The Jharkhand High Court, acting through a Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar, has been hearing a Public Interest Litigation that seeks comprehensive enforcement of laws aimed at preventing illegal animal slaughter and unregulated sale of meat within the State. The Court has repeatedly emphasised that State authorities must strictly comply with the regulatory framework established under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to ensure that no illegal cutting, culling or slaughter of animals takes place without full legal adherence. In the course of recent proceedings, the High Court directed senior government officials, including secretaries of key departments and the Administrator of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, to personally appear and clarify the steps taken to implement its earlier directives, underlining the judiciary’s insistence on active administrative participation in the matter. The Court noted that these officials gave assurances that regulations implementing its directions and statutory provisions would be drafted and enforced within a specified period, and in the interim, they were called upon to ensure compliance with existing law as it stands. The Court reiterated that individuals engaged in the sale of mutton and related products must operate only under valid registration granted in accordance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, and that unauthorised persons shall not be permitted to carry on such business. Furthermore, the High Court repeatedly stressed that the sale of meat should only proceed if the establishment in question complies fully with the provisions set out in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules and relevant schedules of the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, highlighting that violations of these directions would lead to serious consequences.
The PIL underpinning these directions was instituted to enforce specific regulations concerning the licensing and registration of food businesses, particularly those that strictly prohibit the slaughter of animals or birds within shop premises and prescribe detailed sanitary and hygienic conditions for retail meat vendors. The petitioner in the PIL sought judicial intervention for enforcement of statutory requirements that dictate where and how animals may be slaughtered, as well as the conditions under which the resulting meat products may be marketed and sold to the public. Among the legal provisions at issue were those contained in the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, which include explicit prohibitions against slaughter within shop premises and require that meat shops observe hygiene and facility norms designed to protect consumer health and safety. The petitioner also invoked provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, which encapsulate humane treatment standards and stipulate that slaughter should not occur in the sight of other animals, reflecting concerns about animal welfare as well as public sanitation.
The High Court’s engagement in this matter reflects a history of repeated judicial directions aimed at strengthening regulatory oversight and correcting administrative inertia. Earlier orders had directed district officials, senior police officers and local bodies to conduct inspections of areas where meat shops operate and to initiate appropriate legal action as necessary. The High Court had observed that authorities responsible for upholding the law were not sufficiently vigilant in issuing and enforcing valid licenses, and it lamented the lack of proactive measures by officials to create a regulatory environment in which legitimate applicants could seek licensure and comply with statutory mandates. On a previous date, the Court had warned that failure to implement its directives and the applicable statutory regime would lead to adverse comments on the functioning of the responsible government bodies.
A series of orders issued prior to the most recent hearing reflect the Court’s frustration with what it described as “dilly-dallying” by the State in implementing the Court’s directions and in fulfilling its statutory obligations. In one order, the Court provided the State a time limit to submit a comprehensive affidavit detailing steps taken to comply not only with the High Court’s judgments but also with municipal laws and the Food Safety and Standards Act along with its associated regulations. The Court emphasised the importance of a coordinated effort by municipal authorities and departmental officials to ensure that slaughterhouses and meat retailers operate within the boundaries of legal requirements and that any violation of these requirements is addressed with appropriate enforcement actions. The repeated need for judicial admonition and oversight underlined the continuing challenges in aligning administrative practices with legal standards.
During the most recent hearing sessions, the Court’s interactions with State officials brought to light assurances that detailed regulations would be formulated within a set period, demonstrating a judicial push for legislative and regulatory clarity as part of implementing the statutory framework. The officials present before the Court affirmed their commitment to enforcing the regulations and directions previously articulated by the High Court, a step that the Bench noted would help streamline compliance and provide clear benchmarks for meat vendors and regulatory agencies alike. The Court also underscored that, until such regulations are in place, the State must enforce existing legal provisions without fail, especially in ensuring that only duly registered entities are permitted to engage in the sale of mutton and related products. This focus on registration and compliance was linked to broader concerns over public health and safety, which the Court viewed as intrinsically connected to meat retail and handling practices.
The ongoing judicial proceedings are part of a broader narrative of High Court intervention aimed at harmonising legal enforcement with public interest goals. The case, which has been listed for further hearing and directions, underscores the judiciary’s role in addressing regulatory gaps and ensuring that provisions designed to prevent cruelty to animals and safeguard food standards are given practical effect. As the matter continues to unfold, the High Court’s orders reflect a consistent judicial commitment to compelling state authorities to prioritise the rule of law in contexts that intersect with both animal welfare and human health concerns. The JPIL underscores the complex interplay between statutory mandates, administrative implementation and judicial oversight in the context of animal slaughter and meat sale practices, and it highlights the High Court’s proactive approach in monitoring and directing state compliance with legal requirements.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.