[Cattle Slaughter Ordinance] No coercive action for transporting cattle until Rules are brought into force: State to Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka government on Wednesday informed the Karnataka High Court that it will not take any coercive action against any person under Section 5 (Restriction on transport of cattle) of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Ordinance, 2020 (ordinance) till Rules framed under Section 5 are brought into force. .In view of this submission, Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice SS Magadum opined that there was no need to pass an interim order in the matter at this stage.."AG informs that till the Rules are brought into force, which will be framed by exercising powers under proviso to Section 5 of impugned ordinance, no coercive action shall be initiated by the State government for violation of Section 5…… Considering the statement made by the AG, at this stage, it is not necessary to consider the prayer for grant of interim relief," the Court recorded in its order..The Court was hearing two pleas seeking quashing of the Ordinance on the ground that it is violative of freedom of trade and occupation under Article 19(1)(g) and right to food under Article 21..The ordinance which came into force on January 5, 2021, prohibits slaughter of cattle (Section 4). Conviction for the same invites imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than seven years and/or fine of not less than Rs. 50,000 for each cattle which can be extended to Rs. 5 lakh. For subsequent offences, the fine is not less than Rs 1 lakh and can be extended to Rs. 10 lakh..However, the Court during the hearings had expressed specific concern regarding the practical difficulties that may be posed to farmers and cattle owners due to Section 5 of the ordinance..Section 5 of the Ordinance states that no person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported by whatever means any cattle from any place within the State to any other place within the State for slaughter.However, it provides that the transport of any cattle, in the manner prescribed by the State Government or Central Government, for bona-fide agricultural or animal husbandry purpose shall not be construed as an offence under this section..Though the Rules prescribing the manner in which such transportation is permitted, has been framed, the same is not yet in force. This prompted the State to inform the Court that it will not implement Section 5 for the time being. .Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi further apprised the Bench that once the Rules are brought into force, the State would move the Court so that the petitioners are put to notice of the said development..During the hearing, the Court said that,“If proviso was not there in section 5 of the ordinance, there would be no problem. Here, the intent of the legislature is clear. We will tell you how it will create a problem…. A farmer has a cattle shed next to his house. So to take his cattle to his farm, he needs to take a certificate every time?”.At this juncture, AG Navadgi responded that there was an exception for the first 15 kilometers and that the Rules in this regard are yet to be brought into force..“It (Proviso to section 5) will create a problem. This will be up to the discretion of the police,” remarked CJ Oka, dissatisfied with the State’s submission..As the hearing progressed, advocate Clifton Rozario appearing for the petitioner, raised concerns about Section 10 of the ordinance which stated that, for any violation under the ordinance, a farmer can be arrested with or without an FIR along with seizure of his/her cattle..Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari submitted that there should be no course of action arising out of Section 5 of the ordinance for now..Turning to the AG Navadgi, the Court said,“Does the proviso actually take away a farmer's right to transport cattle for bonafide purposes? That is the question here.”.State government has been directed to file its by February 20..On February 26, the Court will hear the main prayers in the two petitions on the challenge to the Constitutional validity of the ordinance.