BEEF BAN IN MAHARSHTRA: AN ENTRENCHMENT OF THE

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

-Khushboo Damani,

National Law University and

Judicial Academy, Assam

The debate on Beef Ban and its constitutional validity has been an old one. There are

differing views: on one hand, there are reasons backed by socio- economic implications and

on the other hand there are those which are based on religious sentiments. This spark of

debate caught fire once again when, on 4th of March 2015, the Bombay High Court upheld

the decision of the Maharashtra Government to ban sale and consumption of Beef in the

State. Apart from those arguing about their Right to Choice of Food, this ban particularly

affected the butcher class of Maharashtra and those associated with the leather industry in

Dharavi area of Mumbai. There was an upsurge of disapproving opinions as people

questioned the need for ban of bulls and bullocks by this amendment act when cow slaughter

had already been banned by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

The research work provides a jurisprudential analysis of the beef ban in Maharashtra and its

impact on the livelihood of the people. Firstly, it examines the ban from the point of view of

J. S. Mills’ Harm Principle, then it goes on to explain the Benthamian principle of utility in

reference to Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporationi. The research work then focusses

on Nozick’s Theory of rights to highlight the infringement of rights of those earning their

livelihood by the slaughter of cows and cattles. Finally, the research work moves on to give a

view from the sociological school of Jurisprudence from the point of Roscoe Pound. In this,
the work focusses on the theory of interests and relies on the case of State of Gujarat v.

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamatii

AN INQUIRY INTO THE BACKGROUND OF BEEF BAN IN MAHARASHTRA

The Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill 1995 was assented by the President

on 4th March, 2015. This decision was subject to criticism from the moment it reached the

masses. There was an upsurge of opinions for and against the newly amended legislation on

the social networking sites. Some termed it as unconstitutional for infringing the right to

livelihood and freedom of choice of food, while others termed it as a step for preserving the

tenets of one religion and some were of the opinion that the legislation had been passed in

view of the betterment of the agrarian economy of India by providing larger protection to the

bovine animals essential thereof for ploughing, cow dung manure and other agriculture

related activities. Thus, the stage for debate was set as soon as it received the assent of the

Hon’ble President.

An Analysis of the Impact of Beef Ban on Livelihood of People:

Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 2015 has wide ramifications for a vast section of the

society. It has come as a perfect tool to hard hit the bellies of those associated with the meat

industry, as they lost the source of livelihood. It also had a great impact on the export

industry. India was the 2nd highest exporter of beef after Brazil. According to the

Agricultural and Processed Goods Products Exports Development Authority, this ban would

have serious implications on the export business where Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and

Punjab were the top beef- producing states.iii

The leather industry which operates at Dharavi, Mumbai, also had to pay price of the beef

ban. The Deonar abattoir, the largest abattoir in India, used to sell 400-450 animal hides to
Dharavi every day. These hides mainly consisted of bulls and bullocks which would be sold

at approximately Rs. 1500. With newly imposed on ban on all kinds of beef, the abattoirs

shall not slaughter bulls and bullocks and consequently the leather industry would have to

look for alternatives in the neighbouring states where they would not be provided with cheap

hides. Thus, the leather industry shall suffer a set back as China would surpass them in

getting export order for cheap leather bags. This would leave thousands of workers associated

with the leather industry to cripple through their life with almost nil income.

One of the most common arguments given in favour of beef ban is that the cattle, cows, bulls

and bullocks are the most important tool for the farmers. Hence, lack of these bovine animals

would adversely affect the agricultural industry. Practically, this ban also affects the farmers’

livelihoods because they now have to spend unnecessarily on the maintenance of old animals

which do not provide any productivity. Prior to the ban, the farmers had an effective solution

to this problem as they could easily turn towards the abattoirs when their cattle grew old.

They used to sell their unproductive cattle to these abattoirs and with the money thus gained;

they could buy healthy young cattle. But this solution was snatched away from the farmers

with the passing of this act and the farmers are now forced to spend their hard- earned

livelihood on the maintenance of their old unproductive cattle.

