and improvement of stock. While the Centre, on the other hand,
altogether lacks the power under the constitution to make a law either banning or in any
manner regulating the sale of cattle for slaughter.
Therefore it seems that to overcome this barrier the centre government has now relied on a
subject that falls within the concurrent list over which both the government at the centre and
the governments in the states have the power to make, and enforce, laws: animal cruelty. The
Animal Market Rules made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, however,
is an endeavour to do indirectly what the Union is expressly proscribed from doing directly.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as a bare reading of its contents would make clear,
concerns itself with practices that inflict unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. Its

2
A law under Article 31C would be protected only if it is made to implement directives in article 39b and 39 c
and not any other DPSPs. The extension to all DPSPs was declared as unconstitutional and void by the SC
mandate isnt and indeed cannot be to regulate the preservation, protection and
improvement of livestock, something which is decidedly for the states to do.

The response, issued through a Press Information Bureau note on 27 May, is telling. The
basic purpose of the rules, the note says, is to ensure welfare of the animals in the cattle
market and ensure adequate facilities for housing, feeding, feed storage area, water supply,
water troughs, ramps, enclosures for sick animals, veterinary care and proper drainage etc.
The prime focus of the regulation, the note adds, is to protect the animals from cruelty and
not to regulate the existing trade in cattle for slaughter houses. It is envisaged that welfare of
cattle dealt in the market will be ensured and that only healthy animals are traded for
agriculture purposes for the benefits of the farmersThe notified rules will remove the scope
of illegal sale and smuggling of the cattle which is a major concern.

However, this stated intention is quite clearly contrary to the Animal Market Rules, which
imposes a positive obligation on the animal market committee, constituted under the
notification, to ensure, among other things, that any form of cattle isnt sold for the purpose
of slaughter. Given that in most states in which cattle slaughter is permissible, there exist
regulations mandating that sale for slaughter takes place in formally designated markets, Rule
22 would effectively act as a ban on cow slaughter. Ostensibly, the governments target may
involve the placing of checks on any unnecessary pain or suffering inflicted on animals, but
in pith and substance the Rules are a measure aimed at proscribing the slaughter of cows,
something which the central government, as weve seen, lacks the power to do. Therefore,
however we choose to read it, can only be categorised as an utterly colourable exercise of
power
Infringing on existing laws and right (Arguendo)
Second, in any event, even assuming that the government possesses the competence to make
legislation governing the sale of cattle for slaughter, the Animal Market Rules runs counter to
its parent legislation, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The law, in
criminalising acts of cruelty against animals, specifically excludes those actions taken in the
course of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for
mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of
unnecessary pain or suffering. Whats more, the statute also specifically excludes from the
ambit of its criminal sanctions actions which involve the killing of any animal in a manner
required by the religion of any community. Its clear, therefore, that the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act does not seek to enforce a ban on the killing of any animal
whatsoever. The Animal Market Rules, however, seeks to travel beyond the contours of its
principal legislation, by effectively seeking to ban altogether the slaughter of cows, buffaloes
and camels all of which are defined as cattle.

Finally, regardless of these technical assertions, the rules, especially Rule 22, it can be quite
plausibly argued, infringe a number of fundamental rights, most notably the right to freedom
of trade and business, guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1)(g). In theory, on any
reasonable reading of the constitution, this ought to be the strongest argument against the
rules. But the Supreme Courts record in testing state laws that ban the slaughter of cattle has
been chequered, to say the least.

In 2005, a seven-judge bench of the court, in State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi
Kassab Jamat, overruled a series of earlier decisions and upheld a law that sought to impose a
total ban on the slaughter of cows and their progeny. Its reasons for doing so are entirely
dubious. Even if a cow ceased to give milk, its dung and urine, Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti
wrote for the majority, still possessed enormous value for the purposes of producing manure
and fuel. The argument that there was at stake here the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of
butchers employed at slaughterhouses, and various others employed in other connected
industries, was brushed aside in one fell stroke. The court ruled that to give effect to Article
48 any element of restriction on a persons freedom of trade and business was defensible. As
a consequence, therefore, we have been left not with a harmonious interpretation between
Parts III and IV of the constitution that the court had until then advocated, but with the
creation of a hierarchy where unenforceable goals have somehow been accorded priority over
fundamental rights.

