The International Organisation for Animal Protection - OIPA in India

Ban animal sacrifice, cow slaughtering in India :PIL No. 381 of 2010 moved

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Cow_slaughter.jpg

PIL No. 381 of 2010 to Ban Animal Sacrifice in India Fixed for 29-11-2010 - Abhishek Kadyan

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ax4YsShFx8Q/TKDCwNN0J8I/AAAAAAAAAIM/cge13s_dmmA/s1600/x.jpg

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION]

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. ___381________of 2010

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

International Organization for Animal Protection, through

Sh. Naresh Kadyan, India Representative,            … Petitioner

                                              

//Versus//

 

Union of India & Ors.                                      …Respondent

                                 

                

                                       

 

                I. A.         _______ 2010,

                        (Stay Application)

 

 

 

                                        

 

 

 

                                         PAPER BOOK

 

               (FOR DETAILED INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:-  ]        ]

 

 

                       

 

                  INDEX

 

Serial No

  Particular of Documents  

 

Page  Nos.

 

1.

Listing Performa

 

A to

2.

List of Dates

to  

 

 

3.

Writ Petition (Civil) with affidavits

 

4.

ANNEXURE-P/1::  Order Dt. 16/11     / 1994

 

5.

Affidavit of Urgency.

 

 

 

 

 

**************

               


LISTING PROFORMA

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

1.   Nature of the Matter                         :  Civil

2.   Name(s) of Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) :   Naresh Kadyan

3.   Name(s) of Respondent(s)               (1) Union of India.

2) The State of West Bengal

(3) The State of Kerala

(4) The State of Maharashtra

(5) The State of Sikkim

4.   Number of case          W.P.(C) No. ………381……… of 2010

5.   Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s)                  :    

6.   Advocate(s) for Respondent(s)         :  …NA…………………………

7.   Section dealing with the matter         :    Article 32 of Constitution of India

8.   Date of the impugned Order/Judge         :                1994

8A. Name of Hon'ble Judges          

8B. In Land Acquisition Matters:-

     (i)   Notification/Govt. Order No. (U/s.4,6)            :  N.A.

           Dated …………. issued by State

   (ii)   Exact purpose of acquisition & village involved :  N.A.

 

8C.  In Civil Matters:-

      (i)  Suit No., Name of Lower Court                           :  N.A.

      (ii) Date of Judgement                                   :  N.A.

8D.  In Writ Petitions                                          :  N.A.

8E.  In case of Motor Vehicle Accident Matter:  

      Vehicle No.                                                       :  N.A.

8F.  In Service Matters:

      (i)  Relevant service rule, if any                                   :  N.A.

      (ii) G.O./Circular/Notification, if applicable or in question :   N.A.

8G.  In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters:        I.D. Reference/Award No., if applicable                    :  N.A.

9.    Nature of Urgency                                           :  yes

10.  In case it is a tax matter:

      (a)   Tax amount involved in the matter                    :  N.A.

      (b)         Whether a reference/statement of the case was called for or rejected                                           :  N.A.

     (c)    Whether similar tax matters of same parties filed earlier (may be for earlier/other Assessment Year)? :  N.A.

     (d)    Exemption Notification/Circular No. ………………………………………

11.  Valuation of the matter                                  :  N.A.

12.  Classification of the matter:  Writ Petition (c)

      (Please fill up the number & name of relevant category with sub category as per the list circulated)

      No. of Subject Category with full name                         :  N.A.

       No. of sub- category with full name                             :  N.A.

13.  Title of the Act involved (Centre/State)                :  

14.  (a)  Sub-Classification (indicate Section/Article of the Status)    :: N.A.

      (b)  Sub-Section involved                                           : N.A.  

      (c)  Title of the Rules involved (Centre/State)                   :  N.A.

      (d)  Sub-Classification (indicate Rule/Sub-rule of the Statute)  :N.A.

15.          Point of law and question of law raised in the case :

16.  Whether matter is not to be listed before any Hon'ble Judge?

      Mention the name of the Hon'ble Judge    :  N.A.

17.  Particulars of identical/similar cases, if any

      a)  Pending cases                                 :  N.A.

      b)  Decided cases with citation                 :  N.A.

18.         Whether the petition is against interlocutory/final order/decree in the case                                         : Final judgment

 and Order.

19.          If it is a fresh matter, please state the name of the High Court and the Coram in the Impugned Judgement/Order:

       

20.  If the matter was already listed in this Court:

      a)  When was it listed?                            :  N.A.

      b)  What was the Coram?                           :  N.A.

      c)  What was the direction of the Court         :  N.A.

21.         Whether a date has already been fixed either by Court or on being mentioned, for the hearing of matter? If so, please indicate the date fixed.                          :  N.A.

 

22.  Is there a caveator? If so, whether a notice has been issued to him?                                                                           :  N.A.

23.  Whether date entered in the Computer?                 :   N.A.

24.  If it is a criminal matter, please state:

      a)   Whether accused has surrendered                 :   N.A.

      b)   Nature of Offence, i.e. Convicted under Section with Act

      c)   Sentence awarded                                 :   N.A.

24.  d)   Sentence already undergone by the accused.

     e)  (i)   FIR/RC/etc.                                            :   N.A.

               Date of Registration of FIR etc.                 :   N.A.

                Name & place of the Police Station                 :   N.A.

         (ii)  Name & Place of Trial Court                   :   N.A.

                Case No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgement ::   N.A.

         (iii)  Name and Place of 1st Appellate Court              :   N.A.

                Case No. in 1st Appellate Court & date of Judgement    :   N.A.      

 

 

Advocate for Petitioner(s)

Date :  13. 11..2010

                           

 

SYNOPSIS  and LIST OF DATES

The present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks to obtain from this Hon’ble Court relief against the continued permissibility of cow-slaughter by Respondent No.2 to 4 as violative of their fundamental right the Constitution and obtain appropriate directions/orders/or a writ of mandamus including writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents herein to take effective executive and/or legislative steps including, if necessary, to bring about requisite institutional amendment entitling the Respondent No.1 to enact necessary  legislation and exercise consequent executive power, to bring about a total ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny in solemn discharge of their mandatory duty and obligation under the provision of Constitution of India and in view of the solemn promises made form time to time by Respondent No.1 inside and outside the parliament.

