The Supreme Court on Friday took a strong stance against the Assam government while hearing a case involving the transportation of beef, remarking that the state “should have better things to do” than pursuing such cases. The bench, comprising Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, stayed the criminal proceedings against the accused and scheduled the next hearing for April 16.
The case revolves around a man accused of transporting beef in Assam. During the hearing, the state’s counsel informed the court that after intercepting the transportation, the meat was sent to a forensic lab for testing because the driver was unable to clarify the exact nature of the product.
However, the bench expressed skepticism over the state’s actions, questioning the feasibility of identifying the type of meat with the naked eye. “How will a person know if it is beef or some other meat? If a person is in possession, how will he recognize the meat of which animal it is? Naked eyes cannot differentiate between them,” remarked the bench.
The accused’s counsel argued that his client was merely a warehouse owner who had transported packaged raw meat and had no knowledge of its contents. Referring to Section 8 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, the bench clarified that the provision could only be invoked if the accused had prior knowledge that the meat being sold was beef.
The state’s counsel countered by alleging that the accused was involved in the packaging and selling of the meat, but the court remained unconvinced, emphasizing that the case required further deliberation before proceeding.
“This is not something the state should be focusing its resources on. There are more pressing matters that deserve attention,” the bench stated, highlighting concerns over the proportionality of state action in such cases.
The Supreme Court’s comments underscore the ongoing debate around cattle preservation laws and the enforcement of beef bans in certain states. By staying the proceedings and posting the matter for further hearing in April, the court signaled its intent to scrutinize the legal grounds of the case more thoroughly.
