Read Time: 05 minutes

The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday while hearing two petitions against the ban on slaughterhouses in Haridwar, observed that the petitions challenging the said ban have not been drafted with “sincerity” required to challenge fundamental constitutional questions.

“The problem is not a minority versus a majority. The subject is very simple. What are the fundamental rights of the citizens of India?," Uttarakhand High Court said, adding that averments in the plea stated that the ban discriminated against Muslims in Haridwar and that the the prohibition was against right to privacy, the right to life, and the right to freely practice religion.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice RS Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma observed that in a country where 70% of the population eats non-vegetarian food, the issue of the prohibition of meat is one that concerns the fundamental rights of citizens and is not a Majority Vs. Minority issue.

The present petition is filed by residents of Manglaur challenging the ban on slaughterhouses in Haridwar district.

"Denying hygienic and fresh non-vegetarian food to people of Haridwar district across the limitations of religion and caste amounts to hostile discrimination," the petition said.

On Friday, the respondent cited surveys on the eating habits of Indians in 2018 and 2019.

“It is very evident that in Uttarakhand 72.6% of the population is not vegetarian. In total, 70% of the Indian population is not vegetarian, which breaks the myth that the majority of the population is vegetarian,” observed the Bench.

The Bench also stated that a civilization is judged only by the way it treats its minorities, “Democracy not only means governing by majority but, most importantly, democracy means protecting the minority.”

It is pertinent to note that in March this year, the state had declared all areas of Haridwar "free from slaughterhouses" and cancelled the NOCs issued to slaughterhouses.

The petition claimed the ban was "arbitrary and unconstitutional". The petition challenged this for two reasons:

1. A blanket ban on meat of any kind is unconstitutional, as is Section 237A that the Uttarakhand government had inserted into the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act,
2. To give itself the power to declare an area under a municipal corporation, council or Nagar panchayat as a "slaughter-free" zone.

Taking into account all the observations made in the hearing on Friday, the Bench also asked the petitioners to modify the argument to challenge the constitutional validity of the amendment made to the Municipal Corporation UP Act and as such, an amendment was made to the Municipal Corporations Law that gave the state government the power to totally prohibit the slaughter of animals in any municipal corporation.

 

 

[Inputs from TOI, NDTV]