1996 Supreme(SC) 984

1996(4) Supreme 362
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., N.P. Singh and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Hashmattullah -Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8250 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16285 of 1992)
Decided on 10-5-1996
Counsels : Dr. Singhvi.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Total ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks is ultra vires the Constitution of India.
2. Inclusion of bull or bullock in sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 brought about by the Amending Act of 1991 has imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of a butcher s trade and to that extent only the sub-clause is held to be ultra vires.

Headnote:(i) SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS-Constitution of India-Article 19(1)(g)-M.P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991-M.P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959-Section 4(1)(a)-Inclusion of bull or bullock-Total ban imposed on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in State of Madhya Pradesh-Unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights of butcher s trade-Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 held ultra vires-There would be total ban on slaughter of cow, calf of cow and calf of she buffalo-Slaughter of bull or bullock, alongwith other agricultural cattle, shall fall under sub-clause (b) of Section 4(1)-They can be slaughtered after obtaining a certificate contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 4.

       Held : Three different Constitution Benches of this Court in Mohd. Hanif s case, Abdul Hakim s case and Mohd. Faruk s case (supra) have held that total ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks is ultra vires the Constitution. The submissions which have now been made and seem to have found favour with the High Court, with reference to the usefulness and merits of cattle dung and the part which it plays in the rural economy, has been dealt with at length by this Court in Mohd. Hanif s case (supra). The right of the butchers to practice their trade has been upheld in these decisions and because there is a short supply of milch cattle, total ban on their slaughter was upheld as being a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public. But it was held in no uncertain terms that a total ban on the slaughter of useless cattle, which involves a wastesful drain on the nation s cattle fodder, where itself was in short supply and which would deprive the useful cattle of much needed nourishment, could not be justified as being in the interest of general public. (Para 15)

       The consistent view of this Court since 1958 being that total ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks which had become old amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the butchers, no conclusive material has been placed on record to show that the restriction now placed is to be regarded as reasonable. Notwithstanding the fact that the cattle dung is used for generating bio gas, on a specific query put to learned counsel for the respondent, no information was available as to what are the number of bio gas plants which have been installed and which are in operation and whether the cattle dung available is sufficient or not. Similarly, no authentic information was given by the learned counsel with regard to the expense which will have to be incurred by a farmer in maintaining old and infirm cattle which cannot be used as milched cattle or draught cattle. A fact which cannot be ignored is that no farmer or agriculturaist who has kept a bull or bullock for a number of years would sell it to a butcher unless and until it is uneconomic for him to retain that animal. Normally, it would be only when an animal has become totally useless, and the expense of maintaining it outways its utility, that the animal would be sold to a butcher. Compelling the retention of such animal, by not permitting its sale for being slaughtered, would not be in public interest. (Para 16)

       We are pained to notice the successive attempts made by the State of Madhya Pradesh to nullify the effect of this Court s decisions beginning with Mohd. Hanif s case and ending with Mohd. Faruk s case, each time on flimsy grounds. In this last such attempt, the objects and reasons show how insignificant and unsupportable the ground for bringing the legislation was. The main thrust of the objects and reasons for the legislation seems to be that even animals which have ceased to be capable of yielding milk or breeding or working as draught animals can be useful as they would produce dung which could be used to generate non-conventional sources of energy like bio-gas without so much as being aware of the cost of maintaining such animals for the mere purpose of dung. (Para 18)

       Therefore held : In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the inclusion of bull or bullock in sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959, brought about by the Amending Act of 1991 has imposed an unreasonable restriction on the funda-mental rights of the appellant and to that extent only the sub-clause is held to be ultra vires. The effect of this would be that there would be a total ban on the slaughter of cow, calf of cow and calf of she buffalo while the slaughter of bull or bullock, along with other agricultural cattle, shall fall under sub-clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act and they can be slaughtered after complying with provisions of the said sub-clause and obtaining a certificate contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act. (Para 21)

       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 48-Slaughter of bulls and bullocks-Absolute ban not necessary for complying with Article 48. (Para 20)