Modified sex

Modified sex

writ petition of non-vegetarians

“Gujarat is vegetarian,” said Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in an interview with Wall Street Journal. In fact, more than 70 percent people (including Dalits, Tribals, Muslims, OBC) are non-vegetarian. The Vaghris and Chharas who were used by Modi in genocide, 2002 are pakka non-vegetarian and Vaghris are retail sellers of fish. Young generation of Patels, Bania and Brahmins are semi-non-vegetarian. They eat eggs and omelets.  

In an interesting legal battle Gujarat’s most prominent legal luminary senior advocate Girish Patel raised concrete issues in a writ petition moved before Gujarat High Court. In 1993 Gujarat government closed slaughter houses during Paryushan, a festival of Jains. I was one of the petitioners in the petition which prayed for stay against indiscriminate closure of slaughter houses. Gujarat High Court gave stay order. Here is the complete text of the PIL.

Rajesh (Raju) Solanki    

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.

Special Civil Application No. of 1993.

Dist. Ahmedabad City

1.      Rajeshbhai Himatlal Solanki,
Secretary,

Jati Nirmulam Sanklan Samiti,
Vivek Bhuvan, Patni Sheri,
Gheekanta Road, Ahmedabad.

                 & Others                                 ... Petitioners.

V/s.

1.          State of Gujarat,

(Notice through its Secretary,
Urban Development and Urban
Housing Department,
Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar.

2.          Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation,
through Municipal Commissioner,
Danapith, Ahmedabad.

3.          Municipal Corporation, Surat,
through Municipal Commissioner,

        Muglisara, Surat.                            ... Respondents.

In the Matter of Articles

14. 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the
constitution of India.

AND

In the matter of Art. 226 of
the constitution of India,

AND

In the matter of the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporation
Act.

The Humble Petition of the Petitioners
above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The petitioners, in this petition, challenge the direction given by the Government of Gujarat and decision of the respondent Nos. 2 end 3 to close down all municipal slaughter-houses from 12.9.93 to 19.9.93 on account of the Jain festival 'Paryushan' on the ground that the said actions are violative of the petitioners right to carry on trade or occupation under Art. 19 (1) (g) subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of general public and right to life and personal liberty under Art. 21 of the constitution of India.

 2. All the petitioners are citizens of India and are entitled to all the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

3. The Petitioner NO.1 represents a large number of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and others who work for a secular and liberal society from Varnashram and religious discrimination. The petitioner NO.2 is running a hotel which also supplies non-vegetarian foods to the customers. The petitioner No.3 is running a shop for the purpose of selling mutton. The petitioner NO.4 is a Dalit organization.

4. The petitioners state that the respondent No.2, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the respondent No.3, Surat Municipal Corporation own run and manage slaughter- houses and employ their own staff for the said purpose. The cattle are brought here by the various traders and businessmen and slaughtered hero. Thereafter, the mutton is sold to the public. Chapter XIX of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Herein after referred to as the 'Act') provides for maintenance and regulation of market and slaughter houses.

Sec.63 of the Act provides for the obligatory duties of the corporation. They include the construction or acquisition and maintenance of public markets as slaughter-houses and the regulation of all markets and slaughter-houses (Item 12) of Sec. 63(1).

Sec.466 provides that "The Commissioner may make Standing Orders consistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws in respect of the following matters.

(D)(b) Fixing the days and the hours on and during which any market, laughter- house or stock-yard may be held or kept open for use and prohibiting the owner of any private market from keeping it closed without lawful excuse on such days or during such hours."

5. The petitioners state that in the State of Gujarat and in the two cities of Ahmedabad and Surat, thousands of people are carrying on the Thousands of people are also depending upon the various activities connected with this. Lacs of people of various communities eat non-vegetarian foods either at home or at hotels.

