Lakshadweep is an Indian union territory and an archipelago of 36 islands comprising 12 atolls, three reefs, five submerged banks, and 10 inhabited islands, situated off the Malabar coast of India in the Arabian sea at the peak of the Indo-Pacific region. As per article 239(1) of the Indian Constitution, as a union territory, Lakshadweep is directly managed and controlled by the President through an appointed administrator. 

LEGAL EFFECTS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulation, 2021 (LAPG), proposed by the incumbent administrator, strictly prohibits the slaughter of any animal on Lakshadweep without a written certificate issued by the competent authority explicitly certifying the animal as “fit for slaughter”. The legislation explicitly excludes cows, calves, bulls, and bullocks from the condition and completely bans them from being slaughtered, sold, or consumed on the islands.

This legislature has attracted significant opposition and denunciation by the Lakshadweepian residents, activists, ex-administrators, and sympathisers. At first glance, the vehement condemnation for the LAPG seems unwarranted considering  the blanket bans on cow slaughter of the mainland Indian states enacted through respective State legislatures similar to the one in contention. However, there are significant cultural and social variations between the lifestyle of a typical Lakshadweepian and a mainland Indian resident. The majority population of Lakshadweep is Sunni Muslim and traditionally, beef and other non-vegetarian products have been an important part of their routine diet, as the archipelago has a limited availability of fruits, grains, and vegetables. Therefore, completely banning beef without prior consultation with the populace is authoritative, and potentially alters their innate cultural, ethnic, and customary eating habits. This unilateral decision violates their personal liberty to decide as individuals, what they shall consume on their island, guaranteed under the right to life provided in article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, it violates the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of a person, provided in article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enforceable throughout India.

Section 9 of the LAPG also violates the right to privacy guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian Constitution by granting the authorities the right to enter any premises to inspect and ensure compliance with the LAPG, obligating the occupants to provide unhindered access. Moreover, it doesn’t comply with the article 12 of the UDHR, which safeguards people from arbitrary interference with their privacy and in their homes.

Section 10 of the LAPG lays down penalties that can be imposed on an individual such as imprisonment for life for the slaughtering of cow, calves, bulls, and bullocks and a minimum term of seven years just for consuming beef and beef products. 

However, mainland state legislatures merely imposed sanctions of imprisonment for six months to two years maximum, with or without a fine of Rs 10,000. Therefore in comparison the terms of the Lakshadweep legislature, the provisions in LAPG are disproportionate and arbitrary from the outset and do not conform with the provisions of the other state legislatures. 

RECONCILING THE GAP BETWEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Arguably, the LAPG is in line with the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) under article 48 of the Indian Constitution, which calls upon the state to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific lines. Moreover, it explicitly states that the government is obligated to ban slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught animals to safeguard their breeds in the country, because as per article 37 of the Indian Constitution, it is the state’s responsibility to consider the DPSPs stipulated in part IV of the Indian Constitution while drafting policies. The debate centres over whether the DPSPs hold precedence over the fundamental rights pursuant to part III of the Indian Constitution. The question is whether LAPG would be justified by the directive in article 48 of the Indian Constitution despite potentially violating the right to life enshrined in article 21.

However, according to article 37, the directives are mere directions for the government to follow during law-making and so would not hold significant legal weight in the court of law. Hence, an Indian resident is not legally compliant with any DPSP. Moreover, in Minerva Mills Ltd. & Others v. Union Of India, the Supreme Court of India opined that the provisions of both part III and part IV are integral to the Indian constitution, and the government must implement the directives without overriding any right under part III. According to the judgment, as affirmed in Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerela, the balance between the fundamental rights and the DPSPs is a characteristic feature of the Indian constitution, and if disrupted, violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, as the LAPG evades the right to life under article 21, it cannot be considered legitimate merely because it enforces the directive under article 48 of the Indian constitution.

A WAY FORWARD

In the context of the Lakshadweep archipelago, the administrator should have applied the law to protect the productive cows, calves, bulls, and bullocks from slaughter - harvesting only those who can no longer be utilised and have become redundant. Such application could help strike a balance between the numbers of “productive” and “unproductive” cows, calves, bulls, and bullocks on the island, which in turn will keep in check on the growing dependence of the ineffective animals on the scarce resources on the islands. This would result in a win-win situation for the residents and the government. The residents will be allowed to freely consume beef and beef products, and the government will be able to significantly reduce the wastage and enhance the development of vital resources on the islands.

Overall, the LAPG exhibits a reckless and short-sighted approach towards the Lakshadweepian culture, as it fails to consider the eating habits of the islanders that are deeply entrenched in their lifestyles, while violating article 14 of the Indian Constitution due to its arbitrary nature, as defined in Om Kumar v. Union of India – based on the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness - as an act when an authority, while exercising discretion decides without any plausible justification and mandate. 

Kunal Bansal is a High school student, currently studying at Bhavan Vidyalaya Chandigarh, in class 12. He aspires to work in the field of International and Transnational Law and Human rights. He is passionate about issues regarding justice and liberty.

Linkedin