Eating beef no longer a crime, as long as it is not from Maharashtra

You can once again eat beef in Maharashtra as long as it is sourced from outside the state Recognising a persons right to eat as he chooses in his own home the Bombay High Court yesterday struck down major amendments to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Amendment Act 1995 ndash Section 5D and 9B mdash relaxing the beef ban to a significant extentSeveral groups had protested against the beef ban in Maharashtra which came into effect last year The court yesterday held that the state cannot control what a citizen does in his house which is his own castle as long as it is not something contrary to lawWhat it meansWhile it is still illegal to slaughter a cow bull or calf in Maharashtra no one can stop a citizen from eating beef that has been slaughtered in another state Whats more the onus is now on the state to prove that a citizen has violated the beef banAs far as the choice of food is concerned citizens must be left alone especially when the food of their choice is not injurious to health stated the judgment while Justice Suresh Gupte observed How can a layman prove whether he is eating beef or anything else He is not a specialised person it should be done by a forensic laboratoryThe ruling is a major jolt for the BJPled government which introduced the beef ban last year The state had asked the High Court to put a stay on the order as they wanted to appeal against it in the apex court However the bench refused to do so citing Article 21 protection of personal life and liberty of the ConstitutionSections 5D and 9B of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act 1976 have been struck down on the grounds that they infringe on the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India said Justice Abhay OkaWe have already held that right to privacy is an integral part of a citizens personal liberty under Article 21 The state cannot make an intrusion into his home and prevent him from possessing and eating food of his choice A citizen has a right to lead a meaningful life within the four corners of his house as well as outside his house the order statedBackgroundBoth sections came into force last March when the President approved the amendments proposed in 1995 introducing several controversial changes For one only the cow was forbidden for slaughter sale and consumption but bulls and bullocks were also included under the beef ban last year Also it became the citizens responsibility to prove that they had not consumed or stored beefSenior counsel Aspi Chinoy who appeared for petitioner Harish Jagtiani welcomed the order Its a salutary judgment unnecessary intrusion into the personal liberty of citizens to eat what they choose has now been stopped by the court As long as food is not harmful to health one should be allowed to eat it There is an exception only in case of cows as it is in the interest of agricultureThe state had raised the health and agriculture cards to defend the beef ban The state argued that cow flesh was high in saturated fats and could cause heart diseases and cancer and bulls and bullocks were useful not only as draught animals in farming but their waste was also an important source of fuel and manureThe then advocate general Shreehari Aney also justified the ban saying there was no fundamental right to choice of food or to eat beef On the other hand several petitioners argued that the HC should use its powers under Article 226 high courts power to issue writs and redress the ban which was a violation of personal liberty You can cannot criminalize an innocuous act Chinoy had told the court