  1. That, the Respondents are the constitutional organs exercising legislative and executive functions and powers as specified by the Constitution of India under which they are invested with a solemn obligatory, positive and non-optional public duty to take appropriate legislative and/or executive measures for ensuring that no trade, business or occupation is allowed to develop or continue so as to be determental to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen of India and/or not to undertake directly either by any or all of them or indirectly by granting permission to undertake may activity by one section of the Indian people as to result in taking away or abridging the fundamental rights guaranteed to other section of the Indian citizens.
  2. That, since the beginning of the Hindu religion in hoary past when the Vedic Samhitas were compiled recording its fundamental tenets, the word ‘cow’ has always been used and understood in a comprehensive and generic sense and includes within its scope and admit the female cow as also bulls and bullocks and in fact the entire progeny of the cow. The cow, understood in this wide and generic sense, has been accorded a prominent position by the religion of the petitioners as compared with its position in other religious and also with regard to other domesticated animals in the Hindu Society itself. It is treated as inviolable and un-killable and a paramount religious duty is cast on every Hindu to protect a cow from being done to unnatural and premature death by anybody industries the one not belonging to the Hindu religion. To the ancient Indian cow was never an economic commodity but a divine entity, which, by its grace, showers material and spiritual benefits and wealth on its votaries. Hence the long historical tradition of India has never included cow as falling under a mercantile commodity with respect to which right to slaughter can be claimed as a trade, business or occupation. The cow is an integral, inservrable and fundamental part of the Hindu religion and its cites from the time immemorial and the Vedas, the oldest extent written record of the human race, merely record the spiritual and religious significance of cow to the Hindus. Thus being an integral part of the Hindu religion and enjoying a divine status therein, cow forms a class by itself for the protection of which express injunctions have been made through out the religious literature of the Hindu casting a heavy, imperative and paramount duty on them to protect it form slaughtered or killed or even maltreated.
  3. That, the indirect promotion of cow slaughter as a means of a trade, business or occupation in beef and other items obtained from a slaughtered cow during the British rule in British India was adopted by the alien, imperialistic and ambitious people with a view not only to undermine and subvert the religious sentiments of the Hindu people but also as a part of their deliberate policy to destroy the very basic of their economic, social, cultural, religious and philosophical life as well as of a spiritual foundation of an ancient and peace loving sub-continent which was both alluring and disconcerting to them. It is pertinent that the British were concerned to convert India into a market for their industrial product and for this purpose systematically struck at the very root of the Indian economic system and structure which revolved round the cow, bulls and bullock. It is also important to submit that British tried to make WALL between two major religious group Hindu and Muslim through cow, while cow has its religious, economic and scientific values among Hindu, Muslim and other millions of Indians.
  4. That, even the concept of secularise as enshrined in the Indian Constitution is founded on the age old Indian tradition of equal respect to all religion and the essential unity and indivisibility of human kind and of apparently separate religions. In order to transform this concepts of secularism into a living organism permeating the body politic of India and upon the foundation of which to build a truly multi-religious society which is informed with a unifying outlook, attitude and goal and which genuinely understands and respects the deep-rooted religious sentiments and spiritual ideals and vision, goal and aspiration, methods and means of their realization of each of the sections comprising it, requites that merely temporal affairs are separated from a community’s genuinely fundamental religious tenets and beliefs and affairs and adjust the former with the religion tenets, faith , sentiments, ideals and beliefs of another community in such a manner as never to permit the temporal to hurt, violate and disregard the activities and affairs which are undertaken in the course of discharging the peremptory religious injunctions for the realisation of their religious goal. Indian concept of secularism requires even to curb such temporal affairs and beliefs if they are antagonistic and opposed to and irreconcilable with the fundamental concepts and valves and injunctions of another religion. They submit that secularism in India and the inherent requirement for its due and proper observance and regard thereto render it incumbent and obligatory on the part of the respondents to take all the necessary and appropriate legislative and executive measures so as to balance the competing interests of various religious communities which arise from the diversity of their belief and to curb those temporal affairs and practice which are though permissible under their respective religion in conflict with and derogatory and antagonistic to the fundamental and inservrable religious tenets, beliefs and injunctions of other religious. The petitioner further submits that only such al policy on the part of the Indian States of which the respondents are integral parts, is conducive to the effective realisation of the Indian concept of secularism and is efficacious in protecting the fundament right guaranteed by Article 25 of Constitution of India to a person if it is violated or is in danger of violation by any activity which may be merely permissible by but not an essential, inseverable, integral and fundamental part of religion of another.
  5. That, this Hon’ble Court has laid down the law in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case in the following proposition;
  1. That a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male, female, in quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive  principles laid down in Article 48.
  2. that a total ban on the slaughter of the buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle’s as well as buffalo) as long as they are milk or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid; and
  3. that a total ban on the slaughter of she buffalo after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or breading or working as draught animals not be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

The law thus laid down by this Hon’ble Court and followed by it in the later cases being the law of the land, the aforesaid judgement in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case operates as disability on the part of the State including the respondents to enact a valid legislation prohibiting completely the slaughter of cow and its progeny even through  its continued slaughter violates the fundamental right to Hindu.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has conform that the slaughter of cow is violate the fundamental right to Hindus in State of West Bangal Vs Ashutosh Lahiri .  

As Annexure P1.              

 

        Hence this Petition.


 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO……381…….OF 2010

                                                

IN THE MATTER OF:                      

International Organization for Animal Protection, through

Naresh Kadyan, India Representative,

-38, Rose Apartment, Prashant Vihar,  

Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi                                          -Petitioner

 

 

VERSUS

                                                                                        

(1) Union of India

Through the Secretary

Ministry of Home

Government of India

New Delhi

 

 

(2) The State of West Bengal

Through Chief Secretary

Government of West Bengal

Calcutta

 

(3) The State of Kerala

Through Chief Secretary

Government of Kerara

Trivendrum

 

(4) The State of Maharashtra

Through Chief Secretary

Government of Maharashtra

Mumbai

 

(5) The State of Sikkim

Through Chief Secretary

Government of Sikkim

Gangtok

                        

                                                                -Respondents

 

 

 

In the matter of :

Article 13, 14, 15(1), 25, 38(10, 47, 48, 51A, 246, 259(10, 252 and

368 of the Constitution of India.

 

And

 

In the matter of :

Right of the Indian Citizen for the protection of Cow i.e. the holy creature for the Indian society and most useful animal for the all human being.

 

And

 

In the matter of :

The Mandatory Non-optional duty of the Indian States to impose as absolute and complete ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny.

 

 

And

 

In the matter of :

The non-application of Art.19(1) (g) of the constitution of India to the trade, business or occupation and/or the practice, usage or custom of trade relating to slaughter of cows special in the occasion of Eid-ul-Zuha popularly known as Baqar Eid.

 

 

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

   And his Companion Justices of the  

Supreme Court of India.

 

 

                                The humble petition of the

                                Petitioners above named.

 

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

 

  1. This, the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks to obtain from this Hon’ble Court relief against the continued permissibility of cow-slaughter by Respondent No.2 to 5 as violative of their fundamental right the Constitution and obtain appropriate directions/orders/or a writ of mandamus including writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents herein to take effective executive and/or legislative steps including, if necessary, to bring about requisite institutional amendment entitling the Respondent No.1 to enact necessary legislation and exercise consequent executive power, to bring about a total ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny in solemn discharge of their mandatory duty and obligation under the provision of Constitution of India and in view of the solemn promises made form time to time by Respondent No.1 inside and outside the parliament.
  2. That, the Petitioner is a citizen and inhabitant of India and  representative of OIPA in India. Campaigning on Internet via online petitions to get administrative orders from concerned authorities and this campaign was followed by the International communities Worldwide.  
  3. That the  OIPA - International Organization for Animal Protection, is an International Confederation of associations (today, 170) for the animal protection and for the defence of animal rights all over the world. Founded in 1981 by Milly Shar Manzoli, OIPA is a Non Governmental Organisation associated to the UN Department of Public Information since 1992. The purpose of the Organization consists in the defence of animal rights and in the defence of the animals from every kind of mistreatment. It also follows the purpose of improving the public health through the abolishment of any kind of animal experiments throughout the world. The Organization wants to bring its contribute for a better, a healthier and a more human world, for a medical science that is not based on violence, for a more efficient sanitarian structure, for an ecologically clean environment. Animals need help from all of us.
  4. That the Petitioner is compiled a book on animal related laws in Hindi & its next version in English is under print, running ambulance & shelter for animals in distress, as many as 40 PIL's like opposition of Elephant polo, wild life trophies , misuse of oxytocin injections on milking animals, cruel illegal animal transportation, misuse of langur,  infirmaries, appointment of Lokpal in Haryana, Human Rights Commission for Haryana, Unbranded eatables, Satluz Yamuna Link canal etc.
  5. Petitioner is the  founder chairman of People For Animals  Haryana, (Registered with Haryana Government and recognised by the Animal Welfare Board of India - AWBI) and also Convener of the Rastriya Pashu Pakshi Raksha Adhikar Samiti, which is set up with in Sarvdeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha ( World Council of Arya Samaj ). The Petitioner  is working for the animal’s welfare for last one and half decades and also having the national records of FIR of cruelty against the animals. The Petitioner also endeavour to remove the social ills and inequality which have creped into the Indian Society and its fabric in the course of the long periods of subjugation by alien and unsympathetic rulers and again raise their religion to the pristine glory which it owned had. The petitioner submits that in so doing they are also performing their fundamental duties imposed upon them by the Constitution. He has lodged two FIR’s against cattle ( cow ) transportation through special trains : on 10-12-2000 with GRP, Faridabad and on 28-12-2000 with GRP, Gaziabad.