The new law could actually turn counter- productive. As said by one Muhammad Ali

Qureshi, President Mumbai Suburban Beef Dealers’ Association, the ban might lead to a

decline in bull population. He argued- “Once the use of an animal goes down, its population

too declines. So the population of horses has declined, as there are no buyers for them unlike

earlier. The population of cows has also declined as it’s difficult to sell them.”iv

Moreover, the Pink Revolution has brought India on par with Brazill as the World’s top

exporter of bovine meat.v With its huge bovine population, India has a natural advantage in
this market and the ban on slaughter would not only make this advantage wasteful but also

hampers the livelihoods and ways of life of vast number of people, mostly belonging to the so

called lower castes, engaged in the production, distribution and consumption of beef.vi

JURISPRUDENTIAL ANALYSIS OF BEEF BAN IN MAHARASHTRA

Jurisprudence is a subject touching various spheres of an individual’s life. Different schools

of jurisprudence take different stands on a topic. Similarly, when the impact of Beef Ban and

the right to livelihood is analysed from a jurisprudential view, the varying schools provide

different answers for its justifiability. The research work discusses some of these differences

in thoughts-

J. S. Mill’s Harm Principle

According to this principle of the positivistic school of jurisprudential thought, only actions

that harm other should be punishable by law. Here he also makes two important statements.

Mill said that there are some actions which harm others, but which should nevertheless be

allowed. For example, economic competition leads to some people losing money or going out

of business.vii

Thus, even if slaughter of bulls and bullocks harms the general interest of the society, it

should be allowed because the profit earned from the industries related to it ultimately

impacts the livelihood of the people. For example, if China over throws India in getting the

export orders of cheap leather bags, the definitely it shall affect the livelihood of those

associated with the leather industry. Thus, beef ban should be allowed to pursue economic

competition with China and other countries. Moreover, Mill had also differentiated between

ham and offence. Harm is something that would injure the rights of someone else or set back

important interests that benefit others. An example of harm would be not paying taxes
because cities rely on the money to take care of its citizens. An offense, according to Mill, is

something which we would say 'hurt our feelings'. These are less serious and should not be

prevented because what may hurt one person's feelings may not hurt another's, and so

offenses are not universal.viii Thus, slaughtering cows would hurt the feelings of a particular

section of the society rather than injure the rights of someone else. Hence, laws should not be

made to punish such “offences” without giving a second thought to the impact of it on the

lives and livelihoods of people associated with its industries.

Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian Principle

Jeremy Bentham, the Father of English Jurisprudence emphasised on the reformation of law.

His view on Beef Ban and the Right to livelihood can be best analysed from the judgement

given by J. Chandrachud in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporationix. This

case expanded the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing Right to

Life to include Right to livelihood. The judgement relied on Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of

reforming the law through its structure.

The law as defined by Bentham is, an assemblage of signs, declarative violation, conceived

or adopted by the sovereign in a state, concerning the conduct to be observe in a certain case

by a certain person or class of persons, who in the case in question are or are supposed to be

subject to his power. Therefore, this although focuses on the aspect that law is certain and

laid down that is, positum, but at the same time this definition is flexible enough to be cover a

set of objectives so intimately allied and to which there would be such continual occasion to

apply the same proposition. Therefore, in Olga Tellis, when J. Chandrachud states that, “no

person can live without means of living’x, he is applying the Benthamite jurisprudence to

reform the law laid down under Article 21 and at the same time also utilising the flexibility of

his definition of law to equate the intimately allied occasions of life, liberty and livelihood.
Similar analogy can be drawn to the situation when a total ban on cow slaughter was imposed

in Maharshtra. This ban has infringed the right to livelihood of all those butchers dealing with

beef and also the dealers dealing with beef trade. Apart from this, the ban on slaughter of

cows as well as all other bovine animals in Maharashtra has also hit the livelihoods of people

involved in the leather making industry of Dharavi. As per Bentham’s philosophy, an action

ought to be approved or disapproved according to its tendency to increase or diminish the

happiness of the party whose interest is in question.xi Such an act of the legislative of banning

slaughter of cows clearly diminishes the interest of the parties in question and hence, should

be disallowed.

Robert Nozick’s Theory of Rights

Robert Nozick, like many other Libertarians, focussed his Entitlement Theory on the

ownership of rights. According to him, every individual is entitle to natural rights which he

can enjoy if there is not an obligation on him not to enjoy it. Moreover, every individual has

an obligation not to interfere with the rights of another.xii Nozick supported the concept of

minimal state, i.e., minimum interference of the state. He attempted to justify that only free

market exchanges respect persons as equal.xiii According to him, interference of state would

violate the rights of individuals. Thus, interference of the State in the present scenario in the

choice of food of people as well as their means of livelihood, violates the rights of an

individual. Nozick believed, justice of holding can be achieved in 3 ways, viz., self-

ownership, legitimate transfer of holdings and as a compensation for previous justice. In the

present scenario, the first two ways can be analysed for justifying the act against beef ban.

Some people rear cattle to sell them. Hence they naturally acquire those cattle. They then sell

it to either farmers or butchers. Thus, these new holders acquire legitimate rights over the

cattle. Moreover, as stated earlier, an individual has the right to enjoy his entitlements if he is
not under an obligation not to enjoy it. Thus, when state interferes in the matter of prohibition

of cow slaughter, it interferes with the rights of the individuals to enjoy their entitlements,

i.e., the cow over which they had legitimate authority.

