The Bombay High Court has directed a state-appointed committee to finalise guidelines for the slaughter of animals considered "not useful" under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. The Court emphasized the importance of clearly defining which cattle fall into this category, especially since the term "not useful" is not defined under the legislation.
The Maharashtra Government informed the Court that it has already constituted a committee led by a retired judge of the High Court to formulate these much-needed guidelines. This development came to light on April 22, during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Al-Quraish Human Welfare Association and others, seeking clarification on the interpretation of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act.
The Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act is designed to prohibit the slaughter of cows, bulls, and bullocks that serve important roles such as milking, breeding, draught, or agricultural work. The Act’s purpose is to safeguard animals that contribute to these essential activities and to ensure their preservation.
During the hearing, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik addressed the concern raised in the PIL regarding the lack of clarity on the definition of "not useful" animals under the Act. The petitioners expressed their dissatisfaction with an earlier order issued by the Principal Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department, which had rejected their request to define animals unfit for milching, breeding, draught, or agricultural use.
The petitioners further urged the State to introduce a clear framework, including specifying the age of bulls and cattle eligible for slaughter, by interpreting the provisions of the Act.
Quoting the submission made by the Additional Government Pleader, the Court recorded: The State government, on February 20, constituted a committee chaired by a former judge of the High Court to evolve guidelines for the slaughter of animals which are not suitable for the purposes outlined in the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act.
The Court noted that in the absence of a precise definition of "not useful" in the Act, it was essential for the committee to establish uniform guidelines.
"The committee is directed to formulate appropriate guidelines within four months from the date of receipt of this order," the bench stated.
The Court also allowed the petitioners to present their suggestions and concerns to the committee during the guideline formulation process.