 

  1. That the Petitioner also endeavour to remove the social ills and inequality which have creped into the Indian Society and its fabric in the course of the long periods of subjugation by alien and unsympathetic rulers and again raise their religion to the pristine glory which it owned had. The petitioner submits that in so doing they are also performing their fundamental duties imposed upon them by the Constitution.
  2. That, the Respondents are the constitutional organs exercising legislative and executive functions and powers as specified by the Constitution of India under which they are invested with a solemn obligatory, positive and non-optional public duty to take appropriate legislative and/or executive measures for ensuring that no trade, business or occupation is allowed to develop or continue so as to be determental to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen of India and/or not to undertake directly either by any or all of them or indirectly by granting permission to undertake may activity by one section of the Indian people as to result in taking away or abridging the fundamental rights guaranteed to other section of the Indian citizens.
  3. That, since the beginning of the Hindu religion in hoary past when the Vedic Samhitas were compiled recording its fundamental tenets, the word ‘cow’ has always been used and understood in a comprehensive and generic sense and includes within its scope and admit the female cow as also bulls and bullocks and in fact the entire progeny of the cow. The cow, understood in this wide and generic sense, has been accorded a prominent position by the religion of the petitioners as compared with its position in other religious and also with regard to other domesticated animals in the Hindu Society itself. It is treated as inviolable and un-killable and a paramount religious duty is cast on every Hindu to protect a cow from being done to unnatural and premature death by anybody industries the one not belonging to the Hindu religion. To the ancient Indian cow was never an economic commodity but a divine entity, which, by its grace, showers material and spiritual benefits and wealth on its votaries. Hence the long historical tradition of India has never included cow as falling under a mercantile commodity with respect to which right to slaughter can be claimed as a trade, business or occupation. The cow is an integral, inservrable and fundamental part of the Hindu religion and its cites from the time immemorial and the Vedas, the oldest extent written record of the human race, merely record the spiritual and religious significance of cow to the Hindus. Thus being an integral part of the Hindu religion and enjoying a divine status therein, cow forms a class by itself for the protection of which express injunctions have been made through out the religious literature of the Hindu casting a heavy, imperative and paramount duty on them to protect it form slaughtered or killed or even maltreated.
  4. That, the indirect promotion of cow slaughter as a means of a trade, business or occupation in beef and other items obtained from a slaughtered cow during the British rule in British India was adopted by the alien, imperialistic and ambitious people with a view not only to undermine and subvert the religious sentiments of the Hindu people but also as a part of their deliberate policy to destroy the very basic of their economic, social, cultural, religious and philosophical life as well as of a spiritual foundation of an ancient and peace loving sub-continent which was both alluring and disconcerting to them. It is pertinent that the British were concerned to convert India into a market for their industrial product and for this purpose systematically struck at the very root of the Indian economic system and structure which revolved round the cow, bulls and bullock. It is also important to submit that British tried to make WALL between two major religious group Hindu and Muslim through cow, while cow has its religious, economic and scientific values among Hindu, Muslim and other millions of Indians.
  5. That, even the concept of secularise as enshrined in the Indian Constitution is founded on the age old Indian tradition of equal respect to all religion and the essential unity and indivisibility of human kind and of apparently separate religions. In order to transform this concepts of secularism into a living organism permeating the body politic of India and upon the foundation of which to build a truly multi-religious society which is informed with a unifying outlook, attitude and goal and which genuinely understands and respects the deep-rooted religious sentiments and spiritual ideals and vision, goal and aspiration, methods and means of their realization of each of the sections comprising it, requites that merely temporal affairs are separated from a community’s genuinely fundamental religious tenets and beliefs and affairs and adjust the former with the religion tenets, faith , sentiments, ideals and beliefs of another community in such a manner as never to permit the temporal to hurt, violate and disregard the activities and affairs which are undertaken in the course of discharging the peremptory religious injunctions for the realisation of their religious goal. Indian concept of secularism requires even to curb such temporal affairs and beliefs if they are antagonistic and opposed to and irreconcilable with the fundamental concepts and valves and injunctions of another religion. They submit that secularism in India and the inherent requirement for its due and proper observance and regard thereto render it incumbent and obligatory on the part of the respondents to take all the necessary and appropriate legislative and executive measures so as to balance the competing interests of various religious communities which arise from the diversity of their belief and to curb those temporal affairs and practice which are though permissible under their respective religion in conflict with and derogatory and antagonistic to the fundamental and inservrable religious tenets, beliefs and injunctions of other religious. The petitioner further submits that only such al policy on the part of the Indian States of which the respondents are integral parts, is conducive to the effective realisation of the Indian concept of secularism and is efficacious in protecting the fundament right guaranteed by Article 25 of Constitution of India to a person if it is violated or is in danger of violation by any activity which may be merely permissible by but not an essential, inseverable, integral and fundamental part of religion of another.
  6. That at this juncture the petitioner craves your lordships kind attention to the fact that the aforesaid mentioned acts as have been mentioned in the preceding paragraph falls within the ambit of Sections 268, 269 & 270 of the Indian Penal Code. For the convenience of this Hon’ble Court the aforesaid provisions are quoted as follows:

 

268.        Public nuisance:--A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does not act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily  cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

 

A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

 

269.        Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life: --Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six month, or with fine, or with both.

 

270.        Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life: -- Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

It is highly surprising that despite of the aforesaid clear provisions of Indian Penal Code stringent action has not been taken against the wrong doers and they go scot free merely on the pretext of religion & their faith in the respective Deity.

12.That apart from the aforesaid impact on the public at large and on the environment, the result of these so called ritual animal sacrifices  is that all rules made for animal welfare and rights are put at stake to carry out the ritual of sacrifice. There is no check, whatsoever, to see if pregnant animals, young animals, mothers with off-springs less than 3 months old, or sick animals are being slaughtered. No medical checkup is done to ensure that if the meat of the animal were to be consumed, it should not cause disease and illness in humans. The animals are slaughtered out in the open in most cases and in full view of the other animals. The place where the slaughter takes place has no safety or hygiene norms and the animal mostly goes down on a slushy mixture of blood and mud. Goats are further torn into pieces to be distributed among the temple authorities and the others. The weapons that are used for killing are often antiques with no check on their sharpnes, the animal in a desperate attempt to survive, cuts loose even in a fatally wounded condition and runs amok. The village youths then in a gallant show of bravery, capture the animal and bring it down to the alter again. Even before the sacrifice takes place, the animal is mercilessly beaten, chillies thrown into it’s eyes, rods shoved up it’s rectum to make it move faster.  The premises where it is slaughtered is not a registered slaughter house so it is impossible to observe any rules or monitor that unnecessary suffering is not inflicted upon the animal. All whatever is done during these so called “animal sacrifices” is against the provisions of Rule 6 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules 2001.Section 38(3) of the PCA Act 1960prescribes the penalty for the violation of the Rules made under the Act. For the ready reference, Rule 6 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules 2001 reads as under:

 

6.

Slaughter -

(1) No animal shall be slaughtered in a slaughter house in sight of other animals

(2) No animal shall be administered any chemical, drug or hormone before slaughter except drug for its treatment from any specific disease or ailment.

(3) The slaughter halls in a slaughter house shall provide separate sections of adequate dimensions sufficient for slaughter of individual animals to ensure that the animal to be slaughtered is not within the sight of other animals.

(4) Every slaughter house as soon as possible shall provide a separate space for stunning of animals prior to slaughter, bleeding and dressing of the carcasses

(5) Knocking section in slaughter house may be so planned as to suit the animal and particularly the ritual slaughter; if any and such knocking section and dry landing area associated with it shall be so built that escape from this section can be easily carried out by an operator without allowing the animal to pass the escape barrier.