The validity of the Animal Market Rules has already been questioned in different high courts
and it is likely that at some point the challenge will reach the Supreme Court. When this
happens, the court must not only strike down the rules on account of a lack of executive
competence, but it must also reexamine its verdict in Mirzapur that validates laws banning
slaughter of cattle. The court must recognise that our constitutions finest democratic ideals
are in danger of being lost here. It is time that it placed value on every citizens liberty and it
is time that it guarantees to every citizen that the state will never be permitted to trample on
their right to be treated with equal concern and respect. By equating slaughter with cruelty
and criminalising the trade and transportation of animals for slaughter at animal markets as an
act of cruelty, the Central government has effectively enforced a country-wide ban on the
slaughter of buffaloes and cattle, and the consumption of beef, despite statements of denial
from the environment minister.

Animal markets are crucial nuclei of the production cycle of animals, through which animals
pass from farmers to others and vice-versa. These new rules effectively choke the free
movement of animals via the market space and, more critically, completely undermine the
freedom and rights of farmers, traders and all others whose livelihoods are linked to this
production cycle, which ultimately is what sustains cattle and buffaloes of this country.

If today the slaughter of cattle and buffaloes is considered an act of cruelty, therefore
providing a reason to prevent animal sales at markets, then logic follows that it will be only a
matter of time before the sale for slaughter of sheep, goats and poultry is also forbidden at
animal markets. With the food preferences of the majority of citizens who eat meat and a
massive number of livelihoods at stake, this highly contentious interpretation of cruelty needs
to be interrogated and challenged.

(https://thewire.in/143561/modi-cattle-slaughter-ban-unconstitutional/)

The new rule imposed by Centre to regulate cattle slaughter across the nation would damage
the federal structure as the state governments should had been consulted before taking the
decision.
(I request the Centre not to intervene in matters which are under states control. If you
destroy a states heritage, then you are destroying the federal structure, Mamata said, while
addressing a press conference here)
The only relief possible now, that too not uniformly across India, is resistance by some states
asserting their rights and challenging the new rules legally because cattle-slaughter is a state
subject that the Government of India is trying to contravene by using its concurrent
jurisdiction on prevention of cruelty to animals. More over, a government deciding what
people should or shouldn't eat is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental
right to life (Article 21). Legally, it has long been established that right to food is an integral
part of right to life.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 have
come into effect from May 23, 2017. These rules have been notified under the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 which is the parent law. Under the new rules, the central
government has defined what an animal market is and has thereby stated that cattle which are
being sold for the purposes of slaughtering would not be allowed in the animal markets. The
government has also defined what the term cattle includes. It covers bovine animals including
bulls, bullocks, cows, buffalos, steers, heifers, calves and camels. This, in effect, will lead to
a ban on sale of cattle for the purpose of slaughtering in these markets and slaughterhouses or
meat shop owners will have to source the animals directly from farms.
Whats the relationship between an Act and its rules?
Legally, rules are made to meet the objective of the parent Act. Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 was meant to treat animals in a humane manner and to ensure the least
painful way of slaughtering them. However, these rules prevent the sale of cattle at animal
markets for the purposes of slaughtering. This goes beyond the stated objective of the parent
Act and hence is questionable. Adding to this, the recently filed petitions in the Kerala High
Court question the very relationship between the rules and the parent Act.
Is it right to call it a beef ban or cattle meat ban?
All animals defined as cattle in the rules would not be permitted to be sold in the animal
markets for the purposes of slaughtering. There are states in India where there is no
restriction on consumption of the meat of these animals and the new rules could be seen as a
ban by them. But, in effect, the central government has not banned beef or cattle meat. It has
only mandated that animals need to be sourced directly from the farms. The catch here is that
in most parts of the country, there is no popular concept of animal farms. This is likely to
choke supply of animals at slaughter houses, leading to meat shortage.
Does it dampen the federal structure, as being claimed by some states?
Firstly, laws on cattle slaughter are outside the purview of the parliament as it is a state
subject in the constitution. Though prevention of cruelty to animals is in the concurrent list,
which gives the Centre powers to make laws regarding it, but to segregate only cattle from
animals like pigs, chicken, goats from the purview of cruelty to animals violates the basis of
equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Secondly, different states have different methods to deal with cattle welfare. States like Delhi,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh have strict laws banning cow slaughter, but
states like West Bengal, Manipur, and Mizoram have no such laws and the new rule could be
seen as a violation of the rights of the states.
Thirdly, the state government has the sole right to make laws pertaining to markets and fairs.
Thus, central government has no right to make rules pertaining to animal markets and
define them accordingly.
Fourthly, the 1960 parent Act defines animals as any living creature other than a human
being. The new rules restrict the slaughter of cattle to prohibit cruelty towards animals do
not meet the definition of the parent Act as it restricts the scope of animal cruelty to only
cattle.
http://www.news18.com/news/india/its-not-really-a-cattle-slaughter-ban-but-its-as-good-as-one-1417653.html
(First Published: May 31, 2017, 11:59 AM IST )

