Few Days ago Uttar Pradesh government passed a UP prevention of law slaughter (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 The main objective of this ordinance is to preventing the slaughtering of cow and protect the sentiment of Hinduism . Some of the provision of Ordinance are follows a:

1. Section 3 of the principal Acts prohibits cow slaughter, or its attempt or abetment, and Section 5 of the Act prohibits sale or transport of beef. Violation of these provisions is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.
    
2. Through this Ordinance, the government has enhanced the maximum punishment for both the offences with rigorous imprisonment of a minimum term of 3 years which may extend up to 10 years, and fine of minimum Rs. 3 lakh and maximum Rs. 5 lakh. In case of repeated offenders, the punishment prescribed above will stand doubled.
    
3. The name and photo of a person accused for violation of Section 5 will be published at any such important place in the locality where the accused normally resides or at such public place where he hides himself from the law enforcement," the press release issued by the Government states

The Ordinance further fixes liability on the driver and owner of the vehicle that is used to transport beef. It provides that if beef is found in a vehicle or it is discovered that cows are being transported illegally, the driver and the owner of the vehicle shall be charged for cow slaughter, unless they prove that they had no knowledge of the same.

Critical Analysis of Ordinance Our preamble states that India is a secular.... country.

But This amendment show the intention and motive of government they want to gain a vote bank through Majority appeasement why they does want to ban the slaughtering of Pork . Slaughtering of beef is also sin in the Islam.

In the case of SR Bommai v Union of India while delivering  the verdict Supreme Court Observed that Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. While freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons in India, from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person is immaterial.

To the State, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters of State, religion has no place. No political party can simultaneously be a religious party. Politics and religion cannot be mixed. Any State Government which pursues unsecular policies or unsecular course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356.

Whether Right to eat beef includes the right to eat through Article 21 In our Constitution Article 21 is a one of the major Article which protected various rights of citizen as well as non Citizen now question whether the right to eat a beef of cow is a fundamental right protected under Article 21.

My view is that:
The Term right to personal liberty means a personal liberty of individual what he she eat, wear it should not be decided by the any one even though state that Is why Ban on beef is a violation of Article 21 In the case of In 1996, in Hasmattullah v State of Madhya Pradesh case the MP imposed total ban on slaughter of bull and bullock but Supreme Court quashed it saying cattle above the age of 16 years are of no use for breeding, draught and agricultural purpose hence slaughter could not be banned as it is unreasonable and violate the right to trade and profession.

Cow protection under Directive principle of state policy It is defined in Article 48A.
It reads as follows:
The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle As I earlier states that Right to beef includes a right to eat through Article 21 but cow must not be useful to giving milk.

Thus We can says that Both Article are inconsistent of each other Fundamental Rights are for individual rights while Directive principle of state policy is a duty of states When the Rights and Duties will Clash than obviously Fundamental Rights will prevail Because Article 37 Clearly states that Application of the principles contained in this Part The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws So from the language of Article 37 it is clear that Directions given from Article 36 to 51 can not be enforceable by court while if we talk about the Article 21.

It is under the fundamental rights and in the case of violation of any fundamental rights individual Can directly approach supreme Court under Article 32 or high court under Article 226 And publishing the identity of accused persons is a violation of his / her privacy under Article 21 of Indian Constitution and during disclosing of identity of CAA protestor by state government Allahabad high court said same thing So to sum up I want to says that Such type of laws for appeasement of vote bank of hindu bigots can not be allowed Our constitution give us Article 21 to live with own choice now what anyone will eat , wear it should not be decided by the government.

 End-Notes:

1. https://ijlpp.com/cow-slaughter-in-india/
2. https://www.counterview.net/2015/10/gandhi-opposed-ban-on-cow-slaughter.html
3. AIR 1996 SC 2076