(6)A curbed-in bleeding area of adequate size as specified by the Central Government shall be provided in a slaughter house and it shall be so located that the blood could not be splashed on other animals being slaughtered or on the carcass being skinned.

(7) The blood drain and collection in a slaughter house shall be immediate and proper

(8) A floor wash point shall be provided in a slaughter house for intermittent cleaning and a hand-wash basin and knife sterilizer shall also be provided for the sticker to sterilize knife and wash his hands periodically.

(9) Dressing of carcasses in a slaughter house shall not be done on floor and adequate means and tools for dehiding or belting of the animals shall be provided in a slaughter house with means for immediate disposal of hides or skins;

(10)Hides or skins shall be immediately transported from a slaughter house either in a closed wheelbarrow or by a chute provided with self-closing door and in no case such hides or skins shall be spread on slaughter floor for inspection

(11)Floor wash point and adequate number of hand wash basins with sterlizer shall be provided in a dressing area of a slaughter house with means for immediate disposal of legs, horns, hooves and other parts of animals through spring load floor chutes or sidewall doors or closed wheelbarrows and in case wheelbarrows or trucks are used in a slaughter house, care shall be taken that no point wheelbarrow or truck has to ply under the dressing rails and a clear passage is provided for movement of the trucks.

(12) Adequate space and suitable and properly located facilities shall be provided sufficient for inspection of the viscera of the various types of animals slaughtered in a slaughter house and it shall have adequate facilities for hand washing, tool sterilisation and floor washing and contrivances for immediate separation and disposal of condemned material.

(13) Adequate arrangements shall be made in a slaughter house by its owner for identification, inspection and correlation of carcass, viscera and head.

(14) In a slaughter house, a curbed and separately drained area or an area of sufficient size, sloped 33 mm per metre to a floor drain, where the carcasses may be washed with a jet of water, shall be provided by the owner of such slaughter house.

 

  1. That Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides as follows:

 

“28. Saving as respects manner of killing prescribed by religion-Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.”

 

  1. That, this Hon’ble Court has laid down the law in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case in the following proposition;
  1. That a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male, female, in quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive principles laid down in Article 48.
  2. That a total ban on the slaughter of the buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle’s as well as buffalo) as long as they are milk or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid; and
  3. That a total ban on the slaughter of she buffalo after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or breading or working as draught animals not be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

 

The law thus laid down by this Hon’ble Court and followed by it in the later cases being the law of the     land, the aforesaid judgement in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case operates as disability on the part of the State including the respondents to enact a valid legislation prohibiting completely the slaughter of cow and its progeny even through its continued slaughter violates the fundamental right to Hindu and later on the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has conform in the State Bangal Vs Ashutosh Lahiri that the cow slaughter  violates the fundamental right to Hindu, as Annexure  P1.

14.        That no similar petition has been filed in any other High court or  before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

  1. Aggrieved by slaughteòing of cows and its progeny during eid-ul-zuha or general, the petitioner prefers this Petition on the following among other: -

G   R  O  U  N  D  S

  1. This, the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks to obtain from this Hon’ble Court relief against the continued permissibility of cow-slaughter by Respondent No.2 to 5 as violative of their fundamental right the Constitution and obtain appropriate directions/orders/or a writ of mandamus including writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents herein to take effective executive and/or legislative steps including, if necessary, to bring about requisite institutional amendment entitling the Respondent No.1 to enact necessary  legislation and exercise consequent executive power, to bring about a total ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny in solemn discharge of their mandatory duty and obligation under the provision of Constitution of India and in view of the solemn promises made form time to time by Respondent No.1 inside and outside the parliament.
  2. That, the Petitioner is a citizen and inhabitant of India. The Petitioner also endeavour to remove the social ills and inequality which have creped into the Indian Society and its fabric in the course of the long periods of subjugation by alien and unsympathetic rulers and again raise their religion to the pristine glory which it owned had. The petitioner submits that in so doing they are also performing their fundamental duties imposed upon them by the Constitution.
  3. That, the Respondents are the constitutional organs exercising legislative and executive functions and powers as specified by the Constitution of India under which they are invested with a solemn obligatory, positive and non-optional public duty to take appropriate legislative and/or executive measures for ensuring that no trade, business or occupation is allowed to develop or continue so as to be determental to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen of India and/or not to undertake directly either by any or all of them or indirectly by granting permission to undertake may activity by one section of the Indian people as to result in taking away or abridging the fundamental rights guaranteed to other section of the Indian citizens.
  4. That, since the beginning of the Hindu religion in hoary past when the Vedic Samhitas were compiled recording its fundamental tenets, the word ‘cow’ has always been used and understood in a comprehensive and generic sense and includes within its scope and admit the female cow as also bulls and bullocks and in fact the entire progeny of the cow. The cow, understood in this wide and generic sense, has been accorded a prominent position by the religion of the petitioners as compared with its position in other religious and also with regard to other domesticated animals in the Hindu Society itself. It is treated as inviolable and un-killable and a paramount religious duty is cast on every Hindu to protect a cow from being done to unnatural and premature death by anybody industries the one not belonging to the Hindu religion. To the ancient Indian cow was never an economic commodity but a divine entity, which, by its grace, showers material and spiritual benefits and wealth on its votaries. Hence the long historical tradition of India has never included cow as falling under a mercantile commodity with respect to which right to slaughter can be claimed as a trade, business or occupation. The cow is an integral, inservrable and fundamental part of the Hindu religion and its cites from the time immemorial and the Vedas, the oldest extent written record of the human race, merely record the spiritual and religious significance of cow to the Hindus. Thus being an integral part of the Hindu religion and enjoying a divine status therein, cow forms a class by itself for the protection of which express injunctions have been made through out the religious literature of the Hindu casting a heavy, imperative and paramount duty on them to protect it form slaughtered or killed or even maltreated.
  5. That, the indirect promotion of cow slaughter as a means of a trade, business or occupation in beef and other items obtained from a slaughtered cow during the British rule in British India was adopted by the alien, imperialistic and ambitious people with a view not only to undermine and subvert the religious sentiments of the Hindu people but also as a part of their deliberate policy to destroy the very basic of their economic, social, cultural, religious and philosophical life as well as of a spiritual foundation of an ancient and peace loving sub-continent which was both alluring and disconcerting to them. It is pertinent that the British were concerned to convert India into a market for their industrial product and for this purpose systematically struck at the very root of the Indian economic system and structure which revolved round the cow, bulls and bullock. It is also important to submit that British tried to make WALL between two major religious group Hindu and Muslim through cow, while cow has its religious, economic and scientific values among Hindu, Muslim and other millions of Indians.
  6. Islam provides options to Muslims to offer Qurbani of Baqra, Camel, Ship (Menda) and others so it is not mandatory to offer Qurbani of Cow’s only. There are several FATVAS issued by authorities of Islamic world regarding non-offering cow’s qurbani on the occasion of Edi-ul-Zuha being optional (WAZIB).
  7. Because, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibits the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on an animal and makes such unnecessary pain and suffering a penal offence. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides that it is the duty of every person having the care and charge of any animal to take reasonable measure to ensure the well being of such animal and to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering but during the animal sacrifice.
  8. Because, there is no check, whatsoever, to see if pregnant animals, young animals, mothers with off-springs less than 3 months old, or sick animals are being slaughtered. No medical checkup is done to ensure that if the meat of the animal were to be consumed, it should not cause disease and illness in humans. The animals are slaughtered out in the open in most cases and in full view of the other animals. The place where the slaughter takes place has no safety or hygiene norms and the animal mostly goes down on a slushy mixture of blood and mud.  The village youths then in a gallant show of bravery, capture the animal and bring it down to the alteragain. Even before the sacrifice takes place, the animal is mercilessly beaten, chillies thrown into its’ eyes, rods shoved up its’ rectum to make it move faster.   The premises where it is slaughtered is not a registered slaughter house so it is impossible to observe any rules or monitor that unnecessary suffering is not inflicted upon the animal. All whatever is done during these so called “animal sacrifices” is against the provisions of Rule 6 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules 2001.
  9. Because, Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides that nothing contained in the Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.   These poor animals that are being slaughtered in the name of religion and faith but to the utter dismay, no authority tries to stop the gory practice merely because of religious fear.

