Abandoned cows: MP panel seeks penalty

Abandoned cows: MP panel seeks penalty

Context

A state government committee has recommended on anti – cow slaughter that the existing law should be amended to include provisions to penalise owners who abandon their cattle.

The new provision for stray cattle:

• The Madhya Pradesh Gauvansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, the state anti-cow slaughter law has stringent provisions to punish those involved in the slaughter and illegal transportation of cattle, but there are no measures to punish owners who abandon their cows on the streets or in nearby villages.
• Madhya Pradesh, accounting for nearly 10.27 per cent of country’s cattle population, has over the last few months struggled with the menace of abandoned cattle, with reports that abandoned cows were raiding crops and causing accidents on highways.
• MP has nearly 1.96 crore cattle heads but there is no estimate of the stray cattle population.

What will be the penalty?

• Penalty will be introduced for owners who abandon their cows.
• The penalty will be slapped even if a cow is killed in road accidents as it’s proof that the owner has abandoned it.
• The committee was looking at how to get stray cows off highways and city streets by next year.

The committee

• Bureaucrats from the departments of animal husbandry, cooperation, urban development and environment are members of the committee, which was recently set up to suggest measures to conserve the cow.
• The committee wants the nomenclature of the law changed to include “conservation.”
• District collectors are using drones to find out areas affected by stray cows. Only 604 of the 1,246 registered gaushals in the state were active and that owners of gaushalas “who lie about the number of cows they shelter” will also be penalized.

Other recommendations

• Sterilisation (castration) of bulls of nondescript breeds.
• Creation of gothan (structures where cows can rest)
• Gau abhyaranya (cow sanctuaries)
• Gau vanvyavihar (forest areas demarcated for cows); and
• Freeing charnoi (grazing) land from encroachment.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

• The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1960 to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to amend the laws relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals.
• As per the provisions of the law the government of India formed the Animal Welfare Board of India.
• The act however makes a provision under heading “Saving as respects manner of killing prescribed by religion”. Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.

Constitutional Provisions for cow slaughter

• Prohibition of cow slaughter finds a place in the Constitution, but not as an enforceable fundamental right.
• It is included as a “Directive Principle of State Policy”, which is meant to guide the state in policymaking, but cannot be enforced in any court.
• This Directive Principle (Article 48 of the Constitution) has excluded the question of religious sentiments.
• Article 48 states: “The State shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”.

What has the Supreme Court said?

• The Supreme Court has consistently said that rules that contravene or rewrite the parent law, in this case the 1960 Act, should be rendered invalid for arbitrariness and unreasonableness.
• However, the burden to disprove the presumption that these rules are constitutional and valid lies with the petitioner.
• The petitioner has to prove that the government lacked legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. That the rules are a violation of the guaranteed fundamental and constitutional rights.
• The petitioner has to prove that there was a failure on the part of the Centre to conform to the 1960 Act and the rules are repugnant to the laws of the land. The court said: “Where a Rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then of course the task of the court is simple and easy.
• But where the contention is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the Rule is not with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme of the Parent Act, the court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity”.