Roscoe Pound’s Theory of Conflicting Interests-

Nathan Roscoe Pound was the most prominent American sociological jurist. Pound was

mainly focused on the lawyer’s law – the law that legislators, judges and other authorised

officials make.xiv According to him, the task of the formal legal order has changed over time.

The scope of legal order has now changed to recognise and adjust competing interests with a

minimum of friction and waste. Another important concept that Pound talked about was

interests. Interests are claims that persons make of the legal system. Some of these claims are

already recognised by law, but there are others that are not so recognised.xv Pound recognised

3 types of interests-

a. Individual Interests- Individual interests relate to person, property and personal relations

such as marriage.

b. Public Interests- Public interests relate to the dignity of the state as a juristic entity.

c. Social Interests- Social interests include the interest in public safety, peace and order, and

public health. These interests overlap with individual interests. There are also social interests

in the security of social, domestic, religious and economic affairs.xvi

In a situation when beef is banned in Maharashtra, there is a clash of individual interest of

right to choice of food and more importantly right to livelihood with social interests as cow

slaughter hurts the religious sentiments of a particular community and at the same time ban

on cow slaughter hurts the sentiments of another community. Thus, according to Pound, in

deciding cases relating to matters of conflicting interests, courts should secure as much as
possible of the scheme of interests as a whole with the least friction and waste.xvii Thus,

judicial pragmatism is the only answer at courts’ disposal.

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamatxviii, where the issue of

ban on cow slaughter was taken to court, the Supreme Court adjudged that cow slaughter did

not form a necessary component of any major community but allowing cow slaughter would

certainly affect the economic interests of the agrarian nation like India. Thus, in this case, the

panel of judges placed their importance on public interest rather than individual or social

interest.

CONCLUSION

Beef ban has been one of the heated debates of the present times. There are differing views

about it based on religion, economic interests, food choice etc. While one religion tends to

claim that cow slaughter hurts their religious sentiments, hence beef should be banned, the

other religion assumes that cow slaughter is demanded by their religious texts. Though

debates on the basis of religion have to be considered, but what makes this beef ban even

more controversial is that it takes the right of all those engaged in various beef related trades.

Such as, butcher class, those associated with leather.

It is this part of the beef ban related conundrum that the research work has focussed upon,

i.e., Beef Ban in Maharashtra and the Right to livelihood. Through the ideas forwarded by

eminent jurists like J. S, Mill Jeremy Bentham, Robert Nozick and Roscoe Pound, it has been

found that the applicability of the beef ban as far as Right to livelihood is not justified.

While Mill’s philosophy has justified that cow slaughter is not an offence, hence, be allowed,

Benthamian principle highlights the importance of the masses of the butchers whose sole

source of livelihood has been snatched away by the legislation. Further, Nozick’s idea of
theory of rights suggest that the state should be a minimal state, and in the present scenario,

by imposing a legislation on ban of beef, the state has intruded into the rights of the people

and hence, is not justified. Finally, moving on from positivistic school of Jurisprudence, the

research work highlights the Theory of Interests as forwarded by sociologist, Roscoe Pound.

It is this part of the ban that affects the livelihood of the people which stands unjustified from

the jurisprudential point of view.

Notes:

i
AIR 1986 SC 180
ii
AIR 2006 SC 12
iii
Anupama Katakam, ‘Beef Ban’, Frontline (April 3, 2015)
iv
Jyoti Punwani, Maharashtra’s Beef Ban, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 11, March, 2015
v
Anand Teltumbde, The Holy Cow, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 14, April, 2015
vi
Ibid.
vii
Michael Lacewing, Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group,
<http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Mill/MillHarm.pdf>
accessed on 23rd August, 2016
viii
Jason Nowaczyk, John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle: Definitions and Examples, Study.Com
<http://study.com/academy/lesson/john-stuart-mills-harm-principle-definition-examples-quiz.html> accessed
on 23rd August, 2016
ix
AIR 1986 SC 180
x
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180
xi
Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence, 1st Edition 2009, Cambridge University Press
xii
Dale Murray, “Robert Nozick: Political Philosophy” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/noz-poli/#SH3b> (accessed on 27th of October, 2016)
xiii
Ibid.
xiv
Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence, 1st Edition 2009, Cambridge University Press
xv
Ibid.
xvi
Roscoe Pound, Contemporary juristic theory, Pamona College, Claremont CA, 1940
xvii
Supranote ix
xviii
AIR 2006 SC 12