Supreme Court to consider shortly the petition filed by the Buffalo Traders Welfare Association against the 2017 Cattle Rules brought by the Centre under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

On the last hearing date, January 4, the CJI had warned that the Court will stay the Rules if the Centre does not withdraw them. The CJI observed that the Rules are contrary to the parent statute.

https://t.co/F4skiy0Gd8
Matter taken.

"What are you going to do about the rules", CJI asks the Solicitor General.
'We told you last time that Rules are in dissonance with the Sections. The animals are the source of livelihood for people. The section is clear that only after conviction that animals can be taken away. The Rules permit to take away animals even before conviction' - CJI
Solicitor General : The petitioner has confused between seizure and confiscation. An animal subject to cruelty cannot be allowed to be maintained by the person. As in the case of any seizure, the party can approach the court for custody.
SG says that a detailed reply has been filed.

CJI : Alright we will consider the reply.
Senior Advs V Giri and Siddharth Luthra says that they are for intervenors.

Luthra says the Act allows for seizure. Giri seconds Luthra.

CJI : Even before conviction?

Luthra : Yes

SG : Your lordships will get all this in my reply.
CJI : Selling does not mean animal has been subjected to cruelty. Selling helps livelihood. We are talking about a situation where animals are taken away.
The bench adjourns the matter. Allows the interventions.

More from Live Law

More from India

#LIVE Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum in Association with LiveLaw is conducting a Webinar on the topic 'Attack On Love Marriages And Freedom Of Choice'.

#FreedomOfChoice


Watch the Webinar live at :

YouTube link:
https://t.co/l074foe9RA

Facebook link:
https://t.co/d0m3h0Ut1w

Instagram Link:

Advocate Kajal Chandra begins the webinar and introduces the panelist Justice AP Shah, Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice. Advocate Gayatri Virmani introduces Human Rights Activist Jagmati Sangwan.

#FreedomOfChoice

The moderator Adv Chandra questions Justice Shah: Do the freedom of Religious ordinance of laws stand the test of Constitutionality and in your opinion, do they violate the fundamental right of liberty including the freedom to choose? #FreedomOfOpinion

Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice AP Shah: This topic cannot be discussed without referring to the Indian Constitution that guarantees Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and protects dignity of individual and Unity and integrity of the Nation. #FreedomOfChoice

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.