the statutory rules were repugnant to the parent Act itself since Section 28 of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960 specifically states that it shall not be an offence to
kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community. Claiming that the
PCA Act permits slaughter of animals as well as sale of animals for slaughter, the petitioner
said the Centre had no authority to extend its rule making power, under the enactment, to the
extent of banning the sale of animals in a market for the purpose of slaughter.

She contended that the new rules offend the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under
Article 25 and the protection of interests of minorities under Article 29 of the Constitution.
She said the slaughtering of animals for food and offering sacrifice in religious places were a
part and parcel of the cultural identity of most of the communities in the country. The
petitioner stated that prohibiting the sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets amounted to
interfering with the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The statutory rules banning
sale of cattle for slaughter amounted to excessive restriction and not reasonable restriction
imposed on the right to trade.
Ms. Selvagomathy said the farmers, traders involved in the sale of cattle, slaughter
houseowners and their employees would be deprived of their livelihood, as the rules defined
the term animal market to be a market place or sale yard or any other premises or place to
which animals were brought from other places and exposed for sale or auction.

The definition also included 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 of vehicles and included animal fair and cattle pound where animals were
offered or displayed for sale or auction.

Further the rules defined the term cattle to mean a bovine animal, including bulls, bullocks,
cows, buffaloes, steers, heifers and calves and camels. Therefore, by the impugned
regulations, a complete ban has been imposed on the trade of sale or purchase of animals
defined as cattle and it is in violation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the
Constitution, she asserted.

The petitioner went on to state: The right to choice of food [non-vegetarian or vegetarian] is
a part of the right to personal liberty, conscience and privacy. By imposing a ban on slaughter
of animals for food, the citizens with a choice to eat the flesh of such animals would be
deprived of such food and it violates the right to food, privacy and personal liberty.

Referring to the seventh schedule to the Constitution, the petitioner said the issues concerning
markets, fairs and preservation or protection and improvement of livestock fall within entry
28 and 15 of the State list and thus only the State legislature and not the Centre was
empowered to enact laws and frame statutory rules on those subjects. 1

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 that makes
it ultra vires the parent Act. ...

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/prevention-cruelty-animals-regulation-

livestock-markets-rules-2017-unsustainable-law/
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 that it imposes ban of sale
of cattle in animal markets for the p...
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/prevention-cruelty-animals-regulation-
livestock-markets-rules-2017-unsustainable-law/

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/prevention-cruelty-animals-regulation-