6. The petitioners state that the Corporation generally keeps the slaughter-houses closed for some isolated days and the people cannot have much objection if 'that power is exercised reasonably. For example, Municipal Commissioner in Ahmedabad made a Standing Order in 1956 fixing 4 days as holidays on which the municipal slaughter houses shall remain closed. By an amendment to the Standing Order affected on 17.9.65, 3 more days were added, thus making a total list of 7 days in a year on which the municipal laughter-houses were to be kept closed. So far as the closing of slaughter- houses on some isolated days in a year is concerned nobody can have any objection. 

However, recently some political parties and groups took up a case of allegedly illegal slaughter-houses after the brutal killing of Smt. Gitaben Shah, an active worker of Hinsa Nivaran Organization. If the illegal slaughter-houses are going on, they should be stopped and the petitioners cannot have any objection. However, the problem assumed opportunistic political dimensions, wherein the various political parties, particularly the ruling Congress party and the B.J.P. are vying with each other to secure popular support by inciting people against slaughtering of animal even though such slaughtering is illegal. The Jain community particularly is one of the powerful communities in Gujarat. As a result of various pressures from some sections of the society, the Government of Gujarat wrote a letter dated 4.9.93 to the Municipal Commissioners of Ahmedabad, Surat, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Jamnagar Municipal Corporations directing them to close the slaughter-houses from 12.9.93 to 19.9.93 and on 30.9.93 on account of the Jain festival of Paryushan.A true copy of this letter dated 4.9.93 annexed hereto and marked as Annex. 'A'. 

 7. The petitioners state that the Standing Committee of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation passed a resolution on 3.9.93 to the effect that the municipal slaughter-houses shall be closed from 12.9.93 to 19.9.93 subject to the approval of Municipal Corporation. A true copy of this letter dated 3.9.93 is annexed hereto and marked as Annex. '8'. Similarly, the Standing Committee of Surat Municipal Corporation, the respondent NO.3 passed a resolution on 8.9.93 to the effect that the slaughter-houses shall be closed from 12.9.93 to 19.9.93 and on 30.0.93. A true copy of the said Resolution dated 8.9.93 is annexed hereto and marked as Annex. 'C'.

 8. The petitioners state that as a result of these resolutions, the municipal slaughter- houses in the city of Ahmedabad and Surat will remain closed from 12.9.93 to 19.9.93 i.e. for 9 days at a stretch. The result would be that for total 9 days, all municipal Slaughter-houses will remain closed. The businesses of the people would be totally stopped for 9 days and the hotels also would be deprived of the business and the people will not be able to have non-vegetarian foods for continuous 9 days.

9. Being aggrieved by the said decisions of the Ahmedabad and Surat Municipal Corporations; the petitioners challenge the same on the following amongst other grounds.

10. The petitioners submit that the resolution of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation at Annex. B and resolution of Surat Municipal Corporation at Annex. C and the directions of the Government of Gujarat at Annex. A are irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and impose unreasonable restrictions upon the rights of the petitioners to carryon business under Art. 19(1)(g) and are also violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and are malafide and by way of colourable exercise of power and are illegal, null and void.

11. The petitioners further submit that the decisions of the two Municipal Corporations to keep the slaughter-houses closed for completely 9 consecutive days completely prohibiting the businesses of the people who are engaged in this business for 9 consecutive days. By doing so, they impose exclusively unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on trade, occupation etc., under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and such restrictions are not in the interest of the general public at all. The petitioners submit that it is only a small section of the people who demands the closure of the slaughter-houses for 9 consecutive days. On the other hand, the vast majority of the people do eat non-vegetarian food and the decisions of the Corporations deprive them of their freedom to eat non-vegetarian food. Moreover, the Jain community or any other community is entitled to practice and profess their own religion including 'Ahimsa', but that cannot justify the infliction of their philosophy or their religion upon the entire community. Even though the philosophy of non- violence is a laudable philosophy, it is highly controversial in relation to the question of slaughter of animals and the eating of non- vegetarian foods are concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the said resolutions of the Corporations totally prohibit the carrying on the profession of the people including the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for consecutive 9 days inflicting a heavy loss upon them. The said restrictions are really prohibition and are not reasonable and they are certainly not in the interest of general public. The petitioners, therefore, submit that the resolutions at Annex. 'B' & 'C' and order or the Government at Annex. 'A' are violative of the Fundamental Right of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and other similarly situated to carryon trade, occupation etc., under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and are not saved by the exception of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution of India.

