The Bombay High Court has struck down two of the most controversial amendments to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act of 1976..Justices AS Oka and SC Gupte read out the operative parts of their judgment today before a packed courtroom number 13 of the Bombay High Court. The provisions (Sections 5D and 9B), have been struck down as Constitutionally invalid..Section 5D of the Act reads,.“No person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull, or bullock slaughtered outside the State of Maharashtra”.Section 9B of the Act reads,.“In any trial for an offence punishable under 9 or 9A for contravention of the provisions of this Act, the burden of proving that the slaughter, transport, export outside the State, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock was not in contravention of of the provisions of this Act, shall now be on the accused.”.Justice Oka said that the impugned provisions were in violation of the right to privacy, a right which is part of personal liberty. The other provision, namely S.9B, was held to be violative of Article 21..Amongst the senior counsel present in court today were Harish Jagtiani and Aspi Chinoy..Story to be updated soon.. The judgment can be read below.
The Bombay High Court has struck down two of the most controversial amendments to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act of 1976..Justices AS Oka and SC Gupte read out the operative parts of their judgment today before a packed courtroom number 13 of the Bombay High Court. The provisions (Sections 5D and 9B), have been struck down as Constitutionally invalid..Section 5D of the Act reads,.“No person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull, or bullock slaughtered outside the State of Maharashtra”.Section 9B of the Act reads,.“In any trial for an offence punishable under 9 or 9A for contravention of the provisions of this Act, the burden of proving that the slaughter, transport, export outside the State, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock was not in contravention of of the provisions of this Act, shall now be on the accused.”.Justice Oka said that the impugned provisions were in violation of the right to privacy, a right which is part of personal liberty. The other provision, namely S.9B, was held to be violative of Article 21..Amongst the senior counsel present in court today were Harish Jagtiani and Aspi Chinoy..Story to be updated soon.. The judgment can be read below.
