At least eight people, including five policemen, were injured last week after a group of people resorted to stone-pelting when a police team raided some houses on an input of cow slaughter at Sherpur village making it the second incident of stone pelting in Uttar Pradesh.
Two cops were injured after a group of people allegedly resorted to stone-pelting when a police team raided their house on information of cow slaughter at Chaparasi village in Muzaffarnagar.
Acting on specific information that cow slaughter was being carried out at a house in Chaparasi village in the district, police conducted raids there last evening.
They seized meat and skin from the house following which about nine occupants of the house allegedly pelted stones at them from the terrace, SP city Ombir Singh said.
Tarik Waseem and Bhishember Singh were injured in the incident, he said, adding that police has registered a case against the accused and efforts are on to nab them. One of the accused was held by the police but later freed by the other accused.
Security has been tightened and extra police deployed as a precautionary measure.
This is the second incident of stone-pelting on the police in Muzaffarnagar. At least eight persons, including five policemen, were injured last week after a group of people resorted to stone-pelting when a police team raided some houses on information of cow slaughter at Sherpur village.
The controversial central notification banning sale and purchase of cattle at animal markets for slaughter was on Wednesday challenged in the Supreme Court which said it would hear the matter on June 15.
The matter was mentioned before a vacation bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Deepak Gupta for an early hearing. The petitioner contended that the provisions in the notification were unconstitutional as they violated the fundamental rights including freedom of conscience and religion and right to livelihood.
The plea claimed that the government notification issued last month was "against the freedom of religious practice to sacrifice the animals" and imposing a ban on slaughter of animals for food violates the right to food, privacy and personal liberty guaranteed to a citizen under the Constitution.
It claimed that states like Kerala, West Bengal, Tripura and Karnataka have said that they would not implement the Centre's ban as it would impact the livelihood of those involved in this business.
It is also to be noted that slaughtering of animals for food, the foods and culinary made out of such animal flesh and offering sacrifice of animals is a part of cultural identity of such communities, which is protected from any legislative or executive encroachment under Article 29 of the Constitution of India which is not been subjected to any restriction by the framers of the Constitution, the petitioner, Hyderabad- based Mohammed Abdul Faheem Qureshi, said in his plea.
Complete ban of sale or purchase or re-sale of animals would cast a huge economic burden on the farmers, cattle traders who find it difficult to feed their children today, it said. They would be also required to feed the cattle as it was an offence under Act of 1960 (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) to starve an animal or failure to maintain it and would also give way for cow vigilantes to harass farmers and cattle traders under the blessing of the impugned regulations, said the petition filed through advocate Sanobar Ali Qureshi.
The plea further said the 1960 Act was not enacted by Parliament to prohibit or restrict any act of slaughter of animals for food or for religious sacrifice or the sale of animals for it.
It has sought the apex court's direction to declare these rules of Prevention Of Cruelty To Animal (Regulation Of Live Stocks, Markets) Rules and Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals (Care And Maintenance Of Case Property Animals) as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
The impugned provisions are imposing an absolute ban on slaughtering of animals in the country directly affecting the employment of the butchers and their trade, the plea said. It is depriving the citizens food of their choice and is in violation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution and also inconsistent and violative of section 28 of the parent Act, the plea said.