 

  1. Because  the concept of secularise as enshrined in the Indian Constitution is founded on the age old Indian tradition of equal respect to all religion and the essential unity and indivisibility of human kind and of apparently separate religions. In order to transform this concepts of secularism into a living organism permeating the body politic of India and upon the foundation of which to build a truly multi-religious society which is informed with a unifying outlook, attitude and goal and which genuinely understands and respects the deep-rooted religious sentiments and spiritual ideals and vision, goal and aspiration, methods and means of their realization of each of the sections comprising it, requites that merely temporal affairs are separated from a community’s genuinely fundamental religious tenets and beliefs and affairs and adjust the former with the religion tenets, faith , sentiments, ideals and beliefs of another community in such a manner as never to permit the temporal to hurt, violate and disregard the activities and affairs which are undertaken in the course of discharging the peremptory religious injunctions for the realisation of their religious goal. Indian concept of secularism requires even to curb such temporal affairs and beliefs if they are antagonistic and opposed to and irreconcilable with the fundamental concepts and valves and injunctions of another religion. They submit that secularism in India and the inherent requirement for its due and proper observance and regard thereto render it incumbent and obligatory on the part of the respondents to take all the necessary and appropriate legislative and executive measures so as to balance the competing interests of various religious communities which arise from the diversity of their belief and to curb those temporal affairs and practice which are though permissible under their respective religion in conflict with and derogatory and antagonistic to the fundamental and inservrable religious tenets, beliefs and injunctions of other religious. The petitioner further submits that only such al policy on the part of the Indian States of which the respondents are integral parts, is conducive to the effective realisation of the Indian concept of secularism and is efficacious in protecting the fundament right guaranteed by Article 25 of Constitution of India to a person if it is violated or is in danger of violation by any activity which may be merely permissible by but not an essential, inseverable, integral and fundamental part of religion of another.

 

  1. That, this Hon’ble Court has laid down the law in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case in the following proposition;
  1. That a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male, female, in quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive  principles laid down in Article 48.
  2. that a total ban on the slaughter of the buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle’s as well as buffalo) as long as they are milk or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid; and

 

  1. that a total ban on the slaughter of she buffalo after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or breading or working as draught animals not be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

 

 

  1. The law thus laid down by this Hon’ble Court and followed by it in the later cases being the law of the land, the aforesaid judgement in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case operates as disability on the part of the State including the respondents to enact a valid legislation prohibiting completely the slaughter of cow and its progeny even through  its continued slaughter violates the fundamental right to Hindu.

 

 

 

 

P  R  A  Y  E  R

 

 

 

In the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased;

 

 

  1. to issue a Writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus or any other directions or orders requiring the

respondents either jointly or singly to take effective ,

efficacious and appropriate legislative and executive measures for bringing about a total ban on the slaughter (Qurbani) of cow and its progeny.

 

  1. To declare that the respondents have a non-optional, mandatory obligation to exercise its power under the Constitution to bring about such a legislation and its non-performance is ultra vires and violative of its constitutional obligation.

 

  1. To pass a direction to the Respondent to comply with the order dated  16/11/ 1994 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

 

  1. To pass a direction for satellite survey of cow movement.

 

 

  1. to pass any order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and  circumstances of the case.

 

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

NEW DELHI

Drawn By Rajender Yadav, adv.

                                        

                                        

                                ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

 

 

 

To: Sri Samar Ghosh, IAS (Chief Secretary, West Bengal), Her Excellency Pratibha Devi Singh Patil (The President of India, New Delhi), Shri Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee (Chief Minister, West Bengal), Dr. B. A. Agrawal (Member Secretary(Law Commission) ), Sri G. D. Gautama, IAS (Addl. Chief Secretary), Hon'ble Sardar Manmohan Singh (Prime Minister of India), Smt. Meira Kumar (Speaker Lok Sabha), The Kolkata Police Commissioner (COMMISSIONER OF POLICE), Sri Rabi Lal Maitra (MIC, Law & Parliamentary Affairs ), The Director General of Police- West Bengal via Home Secretary (DGP, West Bengal - Home Secretary), Hon'ble Chief Justice S.H.Kapadia (Chief Justice of India), Shri M. Hamid Ansari (Vice President of India), and Sri K.Y.S Manhas, WBJS
Subject: Protect cows and their sacrifice be ban in India - Naresh Kadyan
Letter: Greetings, ,

As per Law of Land - West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act 1950, Sacrifice of Cows on Bakrid – is illegal because it is not an essential religious requirement. High Court decided this after 12 Years that it is not essential religious requirement. West Bengal Government appealed against order of HC in Supreme Court. On 16-11-94, Supreme Court also delivered its final VERDICT striking down the appeal of West Bengal Government; giving detailed references of HISTORY. Thus sacrifice of COW PROGENY is illegal as per law of land; as clarified by Supreme Court. Thereafter also 15 years have passed, wherein you have not taken adequate action. Thus the crime of killing cows on Bakrid in increasing year after year due to inaction of Police department. West Bengal and India as whole has lost great amount of its most precious cattle wealth in these 29 years. This is 30th year. Kindly do take action soon to stop the crime. People in north do not believe that such a large number of cows are openly sacrificed and Police is silent spectator. Cows from all parts of India come to Bengal for agriculture or MILK purpose, But half of them are killed here and half is exported illegally to Bangladesh.

Many Muslims and Muslim organizations are also in favor of Cow protection. Highest Islamic body – DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND, has given many fatwa – advice not to sacrifice cows. Prophet Mohammed had said “Cow’s milk and ghee is medicine and its beef is disease.” And “I would stand against a cow killer on the day of Kayamat.” Hence kindly perform you constitutional duty to implement LAW AND ORDER=SAVE COWS.

Section 9 prescribes punishment for abetment of offences or even attempts to commit any such offence under the Act. Thus all who are taking cows are attempting to commit such an offence and you should stop them. Your inaction amounts to abetment or contempt of Supreme Court ? You may take following steps –to save dignity of LAW:

1. Advertise in print and visual media and apply posters that “Sacrifice of cow is illegal as per law of land Or essence of order of S.C. or wordings of Islam

2. Do not allow any cattle market where cows are bought and sold, stop movements of cow on every road, lanes –prior to bakrid because it is attempt to commit offence.

3. Take custody of cows prior to bakrid and return them after Bakrid or Instruct OC of all PS to count COWS before and after Bakrid

You know better what else can be done to save cows for saving dignity of LAW. Kindly do the needful soon. A Line of confirmation will be highly appreciated.

Few lines of the ORDER OF SUPREME COURT DT 16-11-94 are as follows:-

1. The Act is meant for controlling the slaughter of animals including the cows and buffaloes and this is with the object of increasing the supply of milk and avoiding the wastage of animal power necessary for improvement of agriculture; But so far as healthy animals like cows are concerned there is a complete ban on slaughtering them.

2. Therefore, it is not essential for Muslims to earn religious merit by insisting on sacrificing only healthy cows on Bakri Idd. Consequently, the State will not have any jurisdiction or power to invoke section 12 for fulfilling such optional religious practice of Muslim community.

3. No person shall slaughter any animal unless he has obtained in respect thereof a certificate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) that the animal is fit for slaughter. As per sub-section (2) a certificate is required to be issued by the concerned authorities that the animal is over 14 years of age and is unfit for work or breeding or that the animal has become permanently incapacitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or any incurable disease.