12. The petitioners further submit that lacs of people in Gujarat and the petitioners themselves are non-vegetarian. Substantial numbers of them depend upon mutton for their protien and for nutrition. Large number of them is habituated to eat non-vegetarian food every day. To eat any foods a person likes is a part of his personal liberty and unless it is prohibited on constitutionally permissible grounds, this opportunity cannot be taken away. The petitioners submit that the resolutions of the two Corporations deprive thousands of people of their daily non-vegetarian food and deny the exercise of personal freedom with respect to food to the large number of them without any fair, just and reasonable procedure and, therefore, are violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, right to life includes right to eat any food one likes which according to him supports and maintains him. The State has no right to deprive the people of any such food which is nutritious for the people and which people consider to be a nutritious. On this ground also, the resolutions of the two Corporations are violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

13. The petitioners further submit that the Supreme Court of India in Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad vIs. Jan Mohmad (AIR 1986, S.C. p. 1025) has upheld the validity of the Standing Orders of the Commissioner of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation declaring certain days as holidays for the slaughter-houses. However, the said case is completely different from the present case because in the said case, some 7 isolated days were declared as holidays and the Supreme Court recognized to be reasonable restrictions. One of the main grounds for holding them as reasonable is that declaring of holidays gives facility to the municipal staff working in the municipal slaughter-house. In regard to some 4 days, the Court considered that these days are not only days of festival, but also as days for abstinence from meat and, therefore, the Supreme Court did not consider those days as ill-chosen holidays. In the present case, the respondent Corporations have exceeded their powers and declared 9 consecutive days for closing the slaughter-houses. There is a qualitative difference between choosing some days as holidays and closing slaughter-houses for 9 consecutive days. In regard to former, the petitioners cannot have any objection and the people also do respect the feelings of others, but in the later case, the so-called restrictions exceed the limits of reasonableness and impose a total prohibition of slaughter-houses for 9 consecutive days. Such closure cannot be justified as reasonable restrictions. The petitioners, therefore, submit that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the above case is not applicable to the present which is completely different from that case.

14. The petitioners further submit that under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, under Sec. 466, it is the Commissioner who makes Standing Orders for various matters enumerated therein including the matter relating to slaughter-house. According to the documents available to the petitioners, it is the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation in both the cases which has passed the resolutions closing the slaughter-houses for 9 days. It is submitted that these resolutions are ultra vires the Standing Committee and, therefore, are illegal, null and void because it is the only Municipal Commissioner who can make Standing Orders regarding the same and not the Standing Committee.

15. The petitioners further submit that the resolutions by the Standing Committee of the Corporations are exclusively politically motivated and directed against the particular community alone which is wrongly identified with the slaughtering of animals and eating non- vegetarian food. The resolutions are the result of an unreasonable intolerance on the part of the people who control the Corporations towards the other ways of life followed by different sections of the society. These resolutions are passed not in the interest of general public, but for appeasing the particular community only and a particular ideology. It should be noted here that the country is facing the threat of extreme religious fundamentalism and particularly of the majority community. One can understand the actions against illegal slaughter-houses. One can also understand the implementation of Art. 48 which incorporate one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy, but one cannot condone and justify the extreme intolerance towards the ideologies, beliefs, practice and ways of life of different communities and sections of the society. It would mean nothing but imposition 0,1 one's way of life and one's way of thinking. That is why the Supreme Court of India observed in A.I.R. 1970, S.C. p. 93 as under;-

''The sentiments of a section of the people may be hurt by permitting slaughter of bulls and bullocks in premises maintained by a local authority, but a prohibition imposed on the exercise of a Fundamental Right to carryon an occupation, trade or business will not be regarded as reasonable if it is imposed not in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the people whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant." 

