English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

After feedback from states, Centre has a rethink on cattle trade ban rule

Published

on

After feedback from states, Centre has a rethink on cattle trade ban rule

The Narendra Modi government is having a rethink on the ban it imposed on sale and purchase of cattle for slaughter following feedback from states, said media reports on Thursday.

Environment ministry officials said that they have written to the Ministry of Law about their decision to withdraw the controversial notification “due to several issues” and they would be “revising” it, according to the Indian Express.

“We sent a file to the Ministry of Law earlier this week, stating that we are withdrawing the notification due to several issues and will be revising it,” media reports quoting the official said, adding that a time-frame for the process has not yet been decided.

The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), on May 23 this year, had notified changes to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, defining ‘cattle’ to include “a bovine animal including bulls, cows, buffalos, steers, heifers and calves and includes camels.”

The gazette notification put restrictions on the sale of cattle. It mandated the constitution of District Animal Market Monitoring Committee by the District Magistrate or Collector and Animal Market Committee at the local level in consultation with District Magistrate and the State Board for the management of animal markets in the district.

It specifically mentioned: The purchaser of the cattle shall –

(i) not sell the animal for purpose of slaughter;

(ii) follow the State cattle protection or preservation laws;

(iii) not sacrifice the animal for any religious purpose;

(iv) not sell the cattle to a person outside the State without the permission as per the State cattle protection or preservation laws;

The rules also prohibit establishment of an animal market in a place which is situated within 25 kilometres from any state border and within 50 kilometres from any international border.

The notification had defined cattle as a bovine animal “including bulls, bullocks, cows, buffalos, steers, heifers and calves as well as camels.

The restrictions were met with protests and attacked as a blow to animal husbandry, dairy farming, leather production and beef export. States like Kerala and West Bengal said it was a sly encroachment on their jurisdiction as it was a subject that fell in their domain. It was also denounced as intended to target Muslims, a charge that gained strength from a spate of attacks on Muslims transporting cattle by hordes of self-styled ‘Gau rakshaks’ (cow vigilantes) who came up virtually overnight – notably, only in states where BJP has a strong presence.

Farmers opposed the move to restrict trade in markets only to animals meant for agricultural use, saying they cannot directly access slaughterhouses. Farmers normally bring their redundant animals to livestock markets from where traders purchase and transport the cattle to abattoirs. After the ban, unable to sell or transport the animals that were no longer of any use, farmers began to simply abandoned the cattle.

While cattle disappeared from markets and cattle fairs, the ban also led to a dramatic rise in numbers of stray cattle and posed a threat to standing crops in fields where farmers were forced to keep vigil against them. Stray cattle also caused several road accidents.

Soon after the ban, in May-end, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court stayed the cattle slaughter rules and asked the state and central government to reply to a PIL petition filed before it. The notification was challenged on the ground that it violated the basic right of an individual in relation to his or her choice of food. In June, it extended the stay by four more weeks.

In July, the Supreme Court extended the stay to the entire country.

The first hint of a rethink on the ban came in September from environment minister Harsh Vardhan. He had said the rules were a “regulatory regime” for preventing cruelty to animals and the government “did not intend to directly or indirectly affect slaughterhouses or harm farmers” or “influence the food habits of people”.

The states were then consulted on the notification. The India Express said the ministry also consulted animal rights activists and traders on the issue. The Ministry had sent two sets of letters to states, the first one soon after the Supreme Court stayed the ban, seeking their response. It had attached a copy of the notification, saying that a new draft would be framed based on the feedback received from them.

Meanwhile, amid the opposition from other quarters, the RSS and its affiliates came out strongly in favour of the government’s step, with RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat himself hailing the move and even supporting ‘Gau rakshaks’.

It remains to be seen how the government would proceed hence.

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com