http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: HAJI USMANBHAI HASANBHAI QURESHI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/04/1986

BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1213            1986 SCR  (2) 719  1986 SCC  (3)  12        1986 SCALE  (1)537

ACT:      Bombay Animal  Preservation Act,  1954 -  S. 5 - Sub-s. (1A), cls.  (c) & (d)/sub-s. (2) - Ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks  below the  age  of  sixteen  years  -  Whether imposes an  unreasonable restriction on fundamental right to carry on trade or profession - Whether discriminatory.      Constitution of  India, Arts.  14, 19  & 48  -  Ban  on slaughter of  bulls  and  bullocks  below  sixteen  years  - Whether constitutional and valid.

HEADNOTE:      Sub-section  (1)   of  s.   5  of   the  Bombay  Animal Preservation Act, 1954 prohibits slaughter of animals except on  a   certificate  in  writing  issued  by  the  competent authority that  the animal is fit for slaughter. Sub-section (1A) of  s.5, substituted  by Gujarat  Act No.  23 of  1979, prohibits grant  of such  a certificate  in respect of (a) a cow, (b)  the calf  of a  cow, whether male or female, (c) a bull below the age of sixteen years, and (d) a bullock below the  age  of  sixteen  years.  It  was  brought  into  force retrospectively with  effect from  November 28,  1978.  Sub- section (2)  of s.  5  prohibits  issue  of  certificate  in respect of  animals, to which sub-s. (1A) does not apply, if in the  opinion of the competent authority (a) the animal is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of draught or any  kind of  agricultural operations, (b) the animal, if male, is  useful or  likely to become useful for the purpose of breeding,  and (c)  the animal,  if female,  is useful or likely to  become useful  for the  purpose of giving milk or bearing offspring. Sub-section (3) of s. 5, also substituted by Gujarat  Act No.  23 of 1979, exempts from the purview of s. 5  for bonafide  religious purposes, the slaughter of (i) animals above  the age  of fifteen  years other  than a cow, bull or bullock, (ii) a bull above the age of fifteen years, and (iii) a bullock above the 720 age of  fifteen years  provided a certificate in writing has been obtained from the competent authority.      The appellants,  who are  dealers  in  beef  and  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

allied trades,  assailed the  constitutional validity of the ban imposed  by cls.  (c) and  (d) of sub-s. (1A) and sub-s. (3) of  s. 5  of the  Act, on  the slaughter  of  bulls  and bullocks, on  various grounds,  but the  High Court repelled all of them.      In these  appeals by  certificate, it was contended for the appellants  that the  ban on  the slaughter of bulls and bullocks below  the age of sixteen years imposed by cls. (c) and (d)  of  sub-s.  (1A)  of  s.  5  of  the  Act  puts  an unreasonable restriction  on their  fundamental right  under Art. 19(1)(g)  of the  Constitution to  carry on their trade and profession,  and that the ban so imposed is violative of Art. 14  of the  Constitution as  it  discriminates  between dealers who  deal in  meat of  cows, bulls  and bullocks and those who deal in meat of buffaloes and other animals.      Dismissing the appeals, the Court, ^      HELD :  1. The prescription of the age of sixteen years in cls.  (c) and  (d) of  sub-s. (1A)  of s. 5 of the Bombay Animal Preservation  Act, 1954  cannot  be  said  to  be  an unreasonable restriction looking to the balance which has to be struck  between public  interest,  that  required  useful animals to  be preserved  and permitting  the appellants  to carry on  their trade  and profession  as mentioned  in Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. [729 C-D; H]      The longevity  of cattle  and their useful span of life in the  State of  Gujarat has increased appreciably with the help of  the scientific  advances which  have taken place in recent years,  such as better cattle feeding, better medical health and  better animal  husbandry services.  There is  no doubt that if the scientific tests were to be applied, bulls and bullocks  up to  sixteen years  of age  would  be  found useful for  the  purpose  of  breeding,  draught  and  other agricultural purposes. [729 B-C]      2. Clauses  (c) and  (d) of  sub-s. (1A) of s. 5 of the Act are  not hit  by Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is only if the  classification is  unreasonable  that  the  impugned provisions can be struck down.[730 C] 721      In the  instant case, looking to the different purposes for which  buffaloes and  their progeny  on the one hand and cows and  their progeny  on the other are used in each State it cannot  be said  that there is any hostile discrimination against those  who deal  in meet  of bulls and bullocks. The dealers in  different types  of meat  are not  in  the  same class. A  clear  distinction  is  maintained  on  scientific grounds between  animals which are useful and which have not yet reached  the age  of sixteen  years so  far as bulls and bullocks are  concerned. As  regards buffaloes,  there is no restriction as  to the age, the only bar being sub-s. (2) of s. 5,  based on  their usefulness  for purposes  of draught, agricultural operations,  breeding, giving  milk or  bearing offsprings. Bulls  and bullocks  are useful for agricultural purposes but  male buffaloes are seldom used for any purpose other than breeding or rearing progeny. [730 E-G]      Abdul Hakim  Qureshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 610, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1734- 39 of 1980.      From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  4.7.1980  of  the Gujarat High  Court in  S.C.A. Nos.  185, 186, 187, 188, 189

