Bombay High Court calls meat ban ‘regressive,’ adjourns hearing till 14 September

0

Meat ban in Mumbai has been reduced from four days to two days after the Bombay High Court called the move regressive and questioned the validity.

The HC, however, adjourned the hearing till 14 September.

Mumbai’s mutton traders had moved the high court challenging the state government’s decision to ban the sale of meat during Jain festival of fasting, Paryushan.

Calling the ban ‘regressive’ the court asked, “All these years you only banned slaughter not sale. How can you take this decision at the 11th hour? When you are talking of Ahimsa, how come fish, sea food and eggs are not banned?”

( Also Read: Jains will not decide what will happen in Maharashtra, BJP is Bhartiya Jantu Paksh: Raj Thackeray)

To which the lawyer representing the government, Anil Singh said, “Fish die the moment they are out of water. So there is no slaughter involved. A Supreme Court judgement says that we have to respect the sentiments of a particular community. It doesn’t matter if Jains are fewer in number in Mumbai.”

The judges further added, ” We have to change our attitude in view of globalisation.”

The ruling BJP desperately wants the ban to be extended to eight days, but its ally, Shiv Sena, has opposed the move by issuing threats that it will ensure meat was openly sold and eaten in the financial capital on the days of the ban.

(Also read: जैनों के साम्राज्य को ध्वस्त करने में हमें ज्यादा वक्त नहीं लगेगा: शिवसेना)

His cousin and the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena’s chief, Raj Thackeray, too had slammed the Jain community for insisting on the ban.

(Also read: As a judge, why I upheld meat ban in Ahmedabad as being a reasonable one)

Meanwhile, social media users have reacted angrily to the Maharashtra government’s justification for the extended ban on the sale of meat in the Mumbai.

Suhel Seth wrote on twitter;

User Madhavan Narayanan said;

Congress party’s Sanjay Jha took a dig on the government lawyer’s justification of fish sale;

LEAVE A REPLY