MEAT BAN – RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY

THE CONTEXT: On 4 April 2022 South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) Mayor wrote a letter to the SDMC commissioner to ensure all meat shops in the SDMC limits remain closed till 11 April 2022 “keeping in view the sentiments and feelings of the general public” during the festival of Navratri. Though a legally enforceable order to that effect is yet to be issued, the Mayor’s appeal has created enough confusion and controversy. This article analyzes the constitutional validity of imposing such meat bans citing the religious sentiments of a section of a population. Let us first understand the history, data, and lived experience of Indian society and its meat-eating habits.

HISTORY:

• Indian traditions present a far more complex picture than just being a vegetarian society. India has very old meat-eating as well as very deep vegetarian societies which often inappropriately compel or necessitate people to take a position or to defend one over the other.
• History suggests that meat was consumed widely in ancient India as far back as the Indus valley civilisation. Animal sacrifices were common in the Vedic era, between 1500 and 500BC – the meat was offered to the gods and then consumed at feasts. Over centuries meat disappeared from the diet of some communities for varied reasons but religion was not the only driver of such changes.
• Colonialism ( late 19^th century), which altered land use, agricultural patterns and trade, and even famines played a big role in making the modern Indian diet – a predominance of rice, wheat, and dals.

DATA:

• Meat consumption among Indians is growing, propelled by factory-farmed chicken. The most-ordered dish on the Indian food delivery platform Swiggy last year (2021) was chicken biryani. Indians ordered two plates every second.
• It’s hard to pin down exactly how much meat Indians consume. When asked if they are vegetarian, 39% said yes to a Pew survey and 81% said they eat meat, but with restrictions – either they don’t eat certain meats or avoid meat on certain days of the week.
• The term non-vegetarian for meat-eating is reflective of the popular perception that vegetarian food is the norm and meat-eating is the aberration. Let us see the constitutional reasonableness of such calls for a blanket ban on meat citing religious reasons.

ARTICLE 19(1)(g): The Constitution grants the fundamental right to carry out trade under Article 19(1)(g). The only permissible limitation of this fundamental right is through imposing reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)-(6). However, any reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)-(6) must only be through a statutory ‘law’ as held in Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala (1986). The orders by Mayors are executive orders and are not sufficient to restrict the freedom of trade. The existence of law is a necessary requirement.

GOLDEN TRIANGLE: Even if these bans were backed by statutory authorities, it has to pass the tests of the golden triangle (Article 14, 19, and 21). To pass the test of Article 14, the law has to be tested through the parameters of reasonableness since the guarantee of equality is a guarantee against arbitrariness. Any law which is disproportionate or excessive would be manifestly arbitrary as held in Sharaya Bano v. UOI (2017).

ARTICLE 21: It violates the right to freedom of choice of individuals under Article 21. The right to food as reiterated recently in Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers (2021) and the right to choose as observed in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018), is an intrinsic part of Article 21. Thus, it is understandable that the freedom to choose a particular food of choice would also be a matter of personal liberty and individual autonomy.

ARTICLE 51(A)(e): Article 51(A)(e) of the Fundamental Duties promotes harmony and a spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic, and regional or sectional diversities.

ARTICLE 25: According to the Census of India, apart from the majority religions, more than 6 million people profess other religions and faith. Every religion and faith has its own custom and practice. An attempt to give these orders any legislative colour would infringe upon the secular feature of the Constitution because then it would lead to floodgates of different claims from different religious communities, shaking the very essence of Article 25.

In a series of rulings, courts have held that the right to choose one’s food is an intrinsic part of the right to privacy and personal liberty. In the landmark Puttaswamy ruling in 2017, upholding the right to privacy as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court held that “the choice of food habits” is an aspect of privacy that must be protected. The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case, unanimously declared privacy to be a fundamental right and held that “it is a fundamental and inalienable right and attaches to the person covering all information about that person and the choices that he/she makes. It protects an individual from the scrutiny of the State in their home, of their movements, and over their reproductive choices, choice of partners, food habits, etc.

The bans must pass the test of proportionality and reasonableness evolved by the supreme court in the Puttaswamy judgement. The right to food has now been recognized as part of one’s fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.

WHAT DO THE COURTS SAY?