4. As per section 5 even if there is a certificate enabling a person to get concerned animal slaughtered he cannot slaughter it in any place other than the place prescribed in that behalf. As per section 7 whoever contravenes the provision of the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Section 8 makes the offences cognizable under the Act. Section 9 prescribes punishment for abetment of offences or even attempts to commit any such offence under the Act. The aforesaid relevant provisions clearly indicate the legisla­tive intention that healthy cows which are not fit to be slaugh­tered cannot be slaughtered at all. That is the thrust of sec­tion 4 of the Act. In other words there is total ban against slaughtering of healthy cows and other animals mentioned in the schedule under section 2 of the Act. This is the very essence of the Act

5. Now it becomes clear that when there is a total ban under the Act so far as slaughtering healthy cows which are not fit to be slaughtered as per section 4(1) is concerned, if that ban is to be lifted even for a day, it has to be shown that such lifting of ban is necessary for sub-serving any religious, medic­inal or research purpose

6. It does not appear to be obligato­ry that a person must sacrifice a cow.

7. As slaughter of cows on Bakri Idd was not an essential religious practice for Muslims, total ban on cow’s slaughter on all days including Bakri Idd day would not be violative of Article 25(1).

8. In this connection, Das C.J., referred to the historical background regarding cow slaughtering from the times of Mughal emperors. Mughal Emperor Babar saw the wisdom of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humayun to follow this. Similarly, Emperors Akbar, Jahangir and Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter.

9. In view of this settled legal position it becomes obvious that if there is no fundamental right of a Muslim to insist on slaugh­ter of healthy cow on Bakri Idd day, it cannot be a valid ground for exemption by the State under section 12 which would in turn enable slaughtering of such cows on Bakri Idd

10. Similarly it has to be held that if it is not necessary or essential to permit slaughter of a healthy cow for any religious purpose it would be equally not open to the State to invoke its exemption power under section 12 for such a religious purpose. We, therefore, entirely concur with the view of the High Court that slaughtering of healthy cows on Bakri Idd is not essential or required for religious purpose of Muslims.



Breaking news............................

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional writ Jurisdiction - Original side

W.P.No. 1378 of 2010

Abhijit Das & Ors versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

ALONG WITH

W.P No.21591(W)OF 2010

Enamul Haqu & ors versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.



For the petitioner in O.S. Matter : Mr Ballal Guhathakurta, Mr. Ganesh Banerjee,

Mr. Jai Surana and Mr A.K.Saraogi Advocates.

For the pertitioners in A.S.Matter : Mr. M.M.Querashi Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joydip Roy,

Ms. Rakhi shroff and Mr. S.G.Muscara advocates.

For State : Mr. Fazrul Haque, Advocate



Before the Hon’ble CHIEF JUSTICE, The Hon’ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR ROY,



Date : 12 November 2010.



The court: These two petitions have been filed in public interest on the issue of sacrificing cow and its progeny as religious ritual on the occasion of Bakri-idd. The petition itself contains decision of this court which bans slaughter of cow on the occasion of Idd as religious ritual. Therefore no fruitful purpose will be served by again passing similar judgment and orders as the said judgment, which was upheld by the Supreme court ( State of West Bengal vs Asutosh Lahiri, reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 464) still holds good. The Authorities are, therefore bound to implement the provisions of West Bengal Animal Slaughter (Control) Act, 1950 and if any instance of cow slaughter on Bakri-id is brought to their notice, they will have to take cognizance and Act in accordance with law.

Therefore, we are disposing of these two petitions as filed withous there being any cause of action for the same and simple on an apprehension of the petitioners that cos and its progeny would be sacrificed as a religious ritual on the occasion of Bakri-idd.

It will be open for the petitioners to move this court in case they come across such incident and if the same is reported to the authorities and the authorities fail to take any action in the matter.

With this observation, the two petitions stand disposed of.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed Photostat copy and plain coy of this order on the usual undertakings

Sd/- J.N.PATEL CJ

Sd/-

ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.

Essence of ORDER OF SUPREME COURT DT 16-11-94 (P464 of AIR 1995)

“The Act is meant for controlling the slaughter of animals including the cows and buffaloes. State will not have any jurisdiction or power to invoke section 12 for fulfilling such optional religious practice of Muslim community. Even if there is a certificate enabling a person to get concerned animal slaughtered he cannot slaughter it in any place other than the place prescribed in that behalf. Section 7 - whoever contravenes the provision of the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Section 8 makes the offences cognizable under the Act. Section 9 prescribes punishment for abetment of offences or even attempts to commit any such offence under the Act. In other words there is total ban against slaughtering of healthy cows and other animals. If that ban is to be lifted even for a day, it has to be shown that such lifting of ban is necessary for sub-serving any religious, medicinal or research purpose. As slaughter of cows on Bakri Idd was not an essential religious practice for Muslims, total ban on cow’s slaughter on all days including Bakri Idd day would not be violative of Article 25(1). Mughal Emperor Babar saw the wisdom of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humayun to follow this. Similarly, Emperors Akbar, Jahangir and Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter. As per Muslim books, only healthy animals can be sacrificed, but settled legal position, it becomes obvious that if there is no fundamental right of a Muslim to insist on slaughter of healthy cow on Bakri Idd day. It would be equally not open to the State to invoke its exemption power under section 12 for such a non essential religious purpose. “

Cow sale - purchase during Bakri Eid be banned, transportation as well and there are many temporary cow sheds at Bartalla Market beyond Metiabruz Police Station, area of Mitha Talao, Rahmat ka Khatal, "Ibrahim Road", behind Ekbalpur Police Station, "Mansa Tala Lane", around Khidderpur, Mominpur, Ekbalpur,
Watganj, Garden Reach, Metia Buruz and so on, there are thousands of cows are waiting their turn to sacrifice on 17-11-10, hence all these cows should be rescue and rehabilitated in Gaushala's.
PIL No. 381 of 2010 moved in the Supreme Court of India by OIPA in India representative Naresh Kadyan.

Signed By:

