Supreme Court Strikes Down Notification Cancelling Confirmation of Slaughter Bye-laws in Madhya Pradesh as Violative of Fundamental Right to Trade. Prohibition on Slaughter of Bulls and Bullocks in Jabalpur Municipality Held Unreasonable Restriction Not in Interest of General Public Under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India, 1950.

Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of a State notification cancelling confirmation of bye-laws relating to slaughter of bulls and bullocks as violative of Article 19(1)(g).

The petitioner sought a declaration that the notification dated 12-01-1967 infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19.

The notification effectively prohibited slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the municipal slaughterhouse, directly affecting his hereditary vocation.

Bye-laws were confirmed in 1948; earlier Supreme Court decisions in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Abdul Hakim Quraishi had held that total ban on slaughter of certain bovine animals after they cease to be useful is unreasonable and void.

Whether the impugned notification cancelling confirmation of bye-laws infringed the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). If so, whether the restriction was saved as a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public.

State contended that the power to rescind confirmation of bye-laws cannot be challenged under Articles 14 or 19 because it is inherent in the power to confirm. State argued that since a licence is required for using a slaughterhouse, which may be refused or withdrawn, no person can insist on a licence to slaughter. Petitioner argued that the notification imposed a direct restriction on his fundamental right to carry on his occupation and was not reasonable.

A law or executive action restricting the fundamental right to trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g) must be reasonable and in the interest of the general public; the onus to prove reasonableness lies on the State. A restriction imposed merely to respect the sentiments of a section of the community is not reasonable. The power to cancel bye-laws, though valid, must be judged by its impact on fundamental rights. An uncontrolled discretion to grant or withhold a licence ex facie infringes Article 19(1)(g), and the existence of a licensing requirement does not justify a total prohibition.

The impugned notification, though technically within the competence of the State Government, directly infringed the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g). It could be upheld only if it was established that it sought to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public and a less drastic restriction would not ensure the interest of the general public. A prohibition imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right to carry on an occupation, trade or business will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed not in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the people whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant. When the validity of a law placing restriction upon the exercise of fundamental rights in Art. 19(1) is challenged, the onus of proving to the satisfaction of the Court that the restriction is reasonable lies upon the State. Where power is entrusted to an administrative agency to grant or withhold a permit or licence in its uncontrolled discretion, the law ex facie infringes the fundamental right under Art. 19(1).

The petitioner, a butcher carrying on the vocation of slaughtering bulls and bullocks at the Madar Tekdi Slaughter-House in Jabalpur, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution directly in the Supreme Court. He challenged the notification dated January 12, 1967 issued by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh under Section 430(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which cancelled the confirmation of bye-laws in so far as they permitted the slaughter of bulls and bullocks. The State of Madhya Pradesh defended the notification. The Supreme Court heard arguments and delivered judgment on April 1, 1969, allowing the petition.

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 19, Article 25
• Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (Act 23 of 1956): Section 5(37), Section 66(m), Section 257(1), Section 257(3), Section 257(4), Section 427, Section 430, Section 432
• Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (Act 2 of 1922): Section 178(3)