Hindus should give up halal meat, eat only jhatka: Union Minister Giriraj Singh
Begusarai, Dec 17: Union Rural Development Minister Giriraj Singh on Sunday said Hindus should give up eating halal meat and consume only 'jhatka', the flesh of animals slaughtered by a single blow of the blade.
Singh, a senior BJP leader, made a plea to the effect in his Begusarai parliamentary constituency where he also made his supporters take the pledge that they will henceforth not spoil their 'dharma' by eating halal meat.
Talking to reporters, he said, "I admire the Muslims who make it a point to consume only halal meat. Now Hindus should demonstrate a similar commitment to their own religious traditions."
"The Hindu way of slaughter is jhatka. Whenever Hindus perform 'bali' (animal sacrifice), they do so in a single stroke. As such, they must not corrupt themselves by eating halal meat. They must always stick to jhatka," said Singh.
He also stressed on the need for a new business model in which there would be abattoirs and shops selling only jhatka meat.
Notably, a few weeks ago, Singh had also written a letter to Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar to ban the sale of food products labelled as "halal", drawing inspiration from the Yogi Adityanath government in adjoining Uttar Pradesh.
Replying to another query, the Union minister taunted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for coming out with a "delayed" response to the recent security breach in Parliament.
The BJP leader, however, slammed Gandhi for linking the breach to unemployment and price rise, issues that the persons who entered the premises carrying smoke canisters had sought to highlight.
"It is not the first time that Rahul Gandhi has expressed sympathy towards the 'tukde tukde' gang. On an earlier occasion, he had expressed solidarity with those who raised seditious slogans inside the JNU campus," Singh claimed.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Involvement in criminal case no ground for demolition of property: Supreme Court
New Delhi, Sep 12: Alleged involvement in a crime is no ground to demolish properties, the Supreme Court said on Thursday and ordered a civic body in Gujarat to maintain status quo and not threaten to bulldoze the house of an accused in a criminal case.
Observing that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a country where the law is supreme, the court said it cannot be oblivious to such actions that may be seen as "running a bulldozer over the laws of the land".
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S V N Bhatti said, "In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally-constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for the demolition of a property."
"Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a court of law. The court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise, such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land," it added.
The bench issued a notice to the Gujarat government and the civic body of Kathlal in Kheda district of the state on a plea of one Javedali M Saiyed seeking protection from the proposed demolition.
The court sought the response of the state and the civic body within four weeks.
"In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner's property is to be maintained by all concerned," it ordered.
The petitioner's counsel said three generations of his client's family have been residing in the house for the last two decades.
He said an FIR was registered against one of the family members on September 1 and claimed that the municipal authorities have threatened to bulldoze the petitioner's family house.
The bench noted that the petitioner has referred to a complaint alleging house trespass addressed to the police authorities on September 6, in which the situation was described and it was said that law should take its own course against the person accused of crime.
The order of the bench further took note of the petitioner's contention that the civic body has no reason to either threaten or take any steps, such as using bulldozers, to demolish his legally-constructed and legally-occupied house.
The top court agreed to examine the case and listed it after a month.