livestock-markets-rules-2017-unsustainable-law/
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, as the said prohibition does not fit in logically into the scheme of the Rules.
As per Rule 22(b)(iii), a person bringing a cattle to an animal market for sale has to
furnish a written declaration that cattle has not been brought for sale for slaughter.
Rule 22(e)(i) prohibits a purchaser from further selling the cattle for slaughter.
Why the Rules, which are intended to regulate animal markets and prevent cruelty
to cattle, impose restrictions on sale of cattle is not logically fathomable.
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 jective 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 impose 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 on sale of cattle for slaughter operates as an indirect and 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 that makes it ultra vires the parent Act.
It is a well-settled principle that if the Rules made under an Act are contrary to the
parent Act, then such Rules will be void and inoperative.
Also, delegated legislation has to be in conformity with the objective of the parent
Act as well (Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union vs State of Kerala (2006)
4SCC 327). To prevent slaughter of cattle is not the objective of the Prevention of
Cruelty Act.
On the other hand, slaughter of animals for purposes of food is permissible under
Hence, the restrictions of cattle sale imposed by the Rules are ultra vires, as these
are repugnant to the Act and traverse beyond the objectives of the Act.
The ban of sale of cattle for slaughter introduced in the Rules is void, inoperative
and ultra-vires.
Expansive definition of Animal Markets
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 common understanding an 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 slaughterhouses 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 difference between animal markets and
slaughterhouses, thereby making most slaughterhouses animal markets as
defined in the Rules. As a result of this, one cant even seek to sell cattle directly to
a slaughterhouse.
This will have a far-reaching impact on small-scale operators of slaughterhouses
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. According to the All-India Meat and Livestock
Exporters Association, nearly 90 per cent of the cattle for slaughter are sourced
from animal , against a mere 10 per cent that is bought directly from farmers
(Source: The Hindu). So, the ban is nearly absolute. The far-reaching and wide
impact of the restrictions introduced in the Rules make one wonder whether it is a
circuitous and colourable method to ban slaughter of cattle, which remains a
contentious and volatile topic.
Restriction on Inter-state Sale.
The Rules contain restrictions on inter-state sale. As per Rule 22(e)(iv), the
purchaser of cattle cannot sell cattle outside state without permission, as per state
cattle preservation and protection laws. So a trader is restricted from effecting sale
of cattle to another state, where cattle slaughter is not prohibited. If cattle slaughter
is permissible in one state, why should there be a restriction in exporting cattle to
such state? Only the situs of slaughter is relevant. Also, Article 301 of the
Constitution declares that trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory
of India shall be free. Whether the restriction imposed as per Rule 22(e)(iv) is a
reasonable one to be saved by Article 302 is an issue which needs to be judicially
examined.
Infringement of fundamental rights.
The rules infringe ones fundamental right to practise trade and business,
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The said right can berestricted only by means of
an enacted law, and not through a delegated legislation framed by the executive.
The Rules also infringe ones right to livelihood, which emanates from Article 21.
Collaterally, the Rules also impact ones food choices. As stated earlier, the ban of
sale for slaughter in effect operates as an almost absolute ban on slaughter. It has
been held in in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat (2008) 5
SCC 33, and In Re Ramlila Incident (2012) 5 SCC 1that what one eats is ones
personal affair and forms part of right to privacy under Article 21.
While it is true that the Supreme Court has upheld ban on cattle slaughter on
previous occasions (State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kurreshi Kasab Jamaati
and others (2005) 8 SCC 534), such restrictions were imposed through enacted
legislations. Here the issue is mostly formal, regarding the validity of ban imposed
through delegated legislation which is in apparent conflict with the parent Act.
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 the potential to vitiate the harmonious atmosphere of our society.

The question is whether the Central Government under thePrevention of

Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is empowered to do this?

Outside Legislative Competence

Regulation of market committees including market committees for cattle are State
subjects, hence the Central Government has no power to legislate on the subject,
much less through the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock
Markets) Rules ! These Rules were enacted under Sections 38(1) and (2) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act), though there is no specific rule
making power vested in the Central Government to regulate animal markets.

It appears that the current Rules have been framed under the directions of the
Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi vs. Union of India. The petition in any event
sought only the prevention of export or trafficking to Nepal for ritualistic slaughter
of all animals ; hence that petition cannot be used as a justification for these Rules.
There is no mention of prevention of export of animals in these Rules.

Laws on cattle slaughter are outside the legislative competence of Parliament, since
the preservation and improvement of livestock is covered under Entry 15 of List II
(preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal
diseases; veterinary training and practice). The Rules are ultra vires the powers of
the Central Government, as the subject matter of the Rules in pith and substance, to
the extent that it seeks to regulates markets, is not within the Competence of the
Centre but the States. That apart, the Central Government has sought to do by
delegated legislation what it can do only by a law dealing with trade and commerce,
namely restrict the fundamental right to business and trade.

Many states in India do not have any prohibition on slaughter of cattle, including
cows, bulls and bullocks, such as Kerala, Tripura, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya,
etc., while some States have restrictions on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks under
16 years of age, or without a certificate of fit for slaughter. Many states do not have
any restrictions on the slaughter of buffaloes, irrespective of age/health.
The Rules themselves require compliance with the State cattle Protection or
Preservation laws [Rule 22(e)(ii)] implying thereby that those laws continue in force
and do not stand amended by these Rules.

Once it is recognized that several states do not have laws preventing

slaughter of cattle, by what authority can the Centre prevent trading in
cattle for the purpose of slaughter in cattle markets and fairs? If a state does
not prohibit either slaughter of cattle or the slaughter of buffalo, then can
the Rules prohibit trading in something, which is otherwise legal in the
state? The obvious answer is no.

As stated above, the Central Government has no power to regulate animal markets.
Entry 28 of List II State List (Markets and Fairs) gives the power to State
Governments to make laws/relating to local markets and fair and this would include
cattle markets and fairs.

