Shouldn't Gau Rakshaks be banned? A PIL urges SC to examine

My friend / Lawyer @vakeel_sb sent me the diary number for my #PILagainstGauRakshaks.
Have asked for a ban on thee vigilantes. 27263/16

— Tehseen Poonawalla (@tehseenp) August 13, 2016

Poonawalla is known to be a pro-Congress voice in TV debates as well as on social media. However, the Congress party has not officially associated itself with this PIL. Poonawalla told Catch his PIL has nothing to do with the fact that cow-slaughter is banned in a large number of states. It merely tries to impress upon the top court that it is the job of the police to deal with such cases and not individuals and organisations.

Poonawalla says when Modi recently told the 'Gau Rakshaks ' to shoot him but not to harass Dalits, it was a sign of weakness on his party because he should have actually called for action against those violating the Constitution. "But since he failed to do so, I have moved the Hon'ble SC", he declared. He also added that though the Prime Minister has admitted that 80% of these 'Gau Rakshaks ' are anti-social elements, he has not disclosed that when he was chief minister of Gujarat he encouraged these groups and also gave them monetary rewards.

Parallel with Salwa Judum

Interestingly, Poonawalla's PIL seeks inspiration from the SC's historic Salwa Judum, judgment which had declared Chhattisgarh government's hiring of vigilantes to fight Maoists as illegal. It argues that various state governments have enacted laws that grant protection to such vigilante groups and "act as a catalyst to violence perpetrated" by them. "This Hon'ble Court has directed to disband such groups in case of Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh as reported in (2011) 7 SCC 547", says the PIL.

It goes on to say that the cow vigilante groups are "operating beyond the realm of law" and their acts are punishable under "various provisions of IPC as well as under Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989".

State backing for vigilantes

The PIL has made the Union government as well as several state governments respondents. These include BJP-governed Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Haryana, Congress-governed Karnataka and Samajwadi Party-governed Uttar Pradesh. The prayer to the SC is to order these governments to take immediate action against "Cow Protection Groups indulging in violence". It also appeals to the court to issue directions to remove "violent content" uploaded on social media platforms by such groups.

For example, the PIL mentions, the Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1956 ordains "all persons exercising powers" under it "deemed to be public servants" and grants them immunity from any legal action. It assumes that their actions would have been committed in good faith. Similar provisions exist in the Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976, and Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964.

The PIL also cites the Gujarat Animal Prevention (Amendment) Rules, 2011 under which the state government also gives authority to office-bearers of Panjarapol (Jain cow shelters), infirmaries, gaushalas, Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Animal Welfare Organisations.

It also refers to a central notification, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001, which provides for establishment of "Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" and gives it the power to search and seize animals as well as the licenses of the people found involved. The PIL appeals to the SC to declare the relevant sections of these laws as unconstitutional.

Also Read: Haryana cow commission has Gau Rakshaks as members and a Rs 20 crore fund

Also Read: State vigilantism: Haryana wants Gau Rakshaks to become informers