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

and 190 of 1980.      M.C. Bhandare,  M. Quamaruddin,  Mrs.  M.  Quamaruddin, M.V. Katarki and Salmon Khurshid for the Appellants.      G.A. Shah,  Girish Chandra,  C.V. Subba  Rao  and  R.N. Poddar for the Respondent.      T.U. Mehta,  H.J. Zaveri,  S.S.  Khanduja  and  Yashpal Dhingra for the Intervener.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by r.      R.B.  MISRA,   J.  In  the  wake  of  Art.  48  of  the Constitution the  State of  Bombay also passed an enactment, the  Bombay   Animal  Preservation   Act,   1954   for   the preservation of  animals suitable for milch, breeding or for agricultural 722 purposes. Under  sub-s. (1)  of s.2  the Act was to apply in the first  instance to the animals specified in the schedule and the  schedule mentioned  bovines (bulls, bullocks, cows, calves, male and female buffaloes and buffalo-calves). Under sub-s. (2)  of 8.2 the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any other  animal, which  in its opinion, it is desirable to preserve. It  does not appear that the provisions of the Act were ever  made Applicable  to any  other animals  after the initial enactment  of the Act and the schedule by the Bombay legislature. Section  5 of  the Act,  so far it is material, runs :           "5.(1) Notwithstanding  any law for the time being           in force  or any  usage to the contrary, no person           shall slaughter  any animal unless he has obtained           in respect of such animal a certificate in writing           from the  Competent Authority  appointed  for  the           area that the animal is fit for slaughter."      In 1961  by the Gujarat Act 16 of 1961, sub-s. (lA) was inserted in s. 5 of the principal Act which read :           "(1A) No  certificate under  sub-s. (1)  shall  be           granted in respect of a cow".      Thereupon a consequential change was effected in sub-s. (2) of 8.5, after the insertion of sub-s. (lA). It read :           "(2) In  respect of an animal to which sub-s. (lA)           does not  apply, no  certificate shall  be granted           under  sub-s.  (1),  if  in  the  opinion  of  the           competent authority :           (a) the  animal, whether male or female, is useful           or likely  to become  useful for  the  purpose  of           draught or any kind of agricultural operations;           (b) the  animal, if  male, is  useful or likely to           become useful for the purpose of breeding;           (c) the  animal, if female, is useful or likely to           become useful for the purpose of giving or bearing           offspring." 723 Under sub-s. (3) of s.5 it was provided :           "(3) Nothing  in this  section shall  apply to the           slaughter of  any animal  above the age of fifteen           years for  bonafide religious  purposes,  if  such           animal is not a cow.           Provided that  a certificate  in writing  for such           slaughter has  been obtained  from  the  competent           authority."      In 1978  the Governor  of Gujarat  issued an  ordinance being Gujarat  Ordinance No.  10 of 1978 to amend the Bombay Animal  Preservation   Act,  1954.   During  the  period  of operation of  the ordinance  the Bombay  Animal Preservation Act 1954  was to  have  effect  subject  to  the  amendments specified in  s.3 of  the ordinance  and thus the Bombay Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

was temporarily  amended. By this Amending Ordinance of 1978 under 9.  5 of the principal Act for sub-s. (lA) of new sub- s. (lA) was substituted, which read :           "(lA) No  certificate under  sub-s. (1)  shall  be           granted in respect of :-           (a) a cow ;           (b) the  calf of a cow, whether male or female and           if male. whether castrated or not ;           (c) a bull below the age of eighteen years ;           (d) a bullock below the age of eighteen years." For sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the principal Act a new sub-s. was substituted, which read           "(3) Nothing  in this  section shall  apply to the           slaughter of  any of  the  following  animals  for           bonafide religious purposes, namely :-           (a) Any  animal above  the age  of  fifteen  years           other than a cow, bull or bullock. 724           (b) A bull above the age of eighteen years.           (c) A bullock above the age of eighteen years."      After  the   above  ordinance   was   promulgated   the legislative assembly  of the  State met  and in view of that session of  the legislative  assembly the  provisions of the ordinance were  required to  be enacted  by the  legislature otherwise the ordinance was to lapse. As the legislature did not pass  the requisite  legislation in  time the  ordinance lapsed on March 5, 1979.      Thereafter Gujarat  Act No.  23 viz,  the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat  Amendment) Act, 1979, was enacted and by virtue  of sub-s.  (2) of  s.1 the  provisions of the Act were deemed  to have come into force on 28th November, 1978, that is, from the date on which the Gujarat Ordinance No. 10 of 1978  was brought  into force.  This amendment  Act  also inserted a  new sub-s. (LA) in 6. 5 of the Principal Act. It read :           "(1A) No  certificate under  sub-s. (1)  shall  be           granted in respect of:-           (a) a cow;           (b) the  calf of a cow, whether male or female and           if male. whether castrated or not.           (c) a bull below the age of sixteen years;           (d) a bullock below the age of sixteen years."      It is  apparent that  in cls.  (C) and (d) changes were affected inasmuch as instead of cl. (c) providing for a bull below the  age of  18 years,  as in  the ordinance,  the Act provided in  the new  cl.(c) for  a bull below the age of 16 years, and  similarly in  cl.(d) it  provided for  a bullock below the  age of  16 years  instead of 18 years provided in the ordinance.  The impugned  enactment also  inserted a new sub-s.(3) which read :           "(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to : 725           (a) the  slaughter of any of the following animals           For such  bona fide  religious purposes, as may be           prescribed namely :           (i) any  animal above  the age  of  fifteen  years           other than a cow, bull or bullock;           (ii) a bull above the age of fifteen years ;           (iii) a bullock above the age of fifteen years ;           (b) the slaughter of any animal not being a cow or           a calf  of a cow, on such religious days as may be           prescribed :           Provided that  a certificate  in writing  for  the           slaughter referred  to in  clauses (a)  or (b) has           been obtained from the competent authority."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

    The appellants who are dealers in beef and other allied trades connected  with the  slaughter of  bulls and bullocks seek to challenge the ban of 16 yrs. put by cls. (c) and (d) of sub-s.  (lA) of sec. 5 of the Act as it adversely affects their trades.      According to the appellants a large number of people in Ahmedabad city  and in  the State  of Gujarat are engaged in the beef  trade, both  wholesale and  retail and  the allied trades.  Several   hundred  shops   of  beef  dealers,  both wholesalers and  retailers, are  located in  Ahemdabad  city alone, and  on an  average before  the new  legislation came into force about 100 bovine cattle were being slaughtered in the slaughter  houses in  Ahemdabad city. Out of these above seventy  used   to  be  bulls  and  twenty  five  to  thirty buffaloes. Because  of slaughter  of bovine cattle there are incidental trades  which are  dependent  upon  slaughter  of bovines, their  hides and  skins and  carcases  of  animals. Carcases are  used for  the purpose of food which is cheaper food for  a large  number of  people. Hides  and skins after they are  properly treated  and processed  serve the  export market and  thereby also serve the country by earning a good deal of  foreign exchange.  It was  further urged  that  the different  parts  of  cattle  which  are  slaughtered,  like hooves, horns,  guts, pancreas,  bones, liver  bile and even the blood 726 of animals  are all  used for  pharmaceutical  purposes  and products. They  are also used for manufacturing concentrates of drugs  and injections  meant for  supplying  proteins  to human beings.  Bones of  animals which  are slaughtered  are utilised for the purpose of manufacturing fertilisers. Hides and skins  of animals  which have  a natural  death  are  of inferior quality  as compared  to the  hides  and  skins  of animals which  are slaughtered.  Calcium is  recovered  from bons of slaughtered animals. Glue is made from hooves etc.      Bulls and  bullocks cease  to be  useful for an purpose after the  age of  fifteen years  and thus  the ban  on  the slaughter of  bull and bullocks below the age of 16 years is an unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on their trade or  business and  is not  in the  interest of  general public.      On the  one hand  there are the directive principles of Art. 48  of the  Constitution which require consideration of usefulness of animals from the point of view of giving milk, breeding, agricultural purposes and draught purposes; on the other hand  there is  the requirement of those poor sections of people  who get their protein requirement from beef which is available  to them at cheap rates. Thus a balance between the requirement  contemplated by Art. 48 and the requirement of a  large section of people and traders and dealers has to be struck  by the  court. It  was further  pleaded  that  on certain specified  religious days animals are required to be slaughtered, for  example Qurbani at the time of Bakir Id or Id festival,  and there  are also other religious ceremonies in connection  with which  animals  and  bovine  cattle  are required to be slaughtered.      The impugned Act was, therefore, challenged in the High Court on a number of grounds :           1.   that   the   impugned   amendment   puts   an           unreasonable restriction  on the fundamental right           of the  petitioners under  Art.  19(1)(g)  of  the           Constitution :           2. that  the State  of Gujarat has acted mala fide           in enacting this piece of legislation, being the 727

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

         Gujarat Act 23 of 1979;           3. that  the State  legislature has no legislative           competence to enact the impugned legislation ;           4. that  the amended  sub-s. (3)  of s.  5  is  an           interference with  their religious  practices  and           customs and hence violative of Arts. 25, 26 and 29           of the Constitution ;           5. that the impugned provisions are discriminatory           and violative  of  Art.  14  of  the  Constitution           inasmuch as  the discrimination  is  made  between           those who  deal in  meat of  bulls and bullocks on           the one  hand  and  those  who  deal  in  meat  of           buffaloes on the other.      All these contentions were repelled by the High Court.      Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court  the  appellants  have  now  come  to  this  Court  by certificate and  only two  contentions have  ben  raised  on their behalf:           1. The  ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks           below the  age of  sixteen years  is hit  by  Art.           19(1)(g) of  the Constitution  as it  puts an  un-           reasonable restriction on the fundamental right of           the appellants  and is  not  in  the  interest  of           general public.           2. The  ban put by cls. (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA)           of 6. 5 of the Act is also violative of Art. 14 of           the Constitution.      In support  of their contentions reliance was placed on Abdul Hakim  Quraishi &  Ors. V.  State of  Bihar, [1961]  2 S.C.R. 610.  It was  held in  that case  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 interest of  general public  and was void as a bull, bullock or buffalo  did not  remain useful after the age of 15 years and whatever  little use it may have then was greatly offset by the  economic disadvantages  of feeding  and  maintaining unserviceable cattle. 728      In the  affidavit in  reply filed  in this  case it has been pointed out on behalf of the Government that because of improvement and  more scientific  methods of cattle breeding and also  advancement in  the science  of looking  after the health of  cattle in  the State of Gujarat today a situation has  been   reached  where  the  usefulness  of  cattle  for breeding, draught  and other  agricultural purposes is above the age of sixteen years.      Mr. P.J.  Bhatt, Under  Secretary to  the Government of Gujarat, Agriculture,  Forests and  Co-operation Department, in his  affidavit dated  March 14,  1980 has  pointed out in paragraph 11 as follows:           "With the improved and scientific animal husbandry           services in  the State,  the average  longevity of           animals in  the State  has considerably increased.           In 1960,  there were  456 Veterinary Dispensaries,           First Aid  Veterinary Centres, etc. whereas in the           year 1979,  there were  as many  as 800 Veterinary           Dispensaries, First  Aid Veterinary  Centres  etc.           There were  no mobile  Veterinary Dispensaries  in           1960, while there were 20 such mobile dispensaries           for animals in 1979. In addition to this there are           more  than   600  centres   for  intensive  cattle           development programme, where, besides first aid to           animals, other  animal husbandry  inputs are  also           provided.  In  1960,  five  lacs  of  cattle  were           vaccinated, whereas  in the  year  1979,  fiftyone

