Mumbai: Thirty beef consumers, most of them senior citizens, have challenged the Maharashtra government’s recent decision to ban the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and to make even possession and consumption of beef criminal under law.

The newly amended Act makes possession of beef a non-bailable offence, punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with a fine up to Rs2,000.

The petitioners, consisting of academicians, writers, social activists, doctors, a documentary film-maker, researchers at a prestigious institute in Mumbai, the president of Beef Market Merchants Association of Sangli and others are challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995, which was published in the government gazette on March 4 this year.

The petition, filed in the Bombay High Court by advocates Mihir Desai and Rebecca Gonsalvez, states that the Sections 5, 6 and 9 of this Act violates their fundamental right to life and personal liberty, by prohibiting them from consuming beef which is an essential part of their diet and thereby infringing Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.

The ban, the petition states, is also not just a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (equality before law) but is in violation of basic structure of the Constitution in contravention of secular principles.

The petitioners have raised their apprehensions as to whether “if one purchases cooked or raw beef, or tinned beef in the State of Goa, where the slaughter of bulls and bullocks is permitted,” and brings in to Maharashtra, they would be “committing an offence under the newly added Section 5 D. One would then be arrested and languish in jail in view of the said offence being a non-bailable offence, merely for possessing a tin of beef.”

This would also apply to bringing in tinned beef from the USA or any other country into Maharahstra, thus committing an offence under the new amended law. The petitioners have cited it as “patently absurd and unreasonable … Further, this is nothing but a case of legislative overreach.”

Further, if beef traders from states like Karnataka, where the slaughter of bulls and bullocks is not prohibited, wanted to export beef through the Nhava Sheva port near Mumbai, one of the biggest ports in Western India, it would now be an offence even though the slaughter has taken place in another state. It would adversely affect beef exports and have a negative impact on the economy. Incidentally, India is one of the leading exporters of beef and a large percentage is exported through Nhava Sheva port, the petitioners point.

Meanwhile, an affidavit of the state animal husbandry department, submitted to the court by advocate general Sunil Manohar, denied that the new law violates any fundamental right. The affidavit stated. “It cannot be said that simply because the possession of meat of cow progeny is banned so as to give complete effect to the directive principles of the Constitution, the right of citizens under Article 21 to have his own choice of food stands violated or stultified.”