HC directs govt to appoint ‘competent authority' under cow slaughter Act
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The court observed that Section 3 of the Act imposes absolute prohibition on the slaughter of cows, overriding any custom or tradition. It noted that while slaughter of bulls or bullocks may be allowed under specific conditions, it requires a certificate from a competent authority — a position that has remained vacant since the Act came into force.
The direction came while a division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that had alleged continued cow slaughter in the state, despite the ban.
"The 1960 Act cannot be a dead letter nor be put in cold storage taking into account the objects and purpose behind the said legislation," the bench said, adding that the absence of a designated authority had rendered several provisions of the Act 'unworkable'.
The court also examined the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, and the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003, and held that the 1960 law, being a special legislation, would have an overriding effect even over other state enactment.
It maintained that any provision in the municipal laws contrary to the cow slaughter Act would have to yield to the latter's special status.
Reiterating the urgency of the matter, the bench said, "The state govt cannot shrug off its responsibility. We direct the appointment of the competent authority within three weeks from the date of communication of this order and submit a report on the next date of hearing."
The matter has been listed for further hearing on Sept 1.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
S-400 hailed for Operation Sindoor role: What is this Russia-made weapon system, how India bought it under US retaliation cloud
Giving details about the losses sustained by Pakistan during Operation Sindoor for the first time, Air Chief Marshal A P Singh on Saturday (August 9) said the Indian Air Force (IAF) took down 'at least' five Pakistani fighter jets and 'one large aircraft', and that the S-400 missile system, bought from Russia, had been a 'game-changer'. The kill range of the S-400 system kept Pakistani aircraft away, the IAF chief said. Singh's praise of the Russia-supplied weapons comes at a time India is facing remarkable heat from the US for its ties with Moscow. Interestingly, when India bought these weapon systems from Russia, the cloud of possible US retaliation was hanging over the deal, but New Delhi went ahead with it. What makes the S-400 missile system so valuable? What risk of US action was India facing when it made this weapons deal with Russia, and what happened after? We explain. The S-400 Triumf, which NATO calls it the SA-21 Growler, is a mobile, surface-to-air missile system (SAM) designed by Russia. Made operational in 2007, it is seen as the most dangerous operationally deployed modern long-range SAM in the world, better than the US-developed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD). Put simply, its job is to detect any aerial threat in the area it has been tasked with protecting, calculate the threat's path, and then dispatch a suitable missile to counter the threat. The S-400 has a multifunction radar, autonomous detection and targeting systems, anti-aircraft missile systems, launchers, and a command and control centre. It can be deployed within five minutes — US-made systems often take longer to deploy — and is capable of firing three types of missiles to create a layered defence. It can engage all types of aerial targets including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and ballistic and cruise missiles within a range of 400 km, at an altitude up to 30 km. This makes it more versatile than the American THAAD, which is most effective against ballistic missiles. The S-400 can also simultaneously track 100 airborne targets, including super fighters such as the US-built F-35, and engage six of them at the same time. India bought the air defence system in 2018, and delivery began by 2021. In 2017, US President Donald Trump, in his first term, had signed into law the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Targetting Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the Act had provisions to sanction those who did significant business with these three countries in key sectors, inclduing defence and intelligence. India's deal for the weapons, thus, potentially fell foul of the Act. Even today, Trump is trying to punish India for doing business with Russia through tariffs. However, New Delhi had even then signalled that India would continue to use its strategic autonomy to make purchases for its security goals. Eventually, India was not sanctioned under CAATSA, as Washington was seeking to build on its ties with India to counter China, and also because it wanted to sell more weapons to India. New Delhi has had close defence cooperation with the Soviet Union since the Cold War days, but has continued to buy weapons that suit its needs from across the world, including US-made arms.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
How BCCI has continued to resist attempts to bring it under RTI scanner
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, according to the latest version of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025. According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government. Over the years, the world's richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law. The new law & an exception for BCCI The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices. This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law. At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions. The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a 'recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.' This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny. In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation 'receiving grants or any other financial assistance' from the government shall be considered a public authority only 'with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance'. This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny. The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a 'public authority'. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government. This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act — it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government's regulatory framework for public bodies. This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board's claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered. It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding. The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates — such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month. Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs 'public functions' that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the 'tacit concurrence' of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015. Previous recommendations not implemented A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body's functioning as a 'closed door and back-room affair.' It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny. The committee recommended that the 'legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,' stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency. The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a 'public authority' and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries. However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation — leaving the matter in a legal limbo. Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations. The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members. The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI's affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
New Indian Express
9 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Pleas on land acquisition for RRR to be heard on August 11 in Telangana
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court will hear arguments on August 11 in a batch of petitions filed by more than 45 landowners and agriculturists challenging the state government's move to acquire lands for the formation of a Greenfield Radial Road from the Outer Ring Road interchange at Raviryal to the Regional Ring Road at Amangal in Rangareddy district. The petitions, filed nearly two months ago, had earlier come up for hearing but were adjourned after the Advocate General sought time to submit a detailed counter. The landowners alleged that the acquisition process violates mandatory provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. They contended that authorities, under the pretext of complying with Sections 16 to 18 of the Act, issued notices for Grama Sabhas and public hearings in May and June without first conducting the required census and household survey of affected families. In its counter, the government maintained that Grama Sabhas were duly conducted and that objections raised by the petitioners were examined and addressed in accordance with the provisions of the law.