Ultra vires the PCA, 1960

The PCA does not prohibit slaughter of animals for human consumption. In fact,
Section 11(3) (e) makes an explicit exemption by stating;

"nothing in this section (treating animals cruelly) will apply to the commission or
omission of any act in the course of destruction or the preparation for destruction
of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was
accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

Thus, the Act clearly provides that the slaughter of animals is permitted for the
purpose of food for human consumption, provided it does not cause unnecessary
pain or suffering. Accordingly, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter
House) Rules, 2001 has been framed, which lays down detailed guidelines on how
animal slaughter should take place, with minimum pain or suffering, and the
operation of slaughter house.

Thus, Rules 22(b)(iii) and 22(e)(i) which prohibit the seller from bringing a cattle to
animal market for slaughter and the buyer to purchase the same for the purpose of
slaughter is in conflict with and totally contrary to Section 11(3)(e) of the PCA, 1960.
It is clear that the Centre has chosen a back door method of preventing the slaughter
of cattle on an all India basis, bypassing local and state laws.

Even if one were to give the benefit of doubt to the government that the intent of the
Rules is to regulate animal welfare, why welfare only of cattle? The PCA is meant for
all animals, defined in Section 2(a), PCA as any living creature other than a human
being.

If the idea is to regulate animal markets by prohibiting diseased animals from being
sold there for the purpose of slaughter, then the same principle can be applied to
other animals , like pigs, sheep, poultry, etc. That selective approach gives away the
story and makes it clear that this is nothing more than the universalisation of
Hindutva agenda through the back door.

The argument is that for the purpose of slaughter, cattle can be sourced directly from
the farms/farmers , resulting in better tracking and adherence of safety standards.
However, this fails to take into account that rural farming economy is substantially
dependent on the local animal markets, where buying and selling of animals is
fundamental to the trade. In an animal market, buyers and/or sellers have the
freedom to negotiate the prices, to have a wide range of options to choose from, as
well as impose other conditions, if needed. By removing the animal markets from the
supply chain from where cattle can be sourced for slaughter, including buffalo, one is
severely limiting the options before both farmers and buyers, who could them for
economic reasons, stop engaging in cattle breeding altogether. Further, it will deal a
body blow to the beef industries as well as to other ancillary trades, which are heavily
dependent on buffalo.

If the intention of these Rules is to protect animals from cruelty, then they ought to
regulate the dairy industry first, wherein the maximum exploitation of cattle exists.

The Rules have come in the backdrop of lynching of bona fide traders of cattle by cow
vigilantes, gau rakshaks since no trader can bring her cattle to animal markets for
the purpose of slaughter. Similarly, no buyer can purchase cattle for slaughter from
animal fairs. It is argued that now Rules will provide for mandatory registration of
animal markets as well as proper documentation of cattle traders and the cattle itself,
it can be contended that these will result in less violence and harassment of cattle
traders by the vigilante groups. However, that may not be the case, as was evident in
Pehlu Khans case in Alwar, a dairy farmer who was lynched for smuggling cows on
1st April, 2017 and died two days later, despite having valid purchase documents. The
issue is even if sellers and/or buyers have documents showing that they are
transporting cattle for agricultural purposes, there is no guarantee that this will
satisfy the cow vigilantes.

Violation of fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g)

These Rules constitute a direct interference with the farmers and non-farmers
fundamental right to trade, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), and not protected
under the reasonable restriction of in the interests of general public under Article
19(6) of the Constitution.

Reading the law: Government seems to be on thin ice as

it bans trade on cattle for slaughter
29 May 2017, 12:30 PM IST
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017
were notified by the Central government, ostensibly to regulate animal markets all
over India. The term animal market is defined in Rule 2(b) as:
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.

The owner of cattle has to provide a written declaration furnishing their details, with
photo ID proof, the identification details of the cattle, as well as an undertaking that
the cattle has not been brought to market for sale for slaughter [Rule 22(b)]. A similar
obligation is placed on the purchaser, who is barred from selling the cattle for
slaughter, and has to follow the State cattle protection or preservation laws under
Rule 22(e).

In this context, Rule 2(e) defines cattle as a bovine animal including bulls,
bullocks, cows, buffaloes, steers, heifers and calves and includes camels.

In effect, the Regulation of Livestock Markets Rules prohibit the buying and selling
of all cattle, including buffaloes, in the animal markets for the purpose of slaughter. It
is argued in justification that mainly unfit or diseased animals are brought to the
animal market for slaughter, resulting in the risk of spread of infectious diseases
amongst healthy animals. Thus, the Rules ensure that only healthy animals are traded
for agricultural purposes, while animals for slaughter can be bought directly from the
farms or farmers, in order to ensure traceability. So these Rules do not prohibit
slaughter of cattle per se, they only regulate the animal markets to ensure that cattle
are not traded for slaughter.

