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

#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

More from India

Ambedker's 22 vows Vs BUDDHISM

/Read it Full /

Ambedker-1: I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them

BUDDHISM: I believe in them as a subordinate to buddha, we have different philoshphical model regarding them,we have many eg ,My many sect...


.Worship them , respect them ; some sects consider them to be emanation of Boddhisatva Avlokiteshwara,In tantra they are worshipped

A2:  I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I worship them

B: Buddha says Rama was his.

.. previous life ,and Krishna was one of previous life of Sariputta ,My many sects worship them as previous life of Buddha, Krishna is not very much known but his sculpture is seen in Buddhist temples,you can pay respect to them atleast

A3: shall have no faith in ‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them

B: Hindu goddess gauri and Ganesha is widely accepted by us we have our own mantra for them ,they seek dharini from buddha ,Our some sects worship them

A4: I do not believe in the incarnation of God
B: Ok! This is acceptable,but we do have previous life/births of Buddha and rebirth ,which you Rejected

A5: I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu I believe this to be sheer madness and false
Many are upset at the bus attacks & Red Fort events during #FarmersProtest.
But have you paused to think what has brought about this situation? While magnifying impulsive actions by some protesters, do you miss to see State's systematic violence and erosion of rule of law?


If you are a believer in Constitution and legitimate processes, then the manner in which the Centre pushed the #FarmLaws & handled the #FarmersProstests should leave you distressed.

First, Centre brings these laws as Ordinances on subjects which are apparently in state list, through a colorable use of concurrent list. Principle of federalism negated, at least in spirit, if not in letter.

Then, bills are passed in Parliament without effective discussions.

No one can say for sure if the bills were actually passed in vote in Rajya Sabha. The whole process was brazenly dubious. The live telecast was stopped amid protests. Really shameful events.

So, lawful processes to address dissent undermined.
#FarmersProtest
#FarmLaws

Then some farm groups approach the Supreme Court raising some pertinent questions on constitutionality. Instead of considering legality, court ventures into political thicket by attempting mediation, that too with a hand-picked committee having only members supporting #FarmLaws .

You May Also Like

The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW