http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: ABDUL HAKIM QURAISHI AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/11/1960

BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. IMAM, SYED JAFFER KAPUR, J.L. SARKAR, A.K. SUBBARAO, K.

CITATION:  1961 AIR  448            1961 SCR  (2) 610  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1962 SC1371  (42,64)  RF         1970 SC  93  (5)  RF         1986 SC1205  (6)  RF         1986 SC1213  (12)

ACT: Cattle Preservation--Ban on slaguhter of cattle below 20  or 25 years of age--Whether reasonable--Bihar Preservation  and Improvement  of  Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Bihar  1  of 1959),  s. 3--Bihar Preservation and Improvement of  Animals Rules,1960, r. 3--Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow  Slaughter (Amendment)  Act,  1958 (U.  P. 33 of  1958),  s.  3--Madhya Pradesh  Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 (M.   P. 18 of 1959), ss. 4(2)(a) and 5.

HEADNOTE: In  Mohd.  Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar the  Supreme Court  held  that  a total ban on the  slaughter  of  bulls, bullocks  and  she-buffaloes  after they had  ceased  to  be useful  was not in the interests of the general  public  and was  invalid.  Thereafter, the Bihar Legislature passed  the Bihar  Preservation and Improvement of  Animals  (Amendment) Act,  1958, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed the  U.  P. Prevention  of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958  and  the Madhya  Pradesh  Legislature  passed a new Act,  the  M.  P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959. Section  3  of the Bihar Act prohibited the slaughter  of  a bull,  bullock  or she-buffalo except when it  was  over  25 years  of age and had become useless.  Rule 3 of  the  Bihar Preservation   and  Improvement  of  Animals   Rules,   1960 prescribed  that the certificate for slaughtering an  animal could be granted only with the concurrence of the Veterinary Officer  and  the Chairman or Chief Officer  of  a  District Board,  Municipality  etc., and if the  two  differed,  then according  to  the  decision of  the  Sub-Divisional  Animal Husbandary Officer. Section 3 of the U. P. Act permitted the slaughter of a bull or  bullock  only  if it was over 20 years of  age  and  was permanently  unfit.   It further provided  that  the  animal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

could  not be slaughtered within 20 days of the grant of  ’a certificate  that  it was fit to be slaughtered and  gave  a right  of  appeal  to  any person  aggrieved  by  the  order granting the certificate. Section  4(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Act provided that  no bull, bullock or buffallo could be slaughtered except upon a certificate issued by the competent authority and s. 4(2)(a) provided  that  no certificate could be  issued  unless  the animal  was over 20 years of age and was unfit for  work  or breeding.  Section 4(3) gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority.   Section 5 provided that no animal 611 shall be slaughtered within 10 days of the date of the issue of the certificate and where an appeal was preferred against the grant of the certificate, till the time such appeal  was disposed of. The petitioners, who carried on the profession and trade  of butchers, contended that the various provisions of the three Acts  set  out above infringed their fundamental  rights  by practically  putting a total ban on the slaughter of  bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes even after the animal had  ceased to  be  useful  and  thus virtually  put  an  end  to  their profession and trade. Held,  (i) that the ban on the slaughter of bulls,  bullocks and she-buffaloes below the age of 20 or 25 years was not  a reasonable  restriction  in  the interests  of  the  general public  and  was void.  A bull, bullock or buffalo  did  not remain useful after 15 years, and whatever little use it may have  then was greatly offset by the economic  disadvantages of  feeding  and  maintaining  unserviceable  cattle.    The additional condition that the animal must, apart from  being above  20  or 25 years of age, also be unfit was  a  further unreasonable restriction.  Section 3 of the Bihar Act, s.  3 of  the  U.  P. Act and s. 4(2)(a) of the  M.  P.  Act  were invalid. (ii)  Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules was bad as it  imposed  dis- proportionate restrictions on the rights of the petitioners. The procedure involved such expenditure of money and time as made the obtaining of the certificate not worthwhile. (iii) The provisions in the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Acts providing  that  the animal shall  not  be  slaughtered within  20  and10  days respectively of  the  issue  of  the certificate  and that any person aggrieved by the  order  of the competent authority, may appeal against it, were  likely to  hold up the slaughter of the animal for a long time  and practically put a total ban on slaughter of bulls,  bullocks and  buffaloes  even  after they had ceased  to  be  useful. These  provisions imposed unreasonable restrictions  on  the fundamental rights of the petitioners and were void. Mohd.   Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar, [1959]  S.C.R. 629, State of Madras v. V. G. Row, [1952] S.C.R. 597 and The State  of  Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar  Singh  of Darbhanga, [1952] S.C.R. 889, referred to.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 15 of 1959, 14 of 1960 and 21 of 1959. Petitions  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution of  India  for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Frank Anthony and J. B. Dadachanji, for the petitioners  (In Petns.  Nos. 15 and 21 of 1959). 612

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

H.  J.  Umrigar, O. P. Rana and A. G. Ratnaparkhi,  for  the petitioners (In Petn.  No. 14 of 1960). L.   K.  Jha and S. P. Varma, for the respondent  (In  Petn. No. 15 of 1959). C.  K.  Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India,  M.  Adhikari, Advocate-General  for the State of Madhya Pradesh and I.  N. Shroff, for the respondent (In Petn.  No. 14 of 1960). H.  N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India and  C. P. Lal, for the respondent (In Petn.  No. 21 of 1959). 1960.  November 23.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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. 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 1 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 613 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. The State, of  Bihar (1), it held- (i)  that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of  all  ages and calves of cows and of 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 she-buffaloes,  bulls and  bullocks  (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased  to  be capable  of  yielding  milk or of  breeding  or  working  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

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  and Improvement of Animals (1)  [1959] S.C.R. 629. 78 614 (Amendment)  Act,  1959  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  there- under  are  called the Madhya  Pradesh  Agricultural  Cattle Preservation Rules, 1959. The  general  case of the petitioners, who  are  several  in number in each of the three cases, is that they are citizens of  India  and  carry  on  their  profession  and  trade  of butchers;  they  allege that the various provisions  of  the impugned  legislation infringe their fundamental  rights  in that they, for all practical purposes, have put a total  ban on  the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls or bullocks,  even after  such  animals  have ceased to  be  useful,  and  have virtually  put an end to their profession and trade.  It  is pointed out that the age up to which the animals referred to above cannot be slaughtered (20 or 25 years) has been put so high  that  the practical effect is that no animals  can  be slaughtered, and the amending or new legislation has put  in other  restrictions so arbitrary and unreasonable in  nature that  in effect they amount to a prohibition or  destruction of  the  petitioner’s  right to carry  on  their  trade  and profession.   The following allegations quoted from  one  of the petitions (Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959) give a  general idea  of the nature of the case which the  petitioners  have put forward: "That there is good professional authority for the view that even  in countries where animal husbandry is organised on  a highly progressive and scientific basis, cattle seldom  live beyond 15 or 16 years. That  there is also good authority to the effect  that  even pedigree breeding bulls are usually discarded at the age  of 12 or 14 years. , That  in India bulls and bullocks and  she-buffaloes  rarely live even up to the age of 15 years; draught bullocks  begin to age after eight years, 615 That  the  raising of the age limit from 15 to 20  years  is arbitrary,  unreasonable  and  against  the  general  public interests and is repugnant to and infringes the, fundamental rights  of the, petitioners under Article 19 (1)(f) and  (g) of the Constitution. That  section  3  of  the  amending  Act  is  a  mala  fide, colourable  exercise of power, repugnant to the  fundamental rights of the -petitioners under Article 19 (1)(f) and (g). That this arbitrary raising of the age limit will be against the public interests For the following among’ other reasons:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

(i)  That  there will, in fact, be no bulls or  bullocks  or she-buffaloes  available  for slaughter as few, if  any,  of such animals survive in India up to the age of 15 years; (ii)  that the profession, trade and occupation of  millions of Muslims will be permanently and irreparably injured; (iii)  that millions of members of the minority  communities such  as Christians, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes  and Muslims,  for  whom cattle-beef is a staple  item  of  their diet, will be deprived of this diet; (iv)  that the menace of the rapidly  increasing  uneconomic cattle  population  in such matters as  the  destruction  of crops, being a public nuisance, will be accentuated by  this arbitrary  age limit, and in effect will ensure  that  bulls and bullocks cannot be slaughtered; (v)  that the menace of the rapidly increasing population of uneconomic  cattle  to  the fodder  and  other  animal  food resources of the country will be accentuated. (vi)  that  the competition between the  rapidly  increasing cattle  population,  a  large  percentage  I  of  which   is uneconomic  and  useless,  add  the  human  population   for available land will be accentuated; (vii) that this piece of legislation will ensure the  steady increase  of  useless  bulls and  bullocks  and  must  react disastrously against any attempt to improve milk production, bullock power or animal husbandry generally." 616 Similar  allegations  have  been  made  in  the  other   two petitions also. The correctness of these allegations has been con. tested on behalf  of  the respondent States, which   through  some  of their  officers  have filed affidavits in reply.   We  shall presently  examine at greater length the averments  made  in these affidavits, but we may indicate here in broad  outline what  their general effect is. In Bihar the age below  which the  slaughter  of  she-buffaloes,  bulls  and  bullocks  is prohibited is 25 years.  The respondent State has taken  the plea that the  usefulness  or  longevity of  live-stock  for breeding and   other purposes depends to a very great extent on  (a) better animal husbandry facilities like feeding  and management and (b) control of animal diseases, and as  these facilities  are  now  available in a  greater  measure,  the legislature came to the conclusion that a bull or bullock or a  she-buffalo  below 25 years of age  continues  to  remain useful;  if  a bull, bullock or  shebuffalo  is  permanently incapacitated below that age the impugned provision  permits its  slaughter  and  therefore  the  legislation  which   is challenged  conforms to the decision of this Court and  does not violate any fundamental right.  In Uttar Pradesh the age is  20 years as respects bulls or bullocks, with  a  further restriction to be referred to later.  The reply of the  res- pondent State is that bulls or bullocks do not become  unfit at the age of 12 or 14 years as alleged by the  petitioners; on  the contrary, they continue to be useful and at no  time they  become  entirely useless.  It is then  stated  in  the affidavit: "As  a matter of fact, the age up to which the  animals  can live and are serviceable depends upon the care and attention they receive and the quality of the grass on which they  are grazed.............................According   to   a   high authority  the  average  age  of  an  ox  under   favourable conditions  would  be between 15 to 20  years.   Even  under conditions prevailing in Uttar Pradesh, bulls can live  upto 20  years  or  more as would appear from an  analysis  of  a survey report of the animal husbandry department." 617

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

On  these averments the respondent State contends  that  the legislation is valid.  In Madhya Pradesh also the age is  20 years.  The Under-Secretary to the( State Government in  the Agricultural  Department’  has made the reply  affidavit  in which  it  has  been stated inter alia  that  conditions  in Madhya  Pradesh  are  different  from  conditions  in  other States.  The affidavit then states: "The State of Madhya Pradesh has a total area of 107,589,000 acres, out of which total cropped area is 43,572,000  acres. Forest  area  is 33,443,000 acres, area  not  available  for cultivation  is  11,555,000  acres,  uncultivated  land   is 18,405,000  acres  and fallow land is 5,834,000  acres.   It will  thus be seen that this State has a large  forest  area and  plenty  of grass land for pasturage.   As  the  forests supply  the  greater  part of the fuel needs  of  the  human population,  the  dung of animals is  largely  available  as manure.  The legislature considered that bulls, bullocks and buffaloes  are useful in this State till they are well  past twenty years of age and that they should not be  slaughtered till  they are past that age and are also unfit for work  or breeding.   The problem of animals dying of slow  starvation or  of worthless animals depriving useful animals of  fodder needs  no  consideration in this  State.   The  agricultural community in the State benefits by the existence of  animals as  long  as  they  are  useful."  There  are  also  further averments  as  to the shortage of  breeding  bulls,  working bullocks  and  she-buffaloes in Madhya  Pradesh.   On  these averments the contention of the respondent State is that the cattle in that State are useful up to the age of 20 years. We  have  indicated above in general terms the case  of  the petitioners  and the reply which the respondent States  have given.   We proceed now to a detailed consideration  of  the impugned legislation in each case. (1) We take up first the  Bihar Preservation and Improvement of  Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959 and the rules  made  under the  main  Act  of 1955.  Section 3 of the  Act  as  amended reads: "S. 3. Prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull,  bullock or she-buffalo; 618 Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the  time’ being  in force or in any usage or custom to  the  contrary, no  person  shall slaughter or cause to be  slaughtered,  or offer  or  cause to be offered for slaughter  a  cow,  calf, bull, bullock or she-buffalo: Provided that the prescribed authority may, subject to  such conditions as may be prescribed, allow the slaughter of- (i) a bull or bullock which is over twenty-fiveyears of  age or which has become permanently incapable of breeding or  of being used as a draught animal, as the case may be, and (ii) a she-buffalo which is over twenty-five years of age or which  has  become  permanently  incapable  of  breeding  or yielding  milk, if the permanent incapability has  not  been caused deliberately; Provided  further that the State Government may, by  general or  special order, and subject to such conditions as it  may think fit to impose, allow the slaughter of any such  animal for any medicinal or research purposes." The scheme of the section is that its substantive  provision imposes  a total ban on the slaughter of a cow, calf,  bull, bullock  or  she-buffalo;  the  proviso  then  engrafts   an exception  as to bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes and  lays down  the  circumstances  in  which  the  slaughter  of  the aforesaid  animals may be allowed.  No question arises  here as  to cows and calves; a total ban on their  slaughter  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

been held to be valid by this Court.  The question before us is  whether  the section in so far as it relates  to  bulls, bullocks and shebuffaloes is constitutionally valid.  It  is worthy of note that the Bill, as originally drafted, put the age  at fifteen years only; but the Select Committee on  the Bill  said,  "The Committee feels that  the  words  ’fifteen years’  will  not  be sufficient  for  the  preservation  of animals.   They feel that it would be better if those  words are  substituted by the words ’twenty-five years’ .......  " No other reason was given for increasing the age.  After the filing of Writ Petition no. 15 of 1959 the Governor of Bihar made certain rules under s. 38 619