The question: Is the Central government under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960 empowered to do this?

Outside legislative competence

Regulation of market committees, including market committees for cattle, are state
subjects, hence the Central government has no power to legislate on that, much less
through the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets)
Rules! These Rules were enacted under Sections 38(1) and (2) of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, though there is no specific rule making power vested
in the Central government to regulate animal markets.

It appears that the current Rules have been framed under the directions of the
Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi vs Union of India. The petition in any event
sought only the prevention of export or trafficking to Nepal for ritualistic slaughter
of all animals; hence that petition cannot be used as a justification for these Rules.
There is no mention of prevention of export of animals in these Rules.

Laws on cattle slaughter are outside the legislative competence of Parliament, since
the preservation and improvement of livestock is covered under Entry 15 of List II of
the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (preservation, protection and improvement
of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice), which
pertains to matters under that the state government has powers over. The Rules are
ultra vires the powers of the Central government, as the subject matter of the Rules in
pith and substance, to the extent that it seeks to regulates markets, is not within the
Competence of the Centre but the States. That apart, the Central government has
sought to do by delegated legislation what it can do only by a law dealing with trade
and commerce, namely restrict the fundamental right to business and trade.
Many states in India do not have any prohibition on slaughter of cattle, including
cows, bulls and bullocks, such as Kerala, Tripura, Nagaland, Manipur and
Meghalaya, while some states have restrictions on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks
under 16 years of age, or without a certificate of fit for slaughter. Many states do
not have any restrictions on the slaughter of buffaloes, irrespective of age or health.

The rules themselves require compliance with the state cattle Protection or
Preservation laws [Rule 22(e)(ii)] implying thereby that those laws continue in force
and do not stand amended by these Rules.

Once it is recognised that several states do not have laws preventing slaughter of
cattle, by what authority can the Centre prevent trading in cattle for the purpose of
slaughter in cattle markets and fairs? If a state does not prohibit either slaughter of
cattle or the slaughter of buffalo, then can the Rules prohibit trading in something,
which is otherwise legal in the state? The obvious answer is no.

As stated above, the Central government has no power to regulate animal markets.
Entry 28 of List II State List (Markets and Fairs) gives the power to State
governments to make laws relating to local markets and fair and this would include
cattle markets and fairs.

Legal question

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not prohibit slaughter of animals for
human consumption. In fact, Section 11(3) (e) makes an explicit exemption by
stating;

nothing in this section (treating animals cruelly) will apply to the commission or
omission of any act in the course of destruction or the preparation for destruction of
any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was
accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

Thus, the Act clearly provides that the slaughter of animals is permitted for the
purpose of food for human consumption, provided it does not cause unnecessary pain
or suffering. Accordingly, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House)
Rules, 2001 has been framed, which lays down detailed guidelines on how animal
slaughter should take place, with minimum pain or suffering, and the operation of
slaughter house.

Thus, Rules 22(b)(iii) and 22(e)(i) which prohibit the seller from bringing a cattle to
animal market for slaughter and the buyer to purchase the same for the purpose of
slaughter is in conflict with and totally contrary to Section 11(3)(e) of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act , 1960.

Religious agenda

It is clear that the Centre has chosen a back-door method of preventing the slaughter
of cattle on an all India basis, bypassing local and state laws.

Even if one were to give the benefit of the doubt to the government that the intent of
the Rules is to regulate animal welfare, why welfare only of cattle? The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act is meant for all animals, defined in Section 2(a), of the
legislation as any living creature other than a human being.

If the idea is to regulate animal markets by prohibiting diseased animals from being
sold there for the purpose of slaughter, then the same principle can be applied to other
animals, like pigs, sheep and poultry. That selective approach gives away the story
and makes it clear that this is nothing more than the universalisation of Hindutva
agenda through the back door.

The argument is that for the purpose of slaughter, cattle can be sourced directly from
the farms or farmers , resulting in better tracking and adherence of safety standards.
However, this fails to take into account that rural farming economy is substantially
dependent on the local animal markets, where buying and selling of animals is
fundamental to the trade. In an animal market, buyers and sellers have the freedom to
negotiate the prices, to have a wide range of options to choose from, as well as
impose other conditions, if needed.