SUPREME COURT:

• In 2008, while deciding the constitutional validity of closing a slaughterhouse for 9-days during a Jain festival in Ahmedabad, the 2-judge bench of the Court held that “a large number of people are non-vegetarian and they cannot be compelled to become vegetarian for a long period. What one eats is one’s personal affair and it is a part of his right to privacy which is included in Article 21 of our Constitution”. However, the Court upheld the 9-day ban. Interestingly, after retirement, Justice Markandeya Katju, who authored the judgment, said that he had doubts about the correctness of that verdict.
• In 2015, the Supreme Court while refusing to interfere with the Bombay High Court decision staying the order prohibiting the sale of meat during a Jain festival remarked that the meat ban cannot be forced down people’s throats and that such matters must be handled with tolerance and compassion.
• In 2018, the Supreme Court in a PIL seeking a ban on the export of meat, orally remarked “Do you want everybody in this country to be vegetarian? We can’t issue an order that everyone should be vegetarian.“
• Similarly, in 2020, the Supreme Court commented while hearing a plea to ban Halal meat “Tomorrow you will say nobody should eat meat? We cannot determine who should be a vegetarian and who should be a non-vegetarian“.

VARIOUS HIGH COURTS: 

• In 2016, the Bombay High Court struck down certain amendments to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act 1976 relating to the beef ban
• In 2017, the Allahabad High Court held that the right to choice of food falls within the fundamental right to food, and eating food of choice, be it meat, is an aspect of the Right to Food.
• In 2011, the Uttarakhand High Court orally observed that the matter of banning meat concerns the fundamental rights of the citizen and that India is a country where 70% of the population eats non-vegetarian food hence meat ban is not a majority vs. Minority issue.

OTHER ASPECTS OF THE MEAT BAN

FOOD CULTURE AND NUTRITION: The lives and diets of poor people who cannot afford the amount of milk, dry fruits, and different pulses that the rich eat at every meal on a daily basis. The poor can only get their protein from meat, which is cheaper when compared with other meats, as well as vegetarian components.

IMPACT ON RURAL ECONOMY: Cattle that have outlived their utility for a farmer are usually sold in local cattle fairs and eventually find their way to slaughterhouses. The modest proceeds from such sales help the farmer in times of distress.

IMPACT ON LIVELIHOODS: The livelihoods of the butcher community in the urban centers solely revolve around the meat trade and imposing a blanket ban can have adverse effects.

IMPACT ON ECONOMY: India’s thriving leather Industry is valued at the US $ 17.8 billion, generating 95% of India’s footwear needs, and its offals are used widely in the pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries. The economic value of an animal, despite it not being purchased by another farmer, exists because of all post-farm downstream economic values of the cattle economy after slaughter (including exports) which will be negatively impacted.

THE ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE

• There cannot be 99 percent of people at any point in time, not consuming onion and garlic when we have meat-eaters on any given day. The state intervention in people’s eating habits is a dangerous step. The law prohibiting animal slaughter was a first, but now the flames are inching toward other non-vegetarian products. This must ring bells for a protein-deficient country where half the kids are suffering from anemia and malnutrition. In fact, you don’t even need to look that far. According to a 2017 study by research firm IMRB, close to 60 percent of Delhi’s population suffered from protein deficiency.
• It is evident that the clamour for a meat ban is aimed at making political gains by triggering religious sentiments. A ban on meat shops does not serve any larger public purpose other than catering to the sentiments of a section, which will amount to forcing all sections of society to follow the beliefs and observances of a particular group. Such a ban, imposed solely on the ground of religious sentiments and which infringes the fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21, falls foul of the post-Puttaswamy test of proportionality and reasonableness evolved by the Supreme Court.

THE WAY FORWARD

• Sans legitimacy, these bans only create societal unease leading to communal disharmony. While many communities do observe restraints on eating meat on certain occasions or eating certain types of meat, there is no logical corollary on putting a blanket ban on meat consumption for others when more than 70% of the people in India consume the same.
• Thus, any political overreach, regulating from the choice of clothes to wear to the type of food to consume, is surely unwarranted and constitutionally unsound and the government of the day must refrain from doing so.
• Though the Article 48 of the Indian Constitution guides the states to make efforts for banning the slaughtering of cows and calves, along with other milch and draught cattle; and directs them to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines, it should not be the basis for the state to regulate the choices of food that people of India consume.
• As the custodian of citizens’ rights and liberties in a diverse democracy, the court has played a seminal role in expanding the space for freedoms. People in positions themselves should draw the constitutional red line on such freedoms and must refrain from giving unwarranted public opinions.

THE CONCLUSION: Some people do not eat meat during these nine days of Navrati, but at the same time, they do not wish to see others being deprived of their food just because they themselves are participating in customs. That’s how you grow respect for a community, festival, or religion. In the neighbourhood of Ghaziabad, Mayor has rolled back a similar meat ban proposal and presents a good example for others to follow.

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS:

1. “India’s religiously diverse population is composed of religious communities who are not too familiar with each other’s beliefs and practices, yet many Indians take a pluralistic, rather than exclusivist, attitude toward religious beliefs.” Elaborate on how India has sustained over centuries as a peace-loving society.
2. “Regulating from the choice of clothes to wear to the type of food to consume, is surely unwarranted and constitutionally unsound.” Elaborate