The Hindu: New Delhi: Saturday, August 05, 2017.
In reply to
RTI plea, Lok Sabha Secretariat says Centre did not follow procedure.
A Lok Sabha
Secretariat reply to a Right To Information request made by one of the
petitioners who has challenged the cattle slaughter ban rules in the Supreme
Court reveals that the rules were never laid before the Parliament, which the
government should have done before implementing them.
Having
triggered an avalanche of litigation across the country, the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animal (Regulation of Livestock Market) Rules of 2017, which bans
the sale of cattle in livestock markets for the purpose of slaughter or animal
sacrifices, is back to the drawing board. Notified on May 23, 2017, the rules
mandate that cattle should only be sold in animal markets for farming purposes.
On August 4,
2017, petitioner Sabu Stephen, represented by advocate V.K. Biju, exposed
before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar another chink in the
government’s slaughter ban rules.
Section 38A
of the Prevention of Cruelty Act of 1960 the parent Act under which the rules
are made mandates that any rule made by the Centre under it ought to be laid
before each House of the Parliament “as soon as it is made”. The rules would be
placed before the Parliament for a total 30 days. Any modification agreed upon
by both Houses of the Parliament should be incorporated in the rules or else
they would have no effect.
The July 27,
2017 reply of the Lok Sabha Secretariat says the Parliament had no information
about the rules. The RTI reply, in clear terms, said the livestock rules were
“not forwarded by the Ministry concerned, i.e., the Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate Change, for laying on the table of the House so far. Hence,
not laid till date”.
Rules
suppressed
Mr. Biju
submitted: “The government bypassed the Parliament, suppressed the rules from
the elected representatives of the people of the country and killed the parent
Act... all this when over 70% of the country is affected by certain provisions
of the livestock rules.”.
Additional
Solicitor-General P.S. Narasimha admitted that he was not aware of the facts
and sought an adjournment till August 9, 2017.
“A simple
reading of Section 38A tells us that you (the government) cannot say ‘I will
not place the rules before the Parliament’,” Chief Justice Khehar agreed with
the petitioner’s submission.
Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud added that Section 38A invokes the spirit that “laying a law before
the Parliament is important”. “It is an exercise of parliamentary control over
the laws of the land,” Justice Chandrachud addressed the government.
The
information about the alleged lapse on the government side came to light during
a hearing on an application filed activist Gauri Maulekhi seeking a
clarification of a Supreme Court order on the issue on July 11, 2017.
On that day,
the court recorded the Centre’s submission that the Madras High Court had
already issued a blanket stay on both Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules and The Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Act, 2017.
However,
later, through Ms. Maulekhi’s intervention, the court realised that the High
Court had only stayed a provision of the livestock markets rules, namely Rule
22(b)(iii), which required a person bringing cattle for sale to market to
furnish a written declaration that it would not be sold for slaughter.
The Centre
has assured the court that it is re-considering the entire body of the
livestock market rules. It has promised that the rules, in its existing form,
meanwhile, would not be implemented.
“But these
rules in the current form is nevertheless in operation. Rules, once notified,
are the law. Government cannot say we will not implement them. The rules will
continue to operate until either you (government) repeal them or we issue an
order of injunction,” Chief Justice Khehar indicated.