Latest news with #1960Act
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Orissa HC asks state to appoint authority to make Cow Slaughter Act workable
Expressing concern over illegal cow slaughter across the state, a division bench of the Orissa high court has said that the Odisha Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 can not be a dead letter and the government needs to appoint a competent authority to implement the same. The Orissa high court 'The Act which was promulgated as far back as in the year 1960 cannot be a dead letter nor be put in cold storage taking into account the above objects and purpose behind the said Legislation,' noted chief justice Harish Tandon and justice Murahari Sri Raman while hearing a PIL filed by Gau Gyan Foundation. 'In accordance with the provision under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act of 1960, a person is required to obtain a certificate in writing from a competent authority, where a bull or bullock is to be slaughtered. The 'competent authority' is defined in the Act of 1960 as the person appointed in this behalf by the Government by a notification to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a competent authority under the Act or the rules made thereunder. The 'competent authority' prescribed under Section 2(a) of the 1960 Act has not been appointed, thereby rendering a number of provisions of the legislation unworkable. The State Government cannot shrug its responsibility in appointing the competent authority under the said Act and, therefore the State Government should appoint the competent authority within three weeks,' the bench said. In December last year, two private member Bills proposing a ban on the possession and transport of beef and with punishment of three to 10 years were moved in the Odisha Assembly. For the punishment of cow slaughter, the Bills suggested a jail term of 10 years besides a ₹5 lakh fine. The bills recommend establishing special courts for speedy trials and empowering police officers (sub-inspector rank and above)
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Orissa HC pulls up government over cow slaughter
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has taken serious note of the alleged failure of the state government to implement the Odisha Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960, in its true spirit. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman, while hearing a PIL on Thursday, issued firm directions to the state to appoint a competent authority under the Act within three weeks. The bench observed that despite a complete prohibition on cow slaughter under section 3 of the Act, illegal practices were continuing unchecked across Odisha. While bull or bullock slaughter may be allowed under certain circumstances, such cases require a written certificate issued by a competent authority, a post that, according to the Bench, has not been filled by the state government since the Act's enactment. The court held that the lack of appointment of a competent authority had effectively rendered the law unworkable, reducing the 1960 Act to a 'dead letter'. 'We direct the state government to appoint the competent authority within three weeks from the date of communication of this order and submit a report on the next date,' the court ordered. The case will now be taken up on September 1.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
HC directs govt to appoint ‘competent authority' under cow slaughter Act
Cuttack: Taking exception to the non-implementation of the Odisha Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960, Orissa high court on Thursday directed the state govt to appoint a 'competent authority' under the Act within three weeks. 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.
Irish Examiner
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Government can't replace triple lock with vague criteria for deploying our troops
In the pipeline for over two years, the Government has finally published the general scheme for its proposed end to the triple lock. This 'heads of Bill' sets out the key provisions that will govern future deployment overseas of Irish troops. The process has hardly been rushed. The fact that the draft law has technical provisions covering arrangements for pre-1993 and Reserve Force members shows the department and Defence Forces have thought through the consequences of the changes. What is far less clear is the political thinking behind it. Two years after Taoiseach Micheál Martin's 2023 Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, there is little sign of any big political analysis in what will be a fundamental shift in how we decide peacekeeping and military engagement. The push to reform the triple lock — which requires Government and Dáil approval, plus a UN mandate before deploying more than 12 Defence Forces personnel overseas — rests on the reality that the UN Security Council has not approved a new peacekeeping mission since 2014. Retaining legislation that does not recognise this stark fact of UN politics is empty symbolism. While the 'Triple Lock' phrase is a recent construct, the law that underpins it is the Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960. It enshrined the core principle of a UN mandate. As did its later updates in 1993 and 2006, each update taking account of evolving circumstances. Introducing the 1960 Act in the Dáil, An Taoiseach Seán Lemass said, '…it is not only our moral duty but in our national interests to support the growth of the influence and power of the United Nations.' While the language may be a tad outdated, it describes a principled stance, grounded in national interest. One that still applies. Vague criteria I do not believe this government wants to abandon multilateralism. But the text it has produced suggests that neither an Taoiseach nor Tánaiste have given proper political thought to the impact of removing direct references to UN authority from our law. Citing Russia vetoes may make a good put-down in a terse discussion, but policy making by punchline is not good government. The criteria that replace the third element of the triple lock are vague. Head 6 cites 'principles of the United Nations Charter' and 'conformity with the principles of justice and international law.' Both are honourable principles but the heads of bill, as drafted, would effectively leave it to the government of the day to decide if the criteria were met. There is no reference to specific UN or OSCE resolutions. There is no requirement that missions be mandated by such resolutions. In effect, the opinion of the government of the day would replace a specific UN mandate. Removing the UN mandate requirement without robust, transparent criteria is a mistake. It risks eroding public trust in the legitimacy of and integrity of the process of sending troops on overseas missions. The public does not distinguish between peace support deployments to Lebanon or Congo, which were both UN-led, or to Kosovo or Bosnia which were Nato-led, or to Chad, which was EU-led. Regardless of who leads or runs a mission, the public views them all as UN-mandated missions. Peacekeeping deployments that were all in pursuance of UN resolutions. These missions also had widescale cross-party Dáil support. Replacing an explicit multilateral mandate with a politically subjective text risks politicising the process. We do not want future deployments decided by tight Dáil votes, where partisan, government versus opposition, considerations dominate. This would undermine public confidence. We should not squander such a valuable trust. Solution I understand what the Government is trying to achieve, but it is doing it the wrong way. Meanwhile, the total Opposition approach from across the Dáil floor, is just as flawed. Cross-party consensus is the way forward. And despite the rhetoric, it is within our grasp. We can create a new law that addresses current realities without undermining public support for future deployments. Instead of pushing through its proposals as outlined, the Government should invite Opposition amendments that clarify deployment criteria. Criteria and tests that better express our commitment to multilateralism. In return, the Opposition must accept that the 1960 Act needs reform and draft criteria that both recognise that the UN Security Council has not established a new mission since 2014 and reaffirm our national commitment to multilateralism. Playing party politics with this reform risks politicising future deployments. We spend too little political time discussing national defence and security. Wouldn't it be better to use what time we do make available, to addressing our massive defence shortfalls, especially as our Air Corps and Naval service struggle today to offer even the barest cover? We need a Defence Forces capable of meeting Ireland's obligations at home and also abroad. We need a principled multilateral framework for overseas deployments that commands public trust. That is the challenge facing us. With political direction and leadership from across the Dáil, we can have both.
