Bengaluru, Sep 23 (DHNS): The High Court of Karnataka has censured the State government for not enforcing laws that ban cow slaughter and illegal transport of other animals.
Hearing a PIL petition by Gau Gyan Foundation, a Delhi-based nonprofit, a division bench of acting Chief Justice S K Mukherjee and Justice B V Nagarathna on Tuesday demanded why the government had failed to enforce a single-bench judgment of March 6, 2015. “What kind of administration is existing in the state if court orders are not complied with... All the State’s discussions and submissions are bogus.” The single-judge bench had directed the government to strictly enforce the ban.
The NGO urged the court to direct the government to prevent the illegal transport, sale and slaughter of cattle, besides strictly enforcing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals) Rules, 1978.
The petitioner contended that almost one lakh head of cattle are illegally brought to Bengaluru and unlawfully sold in APMC yards. That’s not all, she bulls, buffaloes and cows are openly slaughtered in front of other cattle, which is against the law on cow slaughter. The 1964 Act restricts slaughter of cows, calves and she buffaloes, but allows slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes if they are aged above 12 or if they are no longer fit for breeding or draught or do not give milk. However, all types of cattle are being slaughtered, the NGO claimed and sought the court’s directive to create awareness about the law among members of the community involved in such acts by involving their leaders.
During the hearing, an organisation filed an interlocutory application, seeking to bring the court’s attention to the fact that animals are being slaughtered in homes because of lack of space in slaughterhouses. But the bench didn’t entertain the application as it wasn’t submitted as per the procedure.
The court disposed of the PIL petition by directing the government to enforce the law as mentioned in the March 6 judgment but refused to pass a separate order.