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

         lacs   cattle    were   vaccinated    to   provide           immunization against  various diseases of animals.           There  were   no  cattle  Feed  Compounding  Units           preparing cattle  feed on  scientific lines in the           year 1960,  while in  the year 1979, there were as           many as  6 cattle  feed factories  in the State of           Gujarat. As  a result of improved Animal Husbandry           services, the  disease  of  Rinderpest  which  was           widespread in  the State  and which  took a  large           toll of animal life has been totally wiped out and           eradicated since  the year  1971-72, except for an           isolated recurrence in the year 1978 in the cattle           impooted in  the State  from abroad. Similarly, in           respect of  Haemorrhagic  Septicaemia,  a  disease           which used to take a heavy 729           toll of  animals, the  total number  of deaths  on           account of  the disease was 6689 in the year 1961-           62 which  has been  brought down  to about 2000 in           the  year   1978-79  on   account   of   intensive           vaccination   programme    undertaken    by    the           Government."      It is  thus clear  that because  of various  scientific factors,  namely,  better  cattle  feeding,  better  medical health and  better animal  husbandry services, the longevity of cattle  in the State of Gujarat has increased and in this context it  is correct  to say  that if the scientific tests were to be applied, bulls and bullocks upto sixteen years of age can  be said  to be  useful for the purpose of breeding, draught  and   other   agricultural   purposes.   In   these circumstances the  prescription of  The age of sixteen years in clauses  (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA) of s.5 can be said to be reasonable, looking to the balance which has to be struck between public interest, which requires useful animals to be preserved and  permitting the different appellants before us to carry on their trade and profession.      In a passage from the publication of the Indian Council of Agricultural  Research, New  Delhi published  in the year 1962, which  was reprinted  in the  year 1967,  it has  been pointed out :           "Indian cattle are found to do well in dry areas.           They are  small and  non-decrepit in area of heavy           rainfall, such  as the  coastal or the hilly areas           of the  country. Cattle  of good  breeds are  thus           found in  Punjab, Rajasthan  and  Andhra  Pradesh.           Varying types  of cattle  may be  seen within  the           limits of the same State. Thus in Bombay one finds           excellent cattle  in Gujarat and similar dry parts           of the  State, while  in Madras,  such cattle  are           observed in Coimbatore."      The material before the court thus clearly goes to show that with  the help  of the  scientific advances  which have taken place  since 1962,  the longevity  of the  cattle  and their useful  span of life has increased and, therefore, the prescribed age  of  sixteen  years  can  be  said  to  be  a reasonable restriction  on the  right of  the appellants  to carry on  their trade and profession as mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 730      This leads  us to  the second  contention regarding the impugned legislation  being discriminatory  between  dealers who deal  in meat  of cows, bulls and bullocks and those who deal in  meat of buffaloes and other animals and there is no uniform law  with respect to all cattle. As a second limb to this agrument  it was  further contended that the cattle and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

beef dealers  in other  States  are  not  subjected  to  the similar restrictions,  and thus there is a violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.      This contention  in  our  opinion  has  no  force.  The dealers in different tpes of meat are not in the same class. It is only if the classification is unreasonable that it can be struck  down. But  here a clear distinction is maintained on scientific  grounds between  animals which are useful and which have  not yet  reached the  age of  16 years so far as bulls and bullocks are concerned. As regards buffaloes there is no  restriction as to the age and the only restriction is sub-s. (2)  of s. 5 and that section has remained unamended, namely the  test is  whether the  animal, male or female, is useful or  likely to become useful for the purposes of milch or draught  or any  kind of agricultural operations; whether the animal,  if male is useful or likely t become useful for the purpose  of breeding, and whether the animal, if female, is useful  or likely  to become  useful for  the purpose  of giving  milk   or  bearing  offspring.  So  looking  to  the different purposes  for which buffaloes and their progeny on the one  hand and  cows and  their progeny on the other hand are used  in each  State it cannot be said that there is any hostile discrimination  against those  who deal  in meat  of bulls  and   bullocks.  Bulls   and  bullocks,  particularly bullocks, are  useful for  agricultural  purposes  and  male buffaloes  are  seldom  used  for  any  purpose  other  than breeding or  rearing progeny  and under  these circumstances the impugned  amendment  is  not  hit  by  Art.  14  of  the Constitution.      In the  result the  appeals must fail. Accordingly they are dismissed with costs. P.S.S.                                    Appeals dismissed. 731