In the present case, it is not merely one or few individuals who are denied their freedom but a large number of people in Gujarat who are denied their freedom both with respect to eating habits and business only in order to satisfy the desires of a small community. The petitioners, therefore, submit that these resolutions passed by the respondent Corporations are absolutely unreasonable and as a result of extraneous considerations and are, therefore, by way of abuse of power, illegal, null and void.

16. The petitioners further submit that Sec. 466 confers power upon the Commissioner to make Standing Orders for various matters enumerated therein. One such power is in relation to "fixing the days and hours on and during which any market, slaughter-house or stock-yard may be held or kept open for use." The petitioners submit that the Commissioner while exercising this power must act within the limits of the Constitution and the Act. However, if the said section and the clause are not capable of this interpretation, the petitioners submit that Clause 0(8) of Sec. 467 confers unbridled and, unrestricted power upon the Municipal. Commissioner without any guidelines and, therefore, is by way of excessive delegation and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitition of India. In so far as it also permits the Municipal Corporation to totally prohibit the slaughering of animals and closing slaughter-houses for a number of days, it is violative also of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, further submit that in so far as the said Clause permits the Municipal Corporation to close down slaughter-house for any number of days and deprive the people of their right to life and personal liberty in respect of food, it is unfair, unreasonable and unjust and, therefore, violative
of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

17. The petitioners further submit that the Government by issuing an order dated 4.9.93 directing all the Corporation to close slaughter- houses from 12.9.93 to 19.9.93 has acted illegally and without authority of law and violated the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners and others under Articles 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the constitution of India. The said order of the Government is absolutely illegal and ultra-vires.

The respondent Corporations have been pressurized by the said Govt. Order in exercise of their power and have abdicated their functions under the Act.

18. The petitioners, having no other alternative efficacious and adequate remedy at law, approach Your Lordships under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and pray that Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order –

  

A. Declaring clause D (b) of Sec.466 of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India;

B. Declaring the resolutions of the Corporations at Annex. 'B' & 'C' and the order of the

Government at Annex. 'A' as irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and unauthorized and

violative of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, illegal, null and void;

C. Restraining the respondents from acting upon the said resolutions and from taking any

action in pursuance thereof;

D. Directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners and others similarly situated for violation of Fundamental Rights under Arts(s) 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India & 

E.  Making any other appropriate order.

19. The petitioners state and submit that they have a very good prime facie case, their fundamental right is violated, the decisions are ex-facie unconstitutional, the balance of convenience is in their favour and if the interim relief is granted, no irreparable damage will be done to the respondents and if interim relief is not granted, the petitioners will suffer an irreparable damage.

20. The petitioners therefore, prays that during the pendency and till the final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant interim relief -

        1. Directing the respondents to suspend the resolutions at Annex. 'B' & 'C';

        2.  Restraining the respondents from enforcing the said resolutions at Annex. 'B' & 'C' and from

             taking any action in pursuance thereto; and

         3. Granting any other appropriate relief. 

21. The petitioners have not filed any other petition either in the Hon'ble Supreme Court or in this Court or in any other Court in respect of the subject matter of this petition.

22. The petitioners crave leave to amend the Memo of Petition as and when necessary to do so.

                                                                                          Ahmedabad, (Girish Patel)

                                                                                    /9/94.  Advocate for the Petitioners.

Inaugeration of dossier

Prof. Varish Alvi, veteran Urdu writer and critique,inaugurating 'Dossier', a little magazine published by Jati Nirmula Samity in Manibai Hall, Ahmedabad. On his left Valjibhai Patel, Dalit leader and on right side is Manishi Jani, leader of Navnirman movement and one of the compilers of first collection of Dalit poems in Gujarati and editor Raju Solanki. D. 14 December, 1997.

