Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 96
High Court Of Delhi
MANEKA GANDHI - Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY, NEW DELHI - Respondent
Civil 2961 of 1992
Decided On : 01/27/1995
A.S.QURESHI, B.J.NAYAR, DALJIT SINGH, K.C.DUA, MANISH SHARMA, S.C.Anand, S.K.MISHRA, S.N.MARVAH
Headnote:
Writ petition filed to address unhygienic, inhuman and horrible conditions at the Idgah slaughterhouse in Delhi. Court appointed a committee to visit and submit a report. Court observed that conditions were appalling and posed serious health risks to the population. Court directed closure of the slaughterhouse and appointed a high-powered committee to ensure compliance. Committee submitted reports with varying recommendations. Court analyzed the reports and concluded that the slaughterhouse could not be permitted to continue due to space constraints, traffic congestion, drainage issues, and environmental pollution. Court also noted that the slaughterhouse was operating in contravention of the Master Plan. Court directed the closure of the slaughterhouse by December 31, 1995, and ordered the establishment of a modern mechanized slaughterhouse. Court also directed the rehabilitation of those rendered jobless due to the closure.
Fact of the Case:
The Idgah slaughterhouse in Delhi was found to be operating in unhygienic, inhuman, and horrible conditions, posing serious health risks to the population. The court appointed a committee to visit and submit a report, which confirmed the appalling conditions. The court directed the closure of the slaughterhouse and appointed a high-powered committee to ensure compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the slaughterhouse could not be permitted to continue due to space constraints, traffic congestion, drainage issues, and environmental pollution. The court also noted that the slaughterhouse was operating in contravention of the Master Plan.
Issues: 1. Whether the Idgah slaughterhouse could be permitted to continue operating in its current condition. 2. Whether the slaughterhouse should be closed and, if so, what measures should be taken to ensure the rehabilitation of those rendered jobless. 3. Whether a modern mechanized slaughterhouse should be established.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Idgah slaughterhouse could not be permitted to continue operating in its current condition due to the serious health risks it posed to the population. The court also held that the slaughterhouse should be closed and that a modern mechanized slaughterhouse should be established. The court further held that measures should be taken to ensure the rehabilitation of those rendered jobless due to the closure of the slaughterhouse.
Final Decision: The court directed the closure of the Idgah slaughterhouse by December 31, 1995, and ordered the establishment of a modern mechanized slaughterhouse. The court also directed the rehabilitation of those rendered jobless due to the closure.
Key Points: - The Idgah slaughterhouse is operating in unhygienic, inhuman, and horrible conditions, posing serious health risks to the population (!) (!) (!) . - The slaughterhouse is operating in contravention of the Master Plan and various environmental norms, causing air and water pollution (!) (!) (!) . - The court directs closure of the Idgah slaughterhouse by December 31, 1995, due to space constraints, traffic congestion, drainage issues, and environmental pollution (!) (!) (!) . - A high-powered committee is appointed to ensure compliance and to submit reports on improvements and rehabilitation measures (!) (!) . - The court orders the establishment of a modern mechanized slaughterhouse to provide adequate, hygienic, and wholesome meat (!) (!) (!) . - The government is directed to frame a scheme for the rehabilitation of workers rendered jobless due to the closure (!) (!) (!) . - The court emphasizes that the number of animals cannot be increased until basic standards of hygiene, cleanliness, and environmental control are met (!) (!) (!) . - The MCD is required to ensure meticulous compliance with bye-laws, including provisions for lairage, ante-mortem and post-mortem examinations, and child labor regulations (!) (!) .
What are the conditions under which the Idgah slaughterhouse may be allowed to continue operating?
What measures must be taken to ensure the rehabilitation of workers rendered jobless by the closure of the slaughterhouse?
Should a modern mechanized slaughterhouse be established, and who is responsible for its establishment?
( 1 ) THE petitioner has initially filed tile public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India regarding unhygienic, inhuman and horrible conditions which are prevalent at the Idgah slaughterhouse of Delhi. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed this court to hear and dispose of the petition.
( 2 ) IN the petition, it is averred that efflunts of highly pollutive nature are being discharged in drains and open sewerage. by slaughtering of tens of thousands of animals in most unhygienic conditions and in contravention of all laws, rules, regulations and norms. Even the slaughter house is running in total contravention of the Master Plan.
( 3 ) ON the directions of their Lordships, this matter was heard at length. This court even appointed three Court Commissioners to visit the slaughter house and submit a detail report. The report submitted by the court Commissioners was taken into consideration. The photographs and video film prepared by them were also kept in view while deciding the writ petitions. After hearing counsel at length, and examining various facets of the problem, the court reached to the conclusion that the conditions prevalent at the salughter house were most unhygienic and were posing serious threats to the livers and health of the entire population of Delhi, articularly to the large meat-eating population.
( 4 ) THIS court in the larger public interest, gave various directions. The directions pertained to :
(A) Supply of wholesome and pure drinking water to the residents of Delhi and adjoining areas. (b) Children below the age of 18 years shall not be allowed to work in the slaughter house. (c) The M. C. D. was directed to take. necessary steps to stop illegal slaughtering. (d) Licences be issued to the butchers (Q) The M. C. D. was directed to appoint adequate number of veterinary doctors. (f) Slaughtering hours must be fixed and strictly maintained, so that sufficient time is left for cleaning the abattoir and the other sections of the slaughter house. (g) The M. C. D. shall ensure ante mortem medical examination of the animals. (h) The notification of the M. C. D. dated September 21, 1961 regarding carrying the maximum number of animals must be strictly implemented. (i) The M. C. D. is directed to frame comprehensive bye-laws,rules for the smooth functioning of slaughter house within three months.
( 5 ) IT may be relevant to mention that another Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to examine some of these issues while deciding C. W. P. Nos. 2267 90. 158,91 and 830 92. The Division Bench after taking various facts and circumstances into consideration, directed the closure of the Idgah slaughter house on or before 31st December. 1993.
( 6 ) SINCE the basic conditions had not improved, this court again directed closure of the slaughter house and observed that if for any reason it continues for sometime, in that event, for maintaining at least the minimum standard of hygiene and sanitation, the number of animals slaughtered must be reduced to 2500 per day. This court also appointed a high-powered committee to ensure compliance of the directions given in the judgment.
( 7 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that the Delhi Meat Merchants Association and the Buffaloes Traders Welfare Association have preferred review petitions against the said judgment of the Division Bench dated March 18, 1994. This Court after hearing counsel at length gave detailed judgment in those review petitions explaining the reasons why the number of animals slaughtered at the ldgah Slaughter House cannot be increased. The main reasons which did not permit the Court from increasing the number were (a) available area, (b) traffic congestion (c) drainage system (d) ante mortem examination (e) post mortem examination (f) air and water pollation.
( 8 ) THIS Court observed that even if basic minimum standard of hygiene and sanitation is to be maintained, then in our opinion
"in the iarger public interest
