IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA & S.C. GUPTE, JJ.
Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Respondents
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3183, 3326 OF 2015
WRIT PETITION NO. 5731, 9209, 1314, 1379, 1975, 2680, 2566, 1109, 1653, 3395, 3396, 3422 OF 2015, 11744 OF 2015 WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS (L.) NO. 139, 374, 264, 106, 109,416, 389, 419, 306, 417, 455, 420, 456, 418, 315, 277, 138, 132, 120, 125, 110, 105 OF 2015
NOTICE OF MOTION (L.)251 OF 2015
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.127, 133, 76 OF 2015
Decided On : 06-05-2016
Result—Petitions disposed of with observations.
A.S. OKA, J
1. As per the administrative order dated 17th November 2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this group of Petitions has been specifically assigned to this specially constituted Bench.
OVERVIEW
2. The challenge in this group of Petitions is to various provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (for short “Animal Preservation Act”) as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (for short “the Amendment Act”). The Amendment Act received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 4th March 2015. By the Amendment Act, in addition to existing prohibition on the slaughter of cows, a complete prohibition was imposed on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State. A ban was imposed on possessing the flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered within and outside the State. Moreover, by introducing Section 9B, at the trial of certain offences, a negative burden was put on the accused.
3. Before we deal with the facts of each Petition and the challenges therein, it will be convenient to have an overview of the relevant provisions of the Animal Preservation Act. The Animal Preservation Act was brought into force with effect from 15th April, 1978. The Preamble of the unamended Animal Preservation Act reads thus :“
An Act to provide for the prohibition of slaughter of cows and for the preservation of certain other animals suitable for milch, breeding, draught or agricultural purposes. And whereas it is expedient to provide for the prohibition of slaughter and to provide for matters connected therewith”
4. Section 5 of the Animal Preservation Act prior to its amendment by the Amendment Act provided for a complete ban on slaughter of any cow in any place of State of Maharashtra. Sub-Sections (1) of Section 6 provided that no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any scheduled animal (Bovines namely bulls, bulloks, female buffaloes, buffalow calves) in any place in the State of Maharashtra unless he has obtained in respect of each animal a certificate in writing from the Competent Authority that the animal is fit for slaughter. As per Section 7, a scheduled animal in respect of which a permission under Section 7 has been granted can be slaughtered only at the place specified by such authority or such officer the State Government may appoint in that behalf. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing Sections 5 to 7 of the Animal Preservation Act before its amendment which read thus :“
5. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any usage or custom to the contrary no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer for slaughter any cow, in any place in the State of Maharashtra.
6. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any scheduled animal in any place in the State of Maharashtra, unless he has obtained in respect of such animal a certificate in writing from the competent authority that the animal is fit for slaughter.
(2) No certificate shall be granted under subsection
(1), if in the opinion of the competent authority, (a) the scheduled animal, whether male or female, is or likely to become economical for the purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural operations;
(b) the scheduled animal, if male, is or is likely to become economical for the purpose of breeding;
(c) the scheduled animal, if female, is or is likely to become economical for the purpose of giving milk or bearing offspring.
(3) The State Government may, on an application by any person aggrieved by an order passed by the competent authority refusing to grant him a certificate, made to it within sixty days from the date of receipt of such order, or any time suo motu, call for and examine the records of the
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
District Registrar & Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank
M.P. Sharma and others v. Satish Chandra
Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and others
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India
K.S. Puttuswami (Retired) and Another v. Union of India
Deena alias Deen Dayal v. Union of India
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh v. Union of India
Sri SriKalimata Thakurani v. Union of India and Others
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and Another
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others
State of West Bengal & Others v. Ashutosh Lahiri
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay
Sheshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu
Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui & Others v. Union of India
I.R. Coelho, since deceased by the legal representative v. State of Tamil Nadu
S.R. Bommai & Others v. Union of India & Others
Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan
People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Another v. Union of India
Gopaldas Udhavdas Ahuja and Another v. Union of India and Others
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Another
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Others
Bhaktawar Trust & Others v. M.D. Narayan & Others
Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v. Commissioner of Police, Thane
Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others v. Union of India
Aarushi Dhasmana v. Union of India and Others
Namit Sharma v. Union of India
Union of India v. Navin Jindal
Ashoka Kumar v. Union of India
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra
AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS & Others
Intellectual Forum v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Others V. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai and Another
Mohmmed Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar
Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India
Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat
Abdul Hakim Quareshi v. State of Bihar
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi case [AIR 1958 SC 731 : 1959 SCR 629]
Union of India v. Wood Paper Ltd. [(1990) 4 SCC 256 : 1990 SCC (Tax) 422 : JT (1991) 1 SC 151]
Sanjay Dutt v. State (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433]
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P [(1964) 1 SCR 332 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 329]
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. [(1994) 6 SCC 632]
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [(1997) 1 SCC 301]
‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ [(1998) 8 SCC 296]
Sharda v. Dharmpal [(2003) 4 SCC 493]
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.[(1994) 6 SCC 632 : AIR 1995 SC 264] (vide SCC para 26 : AIR para 28)
Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi[(1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 212] (SCC pp. 61819
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of India [(2008) 3 SCC 1] (SCC p. 15
Ashok Sadarangani and Another v. Union of India
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Ram Krishna Dalmia [Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh[(1969) 1 SCC 853 : AIR 1970 SC 93 : (1970) 1 SCR 156
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 27 : 1950 SCR 88 : 51 Cri LJ 1383
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1295 : (1964) 1 SCR 332 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 329
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India [(1970) 2 SCC 298 : (1971) 1 SCR 512
Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal [(1975) 3 SCC 198 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 816 : (1975) 1 SCR 778]
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 165 : (1974) 2 SCR 348
Narendra v. Union of India [AIR 1960 SC 430 : (1960) 2 SCR 375
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde
Narender Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.