Name Location Date
Abhishek Kadyan Delhi, India 11/05/2010
Oishimaya Sen Kolkata, India 11/05/2010
shamalatha rao Bangalore, IN 11/05/2010
Mervi Rantala Tampere, Finland 11/05/2010
Naresh Kadyan Rep. OIPA in India Delhi, India 11/05/2010
Sukanya Kadyan Delhi, IN 11/05/2010
Laxmi Dass Ex. Chairman, KVIC Delhi, IN 11/05/2010
Carin Zellerman New york, NY 11/06/2010
Debasree Biswas kolkata, India 11/06/2010
Paola Ghidotti Milano, Italy 11/06/2010
Coryn Weber Gingen, Germany 11/06/2010
Mia Huolman Vaasa, Finland 11/06/2010
darius dirzinskas london, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
Claudija Valenti Melbourne, Australia 11/06/2010
Darlene Wood Reidsville, NC 11/06/2010
Caroline Xavier Mtlr, France 11/06/2010
Bob Ramczyk Brown Deer, WI 11/06/2010
Jim T ........................, Australia 11/06/2010
Kim Smith Auckland, New Zealand 11/06/2010
Diana Ferreira Paços de Ferreira, Portugal 11/06/2010
Jo Lathwell Trowbridge, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
charles mclachlan none, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
Annika Pettersson Boden, NY 11/06/2010
Constance Franklin Los Angeles, CA 11/06/2010
Henrietta Smith Auckland, New Zealand 11/06/2010
Angela Crystal Ara Manchester, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
giane sales recife, Brazil 11/06/2010
Jerry Mayeux Hattiesburg, MS 11/06/2010
Dianne Harrop Omaha, NE 11/06/2010
Olja Kaludjerovic Kotor, WA 11/06/2010
elisabetta rossi savona, Italy 11/06/2010
Mary Foley cork, Ireland 11/06/2010
Annie Dillon Scotland, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
Pamylle Greinke Peconic, NY 11/06/2010
Andrea Da Costa Melbourne, Australia 11/06/2010
Patrick Taylor San Francisco, CA 11/06/2010
Leslie Fox Bedford, NH 11/06/2010
Beth Stephens, Scott Stephens and Vicky Fuller, Our Family Stratford, Canada 11/06/2010
Nadezhda Peneva Alicante, Spain 11/06/2010
Ángel Marina Palma de Mallorca, Spain 11/06/2010
Shirine Hossaini Alexandria, VA 11/06/2010
Lilo Prinz Au/ZH, AL 11/06/2010
Stephen Greene Ellerbe, NC 11/06/2010
Judith Abel Basel, Switzerland 11/06/2010
Anthony Ehredt Chicago, IL 11/06/2010
dian wright garland, TX 11/06/2010
Cristi Sturgill Mount Vernon, KY 11/06/2010
Jason J Green Spotsylvania, VA 11/06/2010
Kathleen Basiewicz Dana, NC 11/06/2010
Elisabeth Bechmann St. Pölten, Austria 11/06/2010
Peter Scott Knox, IN 11/06/2010
Jenny O'Neil Otero County, NM 11/06/2010
Helen Bertrand New York, NY 11/06/2010
Jindra Cechova Praha, Czech Republic 11/06/2010
heidi wollum goteborg, Sweden 11/06/2010
Ann Cawley Saint Joseph, MO 11/06/2010
Chris >^..^< Jersey City, NJ 11/06/2010
Asli Gedik frankfurt, Netherlands 11/06/2010
Ricardo Delgado Rodríguez Benalmádena, Spain 11/06/2010
YOLANDA CASAS Leganes, SC 11/06/2010
Patrizia Scally Houston, TX 11/06/2010
cathala corine Pierrelatte, France 11/06/2010
patricia myers ancramdale, NY 11/06/2010
john649 lopez reno, NV 11/06/2010
Tanwi Sandelwood Onbekend, NE 11/06/2010
Ira Mak Jerusalem, Israel 11/06/2010
Dawn Mason Pottsville, PA 11/06/2010
Graciela Patrón Mederos León, Spain 11/06/2010
Mandi T. Saratoga, CA 11/06/2010
Samantha L Chicago, IL 11/06/2010
Echo G. Ashland, OH 11/06/2010
Cristina Seica Anadia, Portugal 11/06/2010
Beas Basu Kolkata, India 11/06/2010
Pilgrim G Hertford, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
Dori Sanz Madrid, Spain 11/06/2010
Timmi Sommer Dana Point, CA 11/06/2010
Fenia Yfandi Athens, Greece 11/06/2010
Jean Greene Ellerbe, NC 11/06/2010
Viktoria Misinszki Bacska Topolya, Serbia 11/06/2010
Natasha Leite de Moura Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 11/06/2010
Amanda Flood kenner, LA 11/06/2010
Pam Johnson Lake Village, IN 11/06/2010
Jennifer Hall Greeneville, TN 11/06/2010
CINDY COLLIER WAKEFIELD, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
ivonne carlson Bonita Springs, FL 11/06/2010
Nora Jones Newcastle, Australia 11/06/2010
karen ericson bothell, WA 11/06/2010
Ellen Gutfleisch Sussex, WI 11/06/2010
Anneke Hut Amersfoort, Netherlands 11/06/2010
Melissa Webber Johannesburg, South Africa 11/06/2010
Magdalena Mazurek Marco Island, FL 11/06/2010
Olivia Schlosser Mansfield Center, CT 11/06/2010
Blue Ape With A Drum Plymouth, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
Eleni Michaels Sydney, Australia 11/06/2010
Rick Andersohn Santa Rosa, CA 11/06/2010
SJ Champ Los Angeles, CA 11/06/2010
Nicole Weber Pasadena, MD 11/06/2010
Bev Brewis Victoria, Canada 11/06/2010
Sharon Poore Port St. Lucie, FL 11/06/2010
Christy Hill Oshawa, Canada 11/06/2010
Candice McMillan Edmonton, AL 11/06/2010
Leticia Frutos Asunción, 11/06/2010
Mary Bell Oakland, MD 11/06/2010
ryan mckenzie apple valley, CA 11/06/2010
Marina Asher Brooklyn, NY 11/06/2010
carol crunkhorn New Zealand, FM 11/06/2010
Elisabeth Kelly Washington, DC 11/06/2010
Mayra Lewis-Garcia Compton, CA 11/06/2010
Mike Moore Edinburgh, United Kingdom 11/06/2010
John Ruscigno Brooklyn, NY 11/06/2010
Marta Barahona Madrid, CA 11/06/2010
Brenda W port colborne, CA 11/07/2010
Laura Broenink Amersfoort, Netherlands 11/07/2010
Penni Norman Des Moines, IA 11/07/2010
Yasiu Kruszynski Chicago, IL 11/07/2010
Sami Signorino Kokomo, IN 11/07/2010
George Martin Loule, Portugal 11/07/2010
Morgan WEBER Wattrelos, NY 11/07/2010
Jens U. Loehner Hof, Germany 11/07/2010
Iwona Janeczko Warsaw, Poland 11/07/2010
*C* . Mosheim, TN 11/07/2010
Lori Andrews annandale, NJ 11/07/2010
Sandra Seiça Aveiro, Portugal 11/07/2010
Rochat Sylvie La Sarraz, Switzerland 11/07/2010
Deb Brown Raleigh, NC 11/07/2010
Maria F. Verona, Italy 11/07/2010
Chantal Buslot Hasselt, AL 11/07/2010
Laura Tatti Oristano, Italy 11/07/2010
Michelle McCaulley Corrales, NM 11/07/2010
Panagiotis Rigopoulos Patra, 11/07/2010
Jezreel del Rosario Pacifica, CA 11/07/2010
Chelsea Arne Willimantic, CT 11/07/2010
Gilbert Zaragoza Los Angeles, CA 11/07/2010
Tanya Willis Lewes, DE 11/07/2010
Kay Ⓥ HelpSaveAnimals Sax., Germany 11/07/2010
Levin Manabat Portland, OR 11/07/2010
Vanditta Diwakar Suva, HI 11/07/2010
annie cowling DANBURY, CT 11/07/2010
Kelly Cleveland Denver, CO 11/07/2010
Delliana of the Sea Manitou Springs, CO 11/07/2010
annmarie devine burtonport co donegal, Ireland 11/07/2010
JOAN YIELDING ST LOUIS, MO 11/07/2010
Ewa Piasecka Warsaw, 11/07/2010
carmen vasile triuggio, Italy 11/07/2010
