What's the Beef about Beef?

Karnataka became the latest state to try and impose a beef ban. What does the law say about this?

Last week, the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2020 (‘Bill’), was passed at the Assembly level. But protests ensued soon after. In true Karnataka style, the Opposition united and the BJP government deferred the enactment of the Bill under pressure.

In the interim, beef shops in Karnataka and neighbouring states did shut down.

This isn’t the first time that the Karnataka government has tried to ban beef. But strong headwinds often emerge (politically and otherwise).

Beef Laws

Remember our story on alcohol delivery laws? In that piece, we talked about how some subjects are exclusively legislated by states (flowing from the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India). Interestingly, both “agriculture” and “the preservation of stock” fall within the legislative competence of states.

This means that states have the powers to legislate on cow slaughter. Clearly, the Bill is fine on that count.

What makes matters even more interesting is that Article 48 of the Indian Constitution says the state shall “organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”

Article 48 is a “Directive Principle of State Policy”.  This means that it was inserted into the Constitution to guide future policy-makers on how to frame laws. This Article isn’t enforceable as law itself.

Constitutional Challenge

Beef bans are consistently tested for constitutionality (despite Article 48). Why?

One argument against such bans is that they act as a restriction on the fundamental right of people to carry out trade/business (here, butchers who make a living through slaughtering animals). Another argument against such bans is that they violate the religious freedom of those who consume or sacrifice these animals as a part of their religion.

What’s also interesting is that numerous courts (including the Supreme Court) have cited economic consequences as one of the primary reasons when arguing against such bans. Courts have recognised that cattle have a larger economic function (for milk, manure, hulls etc.). If this economic function cannot be served, it becomes a concern.

The Supreme Court previously tried to play a balancing act. Past judicial intervention has seen: (a) cattle being classified basis its utility; and (b) bans being enforced accordingly. The idea is simple. Slaughter would be permitted subject to identified thresholds and conditions.

Absolute bans were clearly not the way forward. 

What Next?

The Bill deems cow slaughter as a cognizable offence. Those breaking the law risk three years to seven years of imprisonment. The Bill also provides for penalties which may go up to Rs. 10 lakh (for subsequent offences).

For now, citizens of Karnataka should still be able to indulge in beef delicacies. When the Bill comes into force, we expect both political protests and courtroom battles. If the Bill does get challenged, the Karnataka High Court will have some interesting questions of law to deal with.

Stay WorldWise!