Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd November, 1960.
S.J. IMAM, S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, A.K. SARKAR AND K. SUBBA RAO, JJ.
1. Abdul Hakim Quraishi and others (In Petn. No. 15 of 59);
Petns. Nos. 15 of 1959, 14 of 1960 and 21 of 1959.
2. Haji Mohd. Shaffi and others (In Petn. No. 14 of 60) and
3. Mohd. Jan and others (In Petn. No. 21 of 59), Petitioners
Versus.
1. State of Bihar (In Petn. No. 15 of 59);
2. State of Madhya Pradesh ( In Petn. No. 14 of 60) and
3. State of Uttar Pradesh (In Petn. No. 21 of 59), Respondents.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Frank Anthony, Advocate and Mr. J. B Dadachanji, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Petitioners (in Petns. Nos. 15 and 21 of 59); M/s H. J. Umrigar, O. P. Rana and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates, for Petitioners (in Petn. No. 14 of 60); Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, with him, for Respondent, ( in Petn. No 15 of 59); Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and Mr. M. Adhikari, Advocate-General for the State of Madhya Pradesh (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with them, for Respondent, (in Petn. No. 14 of 60); Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India (Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate with him), for Respondent (In Petn. No 21 of 59).
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 19(1)(G) - RIGHT TO CARRY ON TRADE OR BUSINESS - SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE - LEGISLATION PROHIBITING SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE - VALIDITY - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS - BURDEN OF PROOF - ARTICLE 12 - SHIFTING OF BURDEN OF PROOF - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were engaged in the butcher's trade and its subsidiary undertakings, challenged the validity of various provisions of three Acts enacted by the Legislatures of three different States - Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh - which put a total ban on the slaughter of cows and their progeny, bulls, bullocks, heifers, and calves, and permitted the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female, adults or calves) only under a certificate granted by the proper authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned provisions in cl. (a) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 4, in sub-sec. (3) of S. 4 relating to the right of appeal by any person aggrieved by the order, and in S. 5 relating to the time of slaughter, imposed unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions which must be held to be unconstitutional.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned provisions of the Acts were violative of the petitioners' fundamental right to carry on their trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the restrictions imposed by the impugned provisions were reasonable and in the interests of the general public? 3. Whether the burden of proof was validly shifted to the accused under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned provisions, which imposed a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, and buffaloes, even after they had ceased to be useful, were violative of the petitioners' fundamental right to carry on their trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the restrictions imposed by the impugned provisions were unreasonable and not in the interests of the general public, as they were based on an arbitrarily high age limit and other arbitrary and unreasonable conditions. 3. The Court held that Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Act, which shifted the burden of proof to the accused in certain cases, was valid as it only shifted the burden of proof for the accused's own knowledge or intention, and not for the knowledge or intention of other persons.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the three writ petitions and directed the respondent States not to enforce the Acts or the rules made thereunder in so far as they had been declared void by the Court.
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J. : These three writ petitions have been heard together, as they raise common questions of law and fact. They relate, however, to three different enactments made by the Legislatures of three different States - Bihar in writ petition No. 15, Uttar Pradesh in writ petition No. 21, and Madhya Pradesh in writ petition No. 14. The petitioners in the several petitions have challenged the validity of a number of provisions of the enactments in question and, in some cases, also of the rules made thereunder. The impugned provisions are similar in nature, but are not exactly the same. Therefore, we shall first state in general terms the case of the petitioners and then consider in detail and separately the impugned provisions in each case. But before we do so, it is necessary to refer to some background history of the legislation under consideration in these cases.
2. In the year 1958 this Court had to consider the validity of certain provisions of three Acts:
(1) The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, (Bihar Act II of 1956);
(2) the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U. P. Act I of 1956); and
(3) the Central Provinces and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949 (C. P. and Berar Act LII of 1949).
The Bihar Act put a total ban on the slaughter of all categories of animals of the species of bovine cattle. The U. P. Act put a total ban on the slaughter of cows and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves. The C. P. and Berar Act placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows, male or female calves of cows, bulls, bullocks and heifers, and the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female, adults or calves) was permitted only under a certificate granted by the proper authorities. These three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principle of State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution. The petitioners who challenged the various provisions of the aforesaid Acts in 1958 were engaged in the butcher s trade and its subsidiary undertakings; they challenged the constitutional validity of the Acts on the ground that they infringed their fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. In the decision which this Court gave in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, 1959 SCR 629 it held:
(i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and she buffaloes, male or female, was quite reasonable and valid;
(ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls, or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) so long as they were capable of being used as milch or draught cattle was also reasonable and valid; and
(iii) that a total ban on slaughter of shebuffaloes, bulls and bullocks (Cattle or buffaloe) after they ceased to be capable of yeilding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals was not in the interests of the general public and was invalid.
In the result this Court directed the respondent States not to enforce their respective Acts in so far as they were declared void by it. This led to some amending or new legislation, and we are concerned in these three cases with the provisions of these amending or new Acts and the rules made thereunder. In Bihar (Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959) the impugned Act is called the Bihar Preservation of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1958, which received the assent of the Governor on January 13, 1959. In Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 21 of 1959) the impugned Act is called the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958 and in Madhya Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 14 of 1960) a new Act was passed called the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 (Act 18 of 1959), which received the assent of the President on July 24, 1959 and came into force on January 15, 1960. The rules made thereunder are called the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 1959.
3. The general case of the petitioners, who are several in number in each o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
