First a high court judge sentences a Supreme Court judge; now lower courts will dictate governments on policy making: Madras high court stay on Government order

It was not too long after a Kolkata high court judge C S Karnan sentenced the Supreme Court judge explicitly, that this news made it to the headlines. The Madras high court makes another landmark by putting a stay on the Center’s order on banning sale of cattle for slaughter. And this was on a PIL submitted in the court within just days from the release of the Center’s order.  This might be one of the fastest PIL trials the country has ever seen.

But why has the lower court decided to stay on the Center’s order even without consulting with the Center. No representative of the Center was asked an explanation on the case and the court gave the verdict in the litigants’ favor. Or maybe this was just a show by the State government to ease the tension owing to the ban inside their state. Clearly this case has showed that any order from the Center can be rolled back or made ineffective in a sense.

This is particularly important to note since any state that does not have a majority of the ruling Central party can easily create a problem. When we look at our history states that did not obey the orders of the ruling emperor were taken very seriously and in some cases it also led to military coups to dismantle the tension. Such a knee jerk reaction was to ensure that other states take example from them and obey the order. But here this incident is not only raising questions on the governments’ hold on the people but their capability to govern such situations. Firstly the incident of the public slaughter of an animal in Kannur was disturbing and now this stay order is staring the Center in the face.

The problem started from the Center as they did not consult the states before releasing the order. A sudden decision will always attract such a reaction from the people. Or else the Center should have done this in an indirect way using a different methodology. The Center could have demanded a particular tax on the purchase of cattle for slaughter. Another way is to reduce the prices of meat available from government abattoirs. Thereby the problem of illegal slaughter houses and the problem of scarcity of milch cows are also solved.

The farmers have a dual income by using livestock for milk as well as for meat. This has been the practice of farmers throughout history. The government could allow the easy sale of livestock that is healthy to government abattoirs at a higher rate and thereby solve the problem of farmers. But the stay order of the high court should be questioned by the Center to elicit an explanation regarding the abrupt and sudden decision. And also the PILs that come up should be monitored to ensure that they do not contempt the Central Government or condemn its approach. Such PILs can dilute the image of the government and thereby create a dangerous situation of anarchy. People will question every single move of the government and not obey the government. It is true that a tree that grows bigger than the house is dangerous to the house itself. Let’s not be that tree.