By removing the animal markets from the supply chain from where cattle can be
sourced for slaughter, including buffalo, one is severely limiting the options before
both farmers and buyers, who could then, for economic reasons, stop engaging in
cattle breeding altogether. Further, it will deal a body blow to the beef industries as
well as to other ancillary trades, which are heavily dependent on buffalo.

If the intention of these Rules is to protect animals from cruelty, then they ought to
regulate the dairy industry first, wherein the maximum exploitation of cattle exists.

Environment of vigilantism

The Rules have come in the backdrop of lynching of bona fide traders of cattle by
cow vigilantes or so-called gau rakshaks since no trader can bring her cattle to animal
markets for the purpose of slaughter. Similarly, no buyer can purchase cattle for
slaughter from animal fairs. It is argued that the Rules will provide for mandatory
registration of animal markets as well as proper documentation of cattle traders and
the cattle itself, it can be contended that these will result in less violence and
harassment of cattle traders by the vigilante groups.

However, that may not be the case, as was evident in Pehlu Khans case in Alwar, a
dairy farmer who was lynched after he was accused of smuggling cows on April 1,
despite having valid purchase documents. The point is even if sellers or buyers have
documents showing that they are transporting cattle for agricultural purposes, there is
no guarantee that this will satisfy the cow vigilantes.

These Rules also constitute a direct interference with the farmers and non-farmers
fundamental right to trade, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), and not protected
under the reasonable restriction of in the interests of general public under Article
19(6) of the Constitution.

nsure traceability and food safety standards and weed out middlemen
between farmers and slaughterhouses, and increase the income of farmers
who rear such animals for trade. New rules have, however, not banned
sale of such animals for agriculture purposes or milk. But it can be done
only through regulated livestock markets which will have to adhere to safety
standards and certain do's and don'ts to avoid cruelty against the animals.

The rules, notified by the ministry of environment, will have to be

implemented within three months across the country, including Kerala,
which allow cow slaughter. Though the issues relating to cow
slaughter come under the 'state' subject in terms of making law and
framing the rules, the new central rules are notified under the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960 that gives the Centre power over
animal welfare.

"The rules intend to promote the concept of 'farm to fork', which revolves
around the traceability of food products as they move through the supply
chain. Due to the present system of open markets that allow trade of both
milch and slaughter animals, and multiple buyers and sellers, it becomes
impossible to trace an animal back to its farm of origin", said N G
Jayasimha, managing director of the Humane Society International/India,
who was part of the drafting committee of the Regulation of Livestock
market rules.

He said, "The animals being sold for slaughter are generally unfit, making
the markets a major hub for the spread of infectious diseases as there are
no records and no liability. Cattle suffering from foot & mouth disease or
mad cow disease may be sold. So, the idea behind the new rules is to
ensure that only healthy animals are traded for agricultural purposes,
whereas animals for slaughter must be sourced directly from farms to
ensure traceability".

The rules also provide for setting up a district-level authority to enforce

animal protection laws on the ground, including those against illegal
slaughter. As part of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of
Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, it makes a provision of constitution of
Animal Market Committee for management of animal markets in the district.
The Committee will have to ensure that no person will bring a cattle to an
animal market unless upon arrival he has furnished a written declaration
signed by the owner of the cattle that "the cattle has not been brought to
market for sale for slaughter".

The purchaser will have to give an undertaking that he/she will not sell the
animal for purpose of slaughter, follow the state cattle protection or
preservation laws, not sacrifice the animal for any religious purpose and not
sell the cattle to a person outside the state without the permission as per
the state cattle protection laws.
Under the rules, no animal market will be allowed in a place that is within
25 km from any state border or that is within 50 km from any international
border. Besides, unfit animals, pregnant animals, animals who have not
been vaccinated and animals under six months of age cannot be displayed
or sold at any of the cattle market anywhere in the country.

The market committee will have to keep a record of name and address of
the purchaser and procure his identity proof. The committee will also have
to ensure that the purchaser of the animal gives a declaration that he shall
not sell the animal up to six months from the date of purchase and shall
abide by the rules relating to transport of animals made under the Act or
any other law for the time being in force.

Since the rules include buffaloes in their definition of cattle, big traders and
exporters will initially feel the heat in procuring the animals for meat. But
the regulation of slaughter houses and closure of illegal ones will ultimately
bring consistency of supply in the market and ensure foods safety
standard. India is currently a major buffalo meat exporting country which
grew from Rs 3,533 crore in 2007-08 to Rs 26,685 crore in 2015-16.