                                                                                      Dog

                                                                              when I see him

                                                                              standing in the urinal

                                                                              Sacred thread entwined on his ear

                                                                              in my mind emerges

                                                                              an image of a dog

                                                                              pissing

                                                                              with its hind leg lifted

                                                                                (from Dossier)

The rise and fall of Patels

Patels are a powerful community of Gujarat. Today they call themselves ‘Patidar’, but before independence they were slaves of Girasdars (Darbars or Kshatriyas) and mere tillers and tenant cultivators of their lands. According to caste system (वर्णव्यवस्था) of Hindus, Patels were Shudras (शुद्र). And like other Shudras, derogatory words were used for Patel, too. They were called Kanabi (कणबी). Sarth Gujarati Jodanikosh (सार्थ गुजराती जोडणीकोश), the first dictionary of Gujarati language published by Gujarat Vidhyapith, an institution founded by Gandhiji, had given meaning of Kanabi as ‘coward and weak’ (बायलो अने अशक्त पुरुष). 

In 1952, the Saurashtra land reforms act gave occupancy rights to 55000 Patels over 12.0 lakh acres of land, out of 29.0 lakh acres held by Girasdars, spread in 1726 villages all over Saurashtra. As chief beneficiary of land reforms and subsequently fattened by crop of groundnut, cotton, cumin and other cash crops and later graduating as promoters of cotton ginning and edible oil mills, the Saurashtra Patel lobby, known as Telia Raja's or more appropriately oil mafia, have come to occupy the position of dominant caste in the politics of Gujarat.

 

Since 1981, Patels (with Baniyas and Brhamins) were politically, economically and culturally de facto rulers of Gujarat. Emergence of KHAM (Kshtriya-Harijan-Adivasi-Muslim) theory propagated by congress started challenging upper caste domination and exclusion of Patels in the ministry of Madhavsingh Solanki’s cabinet only echoed this process. The political isolation of Patels inspired them to take active part in subsequent anti-reservation movements and in lending support to rightist Bhartiya Janta Party. 

Since 1981 Patels are an important community in the strategy of right wing communalist organisations. Patels aided and provided muscle power to Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Pravin Togadia, the leader of VHP belongs to Saurashtra Patel community. Keshubhai Patel, the chief architect in the political revival of BJP is also Patel from Saurashtra. In Keshubhai, Patels had found post-independence Vallabhbhai, the Sardar. Though, quite rustic, Keshubhai could have been likely choice of Gujarati electorate even after unprecedented calamities like earthquake, had not Shankarsinh Vaghela surprised and shattered the party by his famous Khajurao episode. 

The rift between Vaghela and Patel was ominous for Gujarat, as it paved way for a behind-the-curtain pracharak, a manipulator to grab an opportunity in the power corridor of Gandhinagar. Keshubhai, weakened by Vaghela rebellion, could not fight with the ‘Pracharak’, who was mastermind in manufacturing palace coup d'état. The Paracharak and his organization had been using Patels in communal riots as musclemen since 1985. And during 2002 state-sponsored genocide Patels were in forefront in the killing battlefields of Gujarat. 

The judgements in Ode and Visnagar and the investigations in cases like Naroda Patia have not only highlighted role of Patel community in the riots, it have also enlightened the community leaders that they have been used by BJP and particularly the Pracharak. The formation of a political party by Keshubhai Patel and his aides is strong reaction to this process. The utterances of Keshubhai that “Patels are frightened” are half truth. In fact, he can not commit that “Patels have been used, thrown and hence frightened.” We can not expect a powerful community to confess its own follies. 

Patels have enough resources to manage the mess they have created. What about others who are not going to be benefited by this tussle between Patels and the Pracharak. The recent convention of Rohits (a sc community) invited Keshubhai Patel as chief guest has shown that Dalits are becoming party to a stupid tussle and Dalits have not realized that neither Patels nor Pracharak want to uplift them.