Case Note & Summary
The case involved three writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court challenging state legislation regulating cattle slaughter. The petitioners were butchers and traders engaged in the profession of slaughtering animals, from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh. Earlier, in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, [1959] S.C.R. 629, the Supreme Court had held that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes after they ceased to be useful was not in the interests of the general public and was invalid. In response, the Bihar Legislature passed the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958, and Madhya Pradesh enacted the M.P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959. The Bihar Act prohibited slaughter of bull, bullock or she-buffalo except when over 25 years of age and useless, with Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules requiring certificate concurrence of Veterinary Officer and Chairman or Chief Officer. The U.P. Act permitted slaughter only if over 20 years and permanently unfit, with 20-day waiting period and appeal. The M.P. Act prohibited slaughter without certificate, required animal over 20 years and unfit, with 10-day waiting and appeal. The petitioners alleged that these provisions practically imposed a total ban on slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes even after they ceased to be useful, thereby virtually ending their profession and trade, and violating fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g). They contended that animals rarely live beyond 15 years in India, so the age limit was arbitrary and colourable; the certificate procedure was cumbersome and costly; and the waiting and appeal provisions would indefinitely delay slaughter. The respondents contested the allegations through affidavits, maintaining that restrictions were reasonable for preservation and improvement of animal husbandry. The Court examined whether the restrictions were reasonable in the interests of the general public. It relied on principles from State of Madras v. V.G. Row and State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh regarding reasonableness of restrictions. The Court held that a bull, bullock or buffalo did not remain useful after 15 years, and the economic disadvantages of feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle offset any minor use. Therefore, the age limit of 20 or 25 years plus the additional fitness condition was unreasonable and void under Article 19(1)(g). Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules was declared bad because its procedure imposed disproportionate restrictions of time and money, making the certificate not worthwhile. The waiting periods and appeal provisions in the U.P. and M.P. Acts were also struck down as they were likely to hold up slaughter for long periods, practically imposing a total ban. Consequently, the Supreme Court declared void Section 3 of the Bihar Act, Section 3 of the U.P. Act, Section 4(2)(a) of the M.P. Act, Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules, and the provisions regarding waiting period and appeal in the U.P. and M.P. Acts.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) - Cattle Slaughter Age Limit and Fitness Certification - Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959, s.3; Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958, s.3; Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959, s.4(2)(a) - Petitioners challenged provisions prohibiting slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes below 20 or 25 years and requiring animal to be unfit even above that age. Court reasoned such animals cease to be useful after 15 years and maintaining unserviceable cattle imposes economic disadvantages. Held the high age limit and additional fitness condition amounted to unreasonable restriction not in interests of general public and were void. B) Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Reasonableness of Certificate Procedure - Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Rules, 1960, r.3 - Rule 3 required certificate for slaughter only with concurrence of Veterinary Officer and Chairman or Chief Officer of District Board, Municipality etc., and in case of difference, decision of Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer. Court held procedure involved such expenditure of money and time as made obtaining certificate not worthwhile, imposing disproportionate restrictions on trade, hence rule bad. C) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Restriction on Trade - Post-Certificate Waiting Period and Appeal - Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958, s.3; Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959, ss.4(3),5 - Provisions that animal cannot be slaughtered within 20 days (U.P.) or 10 days (M.P.) of certificate and any person aggrieved may appeal held likely to hold up slaughter for long time and practically total ban on slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes even after ceased useful. Held unreasonable restrictions and void.
Issue of Consideration
Whether provisions in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Acts fixing minimum age (20 or 25 years) and requiring certificates for slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes, along with waiting and appeal provisions, violated fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) as unreasonable restrictions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions to the extent impugned provisions were declared void. Specifically: Section 3 of Bihar Act, Section 3 of U.P. Act, Section 4(2)(a) of M.P. Act; Rule 3 of Bihar Rules; and provisions in U.P. and M.P. Acts imposing waiting periods and appeal rights after certificate were held void as unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g).
Law Points
- total ban on slaughter of bulls
- bullocks and she-buffaloes after they cease to be useful is not in interest of general public
- age limit of 20 or 25 years for slaughter of cattle unreasonable
- certificate procedure imposing disproportionate restrictions void
- waiting period and appeal provisions causing delay unreasonable