Such questions are bound to be raised given the way the rules were notified. If the main subject of
the notification was the regulation of livestock markets, why was it issued by the Ministry of
Environment and not the Animal Husbandry Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, which deals
directly with this issue? Moreover, on what ground can the slaughter of any animal for food be
prevented under the PCA, when it explicitly recognises that animals may constitute food for
mankind? What the Act prohibits is only the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering when
animals are consumed as food. Such legal infirmities are bound to be challenged in court, but
meanwhile the economic costs of this decision will merit a close watch. If estimates that 90% of
slaughtered buffaloes are bought and sold in animal markets are correct, then the trade will be
crippled. The Centre must address the concerns of the trade as well as of those who suspect the
notification is a part of a Machiavellian plot to influence and curb food choices. While there is a case
to retain most of the rules prohibiting the cruel treatment of animals, the ban on the sale of cattle
for slaughter in animal markets must go

Moot problem point 2 : The Government of Indistan (Government) through the Ministry of
Environment Forests and Climatic Change (Ministry), in exercise of its powers conferred under sub
sections (1) and (2) of Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 notified in the
official gazette on the 23rd of May, 2017, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of
Livestock Market) Rules, 2017 (Rules)
In May, the Union environment ministry had notified the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules 2017,
tightening trade in livestock and transport of cattle to ensure their welfare
at animal markets and also prevent smuggling.

The rules banned trading in cattle for slaughter at animal markets. The
rules included buffaloes in their definition of cattle, raising concerns that
they would jeopardize the buffalo meat export business as the supply chain
of spent buffaloes will be disrupted.

The Central rules drew criticism from various quarters, including

opposition parties, who argued that they virtually ban the sale of cattle in
the country.

The Constitution incorporates the concept of federalism in various provisions.

The provisions which establish the essence of federalism i.e. having States and a
Centre, with a division of functions between them with sanction of the
Constitution include, among others, Lists II and III of Seventh Schedule that give
plenary powers to the State Legislatures; the authority to Parliament to legislate
in a field covered by the State under Article 252 only with the consent of two or
more States, with provision for adoption of such legislation by any other State;
competence of Parliament to legislate in matters pertaining to the State List, only
for a limited period, underArticle 249 "in the national interest" and under Article
250 during "emergency"; vesting the President with the power under Article
258(1) to entrust a State Government, with consent of the Governor, functions in
relation to matters to which executive power of the Union extends,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution; decentralization of
power by formation of independent municipalities and Panchayats through 73rd
and 74th Amendment; etc. In re: Under Article 143, Constitution of India,
(Special Reference No. 1 of 1964) [AIR 1965 SC 745 (Paragraph 39 at 762)], this
Court ruled thus: "In dealing with this question, it is necessary to bear in mind
one fundamental feature of a Federal Constitution.

In England, Parliament is sovereign; and in the words of Dicey, the three

distinguishing features of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty are that
Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever; that no person or
body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to over-ride or set aside
the legislation of Parliament, and that the right or power of Parliament extends to
every part of the Queen's dominions (1). On the other hand, the essential
characteristic of federalism is "the distribution of limited executive, legislative
and judicial authority among bodies which are coordinate with and independent
of each other". The supremacy of the constitution is fundamental to the existence
of a federal State in order to prevent either the legislature of the federal unit or
those of the member States from destroying or impairing that delicate balance of
power which satisfies the particular requirements of States which are desirous of
union, but not prepared to merge their individuality in a unity. This supremacy of
the constitution is protected by the authority of an independent judicial body to
act as the interpreter of a scheme of distribution of powers. Nor is any change
possible in the Constitution by the ordinary process of federal or State legislation
(2). Thus the dominant characteristic of the British Constitution cannot be
claimed by a Federal Constitution like ours."

ustice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, writing separate Judgment (for himself and on behalf
of S.C. Agrawal, J.) concluded in Paragraph 276 thus:

"The fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred
upon the Centre vis-`-vis the States does not mean that States are mere
appendages of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, States are supreme.
The Centre cannot tamper with their powers. More particularly, the Courts
should not adopt an approach, an interpretation, which has the effect of or tends
to have the effect of whittling down the powers reserved to the States.

in India distribution of power is made under Three Lists found in the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. The powers of both the Central and State Governments are specifically enumerated in
the Union list and State list respectively while powers mentioned in the Concurrent list are enjoyed
by the two sets of governments. The residuary powers are vested in the Central government.