<p>Both the Opposition parties, the Congress and the JD(S), vehemently opposed the bill -- the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010 - and termed it as draconian.<br /><br />Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa said the Government has no intention to harm anybody’s interest. The rules, under the bill, have been proposed to be made stringent only to ensure the complete ban. However, Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah disagreed. “Only to harm a particular community, the bill has been tabled. It is anti-constitutional and anti-secularism,” he alleged.<br /><br />After a marathon debate for over five hours, the Speaker put the bill to voice vote and the House passed it. Earlier, senior Congress leader T B Jayachandra alleged the provisions of the bill was anti-poor and anti-farmer and could also be misused for harassing people. <br /><br />The members contented that it was not right to infringe upon the rights of the people. Further, the Government was under the impression that only members of a certain community consumed beef. In reality beef was preferred by the poor as it was available at a much cheaper rate than other meat.<br /><br />Jayachandra said Section 5 of the Bill even prohibited possession of beef or beef products. “That means I cannot even buy imported canned beef and store it in my refrigerator. If I do that, I can be arrested. Is this not draconian,” he asked.<br /><br />Roshan Baig said several sections in the bill including power of search and seizure and restriction on transport of cattle could be misused to target the minorities. D K Shivakumar said thousands would be rendered unemployed following a ban of cow slaughter. Besides, leather industry would be severely hit.<br /><br />The new bill among others enhances the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the 1964 Act from the present fine of Rs 1,000 and six months imprisonment, to a maximum fine of Rs 50,000 and seven years imprisonment. The Bill, however, couldn’t receive the assent of the Council which was adjourned sine die. <br /></p>
<p>Both the Opposition parties, the Congress and the JD(S), vehemently opposed the bill -- the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010 - and termed it as draconian.<br /><br />Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa said the Government has no intention to harm anybody’s interest. The rules, under the bill, have been proposed to be made stringent only to ensure the complete ban. However, Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah disagreed. “Only to harm a particular community, the bill has been tabled. It is anti-constitutional and anti-secularism,” he alleged.<br /><br />After a marathon debate for over five hours, the Speaker put the bill to voice vote and the House passed it. Earlier, senior Congress leader T B Jayachandra alleged the provisions of the bill was anti-poor and anti-farmer and could also be misused for harassing people. <br /><br />The members contented that it was not right to infringe upon the rights of the people. Further, the Government was under the impression that only members of a certain community consumed beef. In reality beef was preferred by the poor as it was available at a much cheaper rate than other meat.<br /><br />Jayachandra said Section 5 of the Bill even prohibited possession of beef or beef products. “That means I cannot even buy imported canned beef and store it in my refrigerator. If I do that, I can be arrested. Is this not draconian,” he asked.<br /><br />Roshan Baig said several sections in the bill including power of search and seizure and restriction on transport of cattle could be misused to target the minorities. D K Shivakumar said thousands would be rendered unemployed following a ban of cow slaughter. Besides, leather industry would be severely hit.<br /><br />The new bill among others enhances the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the 1964 Act from the present fine of Rs 1,000 and six months imprisonment, to a maximum fine of Rs 50,000 and seven years imprisonment. The Bill, however, couldn’t receive the assent of the Council which was adjourned sine die. <br /></p>