Interim stay on Centre’s cattle sale regulations extended by a week

Lawyer Selva Gomathy from Madurai in her petition stated that recently the Union government had introduced a new regulation for sale of cattle and it is against the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. Under Section 28 of the Act there is freedom to kill animals for religious purposes and there is also religious freedom guaranteed under Section 25 of Indian Constitution. 

A majority of the communities consume meat and any order which bans sale of cattle for meat stands in direct violation of the Constitution. Eating meat is a fundamental right of a citizen and even a large number of traders are involved in cattle trade. The new regulations would affect their businesses too and hence prayed the court to stay the order of the Centre. 

Similarly, another petition was filed by Asik Ilaki Bava with the same prayer and they were clubbed together. The court had issued interim stay for one month for the implementation of the order and it was extended in the previous hearings. When the petition was heard on Thursday, the judges Sundaresh and Sathish Kumar said that as the case is pending in the Supreme Court the interim stay given for the Union government’s order would still be extended by one week.

The state chief secretary on Thursday informed the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court that the Income Tax (I-T) Department had not sent any document containing charges against DGP TK Rajendran in the gutka case. 

Petitioner Kadiresan from Madurai had filed a plea against the extension given to DGP Rajendran for two years by stating that the DGP was named in the gutka case by the I-T Department. When the investigation in the said case had been taken up by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) against Rajendran, his extension as DGP would hamper the probe. He prayed the court to cancel the extension order given to the DGP. The court had earlier directed the chief secretary to submit all the documents that were considered for the extension given to Rajendran and also the I-T Department to submit the documents forwarded to the chief secretary. The DVAC was also directed to submit documents related to the probe.  However, in the subsequent hearings, there were heated arguments between the counsel for the petitioner, who had alleged threats to his client and the government pleader. The court had reserved the verdict.  In the meantime, the chief secretary had filed a counter that when the records were checked, it was found out that the I-T Department had not sent any document on July 9, 2016, which contained charges against the DGP in the gutka case.