Cindy Poulin Thetford Mines, CA 11/07/2010
Paulina Hoppel Poznan, Poland 11/07/2010
Norma Jean Kabirpour Garza San Antonio, TX 11/07/2010
enrico miolli settimo torinese, Italy 11/07/2010
France Dombrowski Quebec City, Canada 11/07/2010
Cindy Brower Chicago, IL 11/07/2010
susann landes berger dachau, Germany 11/07/2010
Joanne Beeson Seattle, WA 11/07/2010
Kate kearney Werrington Downs, Australia 11/07/2010
Susan Esposito Staten Island, NY 11/07/2010
ARTURITU DE SIMONS MEXICO, Mexico 11/07/2010
Ashley Maier Morris, IL 11/07/2010
annette weakley ruckersville, VA 11/07/2010
Jamie Halkyard Auckland, New Zealand 11/07/2010
Emma Wellington Townsville, IA 11/07/2010
Karen Tucker Pensacola, FL 11/07/2010
Sheila Mahon NY, NY 11/07/2010
Sheila Mahon E Stroudsberg, PA 11/07/2010
Mary Ann Clark Weatogue, CT 11/07/2010
Linda London-Burzynski Roswell, GA 11/07/2010
Rebecca Sloan Waihi, WA 11/07/2010
Hanna Erkel Szentendre, Hungary 11/07/2010
Christianna Skoczek Kittery Point, ME 11/07/2010
Gabriele Martinec Dürnkrut, Austria 11/07/2010
I W New york, NY 11/07/2010
Bryan D. Freehling Lahaska, PA 11/07/2010
laurie sudol clarkdale, AZ 11/07/2010
Judy Boone Forest Hill, TX 11/07/2010
elena georgiadou thessaloniki, Greece 11/07/2010
sebastien vigne albi, France 11/07/2010
Herdis Daugbjerg Beaverton, OR 11/07/2010
Julie van Niekerk South Africa, SD 11/07/2010
Michele Mercer Casa Grande, AZ 11/07/2010
sophie painvin samoussy, France 11/08/2010
Elcin Tamolcen Mugla, Turkey 11/08/2010
Isabella Duffy Zernien, Germany 11/08/2010
carlee trent springfield, OH 11/08/2010
Sanja Lalić Valečić Zagreb, LA 11/08/2010
tina mann sutton in ashfield, AL 11/08/2010
Lena Rehberger Grebenhain, Germany 11/08/2010
marleen geudens westerlo, Belgium 11/08/2010
Stephanie Schützinger Hamburg, AL 11/08/2010
Filomena Viana melksham, NY 11/08/2010
Claudia Koehler Mitterndorf, Austria 11/08/2010
Radostina Dubarova Burgas, Bulgaria 11/08/2010
ana maria molina zarzalejo, Spain 11/08/2010
ally Vena ny, NY 11/08/2010
MARIA CHORATTA NICOSIA, Cyprus 11/08/2010
Demeter Fernandez Melbourne, Australia 11/08/2010
Tippers a Ft Pierce, FL 11/08/2010
Michela Messineo Roma, Italy 11/08/2010
Deborah Pattinson Munich, GU 11/08/2010
Peggy Acosta Womelsdorf, PA 11/08/2010
Andrea Oefinger Newtown, CT 11/08/2010
Maria P Dunstable, MA 11/08/2010
Riccardo Ricceri Arezzo, Italy 11/08/2010
Roberta Delfini Ponzone, Italy 11/08/2010
james m nordlund Fargo, ND 11/08/2010
lisa salazar Foster City, CA 11/08/2010
Hege Marit Hostad Elnesvågen, Norway 11/08/2010
Kathy Koloze Dallas, TX 11/08/2010
katira tejeda plano, TX 11/08/2010
Carla Vieira Somerville, MA 11/08/2010
laura raforth rochester, NY 11/08/2010
Fulvia Marino Torre Annunziata, Italy 11/08/2010
Erica Borremans Brussels BELGIUM, MI 11/08/2010
Theresa Vaccaro Plainfield, NJ 11/08/2010
Sandra Hudson-Knapp Poultney, VT 11/08/2010
Beata Toth London, United Kingdom 11/08/2010
Diane Pease Littleton, NH 11/08/2010
sherri isaac ypailanti, MI 11/08/2010
Henri De Decker Tisselt, Belgium 11/08/2010
Denise L. Fords, NJ 11/08/2010
Mackenna Carr Fayetteville, NC 11/08/2010
Melissa Wise Fort Worth, TX 11/08/2010
Pauline Cousins chepstow gwent, United Kingdom 11/08/2010
tom hume sydney New Sout Wales Australia, AL 11/08/2010
Caleb Laieski Phoenix, AZ 11/08/2010
Faith Campbell Ontario, Canada 11/08/2010
Mary Alexander Glen Allen, VA 11/08/2010
Bobbie Murray Raleigh, NC 11/08/2010
Andrea Audia Fairmont, WV 11/08/2010
Lisa Zarafonetis Dallas, TX 11/08/2010
Janet Nelson Mack, CO 11/08/2010
Robert Rodriguez los angeles, CA 11/08/2010
Natasa Delic Belgrade, Serbia 11/09/2010
yael kv Nijmegen, Netherlands 11/09/2010
nicolette ludolphi bremen, DE 11/09/2010
Vivienne Ben-Shir London, United Kingdom 11/09/2010
josephine skitt willenhall, AL 11/09/2010
polly pagan london, United Kingdom 11/09/2010
Martine Derouaux Bruxelles, Belgium 11/09/2010
Camelia Rizolu Munich, Germany 11/09/2010
Michael Dontas Lancaster, PA 11/09/2010
Traci Newcomb Rocky Mount, NC 11/09/2010
Rachel Mangan North Olmsted, OH 11/09/2010
Rebecca Butler Westerly, RI 11/09/2010
sue Schümmer Ulm, DE 11/09/2010
gerlinde palsingh vienna, WY 11/09/2010
Angie Starling Hickory, NC 11/09/2010
J R Buzet, Croatia 11/09/2010
Paulo Magalhaes New York, NY 11/09/2010
Julie Goldman Chesterfield, MO 11/09/2010
Barbara McNamara Joppa, MD 11/09/2010
Stephanie Malara Carlsbad, NM 11/09/2010
Cynthia Henley Houston, TX 11/09/2010
Angelika Stratiichuk Ourem, Portugal 11/09/2010
Kaji Siva Toronto, Canada 11/09/2010
Suni Ibarra Rohnert Park,, CA 11/09/2010
Darlene Davis Detroit, MI 11/09/2010
Sophia Paraschou alexandroupolis, Greece 11/09/2010
Lori Kegler San Pedro, CA 11/09/2010
Arthur Liles China Grove, NC 11/10/2010
Irena Gabut Krakow, Poland 11/10/2010
Lorri Makela Angel Fire, NM 11/10/2010
Mike Schena parkcity, IL 11/10/2010
Kristy Mitchell Stephenville, TX 11/10/2010
Thorsten Kassebeer Eime, Germany 11/10/2010
Tracey Horne palmerston north, New Zealand 11/10/2010
DR THEODORA MANOLAS JACKSON HEIGHTS, NY 11/10/2010
sarah vanbelle bruxelles, Belgium 11/11/2010
Anita Clemmer Jessup, MD 11/11/2010
annmarie stocker haughton, LA 11/11/2010
Leila Jackson Beverly Hills, CA 11/12/2010
michael stemple pickerington, OH 11/12/2010
Per Ingebrigtsen Bergen norge, Norway 11/12/2010
Jennifer Bates Chevy Chase, MD 11/12/2010
Henriette Matthijssen Boyle, Alberta,, Canada 11/13/2010
Sudershan Dhandharia Kolkatta, India 11/13/2010
chris beal louth, TX 11/13/2010
Satvir S Chaudhry Panchkula, India 11/14/2010
Wendy Forster Manchester, United Kingdom 11/14/2010
Matsi Yasei McKinney, TX 11/14/2010
marilyn miller la mesa, CA 11/15/2010
Social Service Delhi, IN 11/15/2010
abhijit das kolkata, India 11/16/2010
Tulula Fanjoy Casa Grande, AZ 11/16/2010
Susannah Kegler San pedro, CA 11/17/2010
Pamela Bonaventura Taormina, Italy 11/19/2010
Sanja Tamarut Rijeka, Croatia 11/20/2010
Colleen Klaum Allentown, PA 11/20/2010
De Andre Nickens Los Angeles, CA 11/20/2010
Joan E Loza Mobry Madison, WI 11/20/2010
Marely Rios Spring, TX 11/20/2010
Pia Mustonen Tampere, Finland 11/21/2010

 

 

 

 

Take Action : OIPA Moved PIL in Supreme Court of India to Ban Animal Sacrifice - Sukanya Kadyan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appeal to Smt. Maneka Gandhi to Support PIL No. 381 of 2010 to Ban Cow Slaughter - Sukanya Kadyan