The high court had termed as “unconstitutional” the provisions which held that mere possession of beef was a crime, saying only “conscious possession” of the meat of animals slaughtered in the state would be an offence.It had upheld the ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks imposed by the Maharashtra government but had decriminalised the possession of beef in case the animals were slaughtered outside the state.
The state government, in its appeal before the apex court, has assailed the verdict saying the restriction imposed by the 1995 Act on possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock could not be interpreted and concluded to be an infringement of “right to privacy”.It had said the high court “while coming to the finding that right to privacy forms part of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution, ought to have appreciated that right to privacy was not yet designated as a fundamental right”.The plea had said that according to the verdict, obligation upon the state to prove “ conscious possession ” of beef would “constitute an unsurmountable circumstance readily available to the wrongdoer to escape sentence”.
The verdict had come on a batch of petitions filed in the high court challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and, in particular, the possession and consumption of beef of animals slaughtered outside Maharashtra.
( Source – PTI )