Halal-jhatka row reaches TN shores

Chennai: The cacophony of people associated with the right-wing outfits in the northern part of the country against the non-vegetarian food — halal-jhatka controversy in the latest instance — has thinly reached the Dravidian heartland. Even as the first rung leaders of the BJP Tamil Nadu stay away from this controversy, a few in the second level ranks of the saffron outfits bat for the ban on non-vegetarian food.

It is not a new case that food has been dragged into the fray of politics, but whenever such issues had come, the courts had clarified that food is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and no one could intervene.

According to Advocate R Vivekanandan of Madras High Court, choice of food falls under fundamental rights defined in Part-III of the Constitution. “Raising objections or putting hindrance to consuming the food by the government/individual violates the basic right to life envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. The guiding principle under Article 13 under Part-III of the Constitution doesn’t confer a right to the respective members of the parliament and state legislative assemblies to execute or legislate any laws or rules which would violate the fundamental rights,” Vivekanandan told DT Next. The then SC bench, comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Dinesh Maheswari, had dismissed a plea seeking a ban on the halal meat, the advocate recalled.

“The bench ruled that the court cannot enter into the food habit of the people. The SC stated that if anyone wants to eat halal, they can eat halal and if someone wants to eat jhatka meat, they can eat jhatka,” the advocate clarified, quoting another verdict of Allahabad High Court in Saeed Ahmed vs State of UP stating that food, food habit and vending of food items are connected to the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and the state could not curb it.

Speaking to this newspaper, advocate S Ramesh highlighted a May 6, 2016 order of the Bombay HC against the Maharastra Animal Preservation Act, 2015. “As Section 5D of the Act allows the prosecution of a person who possesses beef, a batch of writ petitions challenged the Act. A division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suresh Gupta struck down the order of the provision holding that Section 5D of the Act is an infringement on the right of privacy that was a part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution,” the lawyer noted.