The right to eat beef is a part of the right to privacy, which is a part of a citizen’s fundamental right to life, affirmed the Bombay high court today.

“The judges remained totally steadfast to their commitment to constitutional principles,” commented advocate and petitioner-in-person Haresh Jagtiani. He was one of several challengers to the ban (the cases were clubbed under the reference Haresh Jagtiani vs State of Maharashtra) and today the Bombay high court agreed with his and others' arguments against the ban on beef imported into Maharashtra from outside.

Jagtiani had, in April 2015, filed a writ against the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 2015 – passed in March 2015 - which prohibited slaughter of bulls and bullocks as well as possession and consumption of their meat in the state.

“I filed it in person and not as a public interest litigation because I was affronted and humiliated by the government in its telling me what to eat. This affronts my right to privacy – my right to choose what to eat, what to wear,” explained Jagtiani.

He said that he was not against the ban on slaughter and sale of beef within Maharashtra, but was only concerned with his right to store and eat it. “[Through today’s judgment] the rigours of this abhorrent law have been completely struck down.”

The petition

His petition, he said, was limited to two aspects. One: consumption of beef in the state of Maharashtra when it is obtained from a place outside Maharashtra where it is legally slaughtered (this would include imported beef).

And two: the right to life.

“(Infringing my right to privacy) violated my right to life and right to live with dignity. You can’t interfere with my tastes. My right to privacy is subsumed in my right to life from which all rights flow.”

The core of our being (is also made of meat)

“The argument on our side was that once you chip away on this one right (to privacy), which you call a peripheral right, then you will chip away at the core - the right to life – and then you will be chipping away at the core of our being,” he said.

He said that the government’s argument against his challenge was that taking away the right to eat just one specific food doesn’t cause the death of the consumers of that food, since they can replace it with another food with the same nutrients.

However the court observed that the right to privacy entitles a citizen to eat what they wish to eat when they wish to eat it.

“What really pleases me is that the right to privacy has been upheld,” remarked Jagtiani.

“The rule of law - this is where you see it in action. The government can’t run away with its personal agenda and expect that courts are going to be mute spectators. Eventually [the judiciary has] proved that the constitution is supreme. If [the government] misbehaves and if it acts against its legitimate fear, the court [passes a judgment] which exemplifies the rule of law it and makes this concept come to life.”

“It is for momemts like this that we as citizens can really be proud of being Indians. You would not get a decision of this sort in Pakistan, China or Russia but only in places [like India] which are really committed to being a democracy.”

Jagtiani was assisted by Haresh Jagtiani & Associates associates Khalid Khimani, Rishika Rajyadaksh, Ryan Fernandez, Taruna Jaiswal, Siddharth Acharya and Jash Dhaliya who had briefed senior advocates Aspi Chinoy and Navroz Seervai and instructed advocate Gulnar Mistri.

Picture by Static Flickr / Susmithachandra