Herald: As one of India’s most prominent lawyers, it is very interesting that you chose to oppose the beef ban in Maharashtra in your personal capacity.
Harish Jagtiani: This is a writ petition I have filed. My rights as an individual are affected by the ban on possession and therefore consumption of beef. My right to choose what I want to eat is a fundamental right under Article 21, which allows me to live my life with dignity with a right to privacy and that includes my choice of food.
If the government tells me that I cannot eat beef, I say that it offends my right of privacy. My case is being argued by senior constitutional lawyers.
Herald: Are you challenging the ban on slaughter or just consumption and possession?
Jagtiani: No (not challenging ban on slaughter), and I will tell you why. The Supreme Court has said in a seven-man and a five-man judgement that this is a prerogative of the State and has economic relevance and animals of the bovine species have an economic relevance.
Herald: So, What is your specific line of argument against the ban on consumption of beef?
Jagtiani: As a citizen, I don’t intend to let a fundamental issue like this go without a public debate. This is the idea behind filing it. This offends my dignity, my right to choose what I want to eat. The government has no business to step into my kitchen.
The government of Maharashtra has gone beyond other States. Other States have banned cow slaughter but here the Maharashtra government says you cannot eat beef even if it is slaughtered outside which is so absurd. Take a simple instance. I’m travelling from London to India and I pick up a can of corned beef at Heathrow. The minute I land here, I go straight to jail because they have made the possession and consumption of beef cognisable as an offence and non-bailable.
Herald: In a piquant situation, Indian Customs has not banned import of beef though.
Jagtiani: I am glad you hit upon that. The irony is that Customs has not banned it as an importable item. This opens up a new area of challenge. If we say that the import of items is purely a prerogative of the Union government, the State cannot legislate on a matter, which impinges upon the jurisdiction of the Centre, it is governed by List 1, the Union list. Therefore to say I cannot consume or possess beef slaughtered ‘elsewhere’ means abroad. “Elsewhere” could also mean any other State. And by prohibiting that, it violates Article 301. Then it affects inter-state trade and commerce. These are ancillary arguments to the fundamental argument that the government can’t tell me what to eat. This is how absurd the law is.
Herald: This is obviously a political decision, which the government thought they could get away with.
Jagtiani: I have no doubt in my mind that this entire exercise of power by the State is a colourable exercise of power. Their agenda is religious but that’s not something I want to get involved in. As long the action violates my fundamental right, it must be struck down.
Herald: The State has justified this decision from the point of prevention of cruelty to animals.
Jagtiani: When they took this stand, that court said what about buffaloes (whose slaughter is not banned). Isn’t their slaughter cruel? Earlier it was restricted to cows and now extended to bulls and bullocks, leaving out buffaloes. But there is a larger point here. You don’t make such legislations overnight. 180,000 people will be affected and the Chief Minister decides that from, say, Monday, it’s finished. A legislation with such ramifications and such implications should be framed after giving time to the (affected) to find other means of livelihood.
Herald: Do you apprehend other BJP ruled States of following Maharashtra’s path?
Jagtiani: We are getting into intentions. I personally suspect there is an agenda beyond justifying this on economic grounds. In their statements of objects and reasons, while they justify the ban on slaughter as an economic necessity, on the consumption and possession there is nothing that links it to economic activity, therefore it has to be tested on the touchstone of fundamental rights.
Why the beef ban is bad in law and unfair
u Fundamental Rights under Article 21 include right to privacy which includes the right to decide what to eat
u Ban on consumption means not eating beef produced or slaughtered anywhere in India or abroad. This infringes upon the right to import under the Union List. No state legislation can infringe upon a central jurisdiction
u Legislation affecting 180,000 livelihoods, taken overnight without giving time for alternative arrangements
