New Delhi, Aug. 25: The Supreme Court today said that yesterday's nine-judge verdict declaring privacy a fundamental right could have a bearing on the Maharashtra government's ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks last year.

"Of course, the judgment will have an impact on these cases.... If necessary, we may refer these cases to a larger bench," the bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan told a batch of petitioners.

"I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State what they should eat or how they should dress," Justice J. Chelameswar, a member of the nine-judge bench, had observed in his separate but concurring judgment yesterday.

Today, the two-judge bench was hearing pleas against a Bombay High Court verdict of May 2016 that upheld Maharashtra's ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks while quashing the outlawing of the possession of beef and its import from outside the state. (Cow slaughter has been banned in the state since 1976.)

Scores of butchers and meat sellers had challenged the ban on bull and bullock slaughter, arguing it violated their fundamental rights to eat what they wanted and to carry out their profession. The Maharashtra government too had appealed against the high court judgment's quashing of the ban on beef possession and import.

During today's brief hearing, senior advocate C.U. Singh, appearing for the meat sellers and butchers, said the court needed to look afresh at the Maharashtra law in the light of yesterday's verdict.

He added that a re-look was needed also at an October 2005 ruling by a seven-judge Supreme Court bench that upheld a ban on the slaughter of cows and bulls in Gujarat. Senior advocate Indira Jaising endorsed Singh's stand.

Justice Sikri, who headed the two-judge bench, said the court would take the matter up after two weeks and decide whether it should be referred to a "larger bench" - the standard practice when it came to interpreting a constitution bench judgment.

Bombay High Court had described as "unconstitutional" the provision that mere possession of beef was a crime in Maharashtra, citing the right to choice of food, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It had said that only "conscious possession" of the meat of bovine animals slaughtered in the state would be an offence.

It had ruled that when a person procures beef from a place where it is legal to eat and possess the meat, the law cannot prohibit him from eating it in Maharashtra.

"A citizen has a right to lead a meaningful life within the four corners of his house as well as outside his house. The state cannot prevent a citizen from possessing and consuming a particular type of food which is not injurious to health (or obnoxious)," it had said.

"Preventing a citizen from possessing flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered outside the state amounts to prohibiting a citizen from possessing and consuming food of his choice."

However, it upheld the ban on bovine slaughter, rejecting the argument from butchers and meat sellers that it violated their fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), to carry out any profession or trade.

"The legislature felt that it is necessary to preserve and protect agricultural animals like bulls and bullocks. Even after these animals cease to be useful for the purpose of breeding or even if they become too old to do work, it is stated that such bulls or bullocks continue to give dung for fuel, manure and biogas and, therefore, they cannot be said to be useless," it said.

"The legislature is the best judge of what is good for the community. The legislative wisdom cannot be doubted only because some other view is possible."

The high court rejected the plea of some petitioners that animal sacrifice was an integral part of certain religions.