http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 39  

PETITIONER: MOHD.  HANIF QUARESHI & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR(and connected petition)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/04/1958

BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA DAS, S.K. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BOSE, VIVIAN

CITATION:  1958 AIR  731            1959 SCR  629

ACT:        Cow     slaughter-Legislation    Placing    total     ban-If        Constitutional -Directive Principles of State Policy,  value        of-Fundamental               rights               Reasonable        restrictions--Test-Intention  in Supreme Court  Proceedings,        when  permissible-Bihar  Preservation  and  Improvement   of        Animals  Act, 1955 (Bihar II of 1956)-U.  P. Preve  lion  of        Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.  P. 1 of 1956)-C.  P. and  Berar        Animal  Preservation  Act,  1949 (C.  P. and  Berar  LII  of        1949)-Constitution  of  India, Arts.  14,  19,  48---Supreme        Court Rules, 0. XLI, r. 2.

HEADNOTE: The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act  ,955, put  a  total  ban on the slaughter  of  all  categories  of animal,,  of  the  species  of bovine  cattle.   The  U.  P. Prevention  of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, put a total  ban  on the slaughter of cows and her progeny which included  bulls, bullocks,  heifers and calves.  The C. P. and  Berar  Animal Preservation Act, 1949, placed a total ban on the  slaughter of cows, male or female calves of cow, 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.  No exception was made in any  of these Acts permitting slaughter of cattle  even  for bona fide religious purposes.  These three Acts were enacted in  pursuance  of the directive principles of  State  policy contained in Art. 48 Of the Constitution.  The  petitioners, who  were engaged in the butcher’s trade and its  subsidiary undertakings, challenged the constitutional validity of  the three  Acts on the grounds that they infringed their  funda- mental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 25  of the  Constitution.   The  respondents  contended  that   the impugned  Acts  were constitutional and valid as  they  were made in consonance with the directive principles of Art-  48 which  were superior to the fundamental rights and that  the impugned Acts did not offend Art. 14, 19(1)(g) or 25 Held,  (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of  all ages  and  calves  of cows and of  she-buffaloes,  male  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 39  

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),  as 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 the slaughter  of  she-buffaloes, bulls 630 and  bullocks  (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased  to  be capable  of  yielding  milk or of  breeding  or  working  as draught  animals  was not in the interests  of  the  general public and was invalid. The directive in Art. 48 for taking steps for preventing the slaughter  of  animals is quite explicit  and  positive  and contemplates   a  ban  on  the  slaughter  of  the   several categories  of animals specified therein, namely,  cows  and calves  and  other cattle which answer  the  description  of milch or draught cattle.  The protection is confined only to cows and calves and to those animals which are presently  or potentially  capable  of yielding milk or of doing  work  as draught  cattle but does not extend to cattle which  at  one time  were milch or draught cattle but which have ceased  to be  such.  The directive principles of State policy set  out in Part IV of the Constitution have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights in Part 111. State of Madras v. Smt.  Champakam Dorairajan, [1951] S.C.R. 525, followed. The  ban on the slaughter of cows even on the slaughter  day did  not violate the fundamental rights of  the  petitioners under  Art.  25  as it had not  been  established  that  the sacrifice  of a cow on that day was an obligatory overt  act for a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. Ratilal  Panachand  Gandhi v. The State  of  Bombay,  [1954] S.C.R. 1055, applied. The  impugned  Acts  which affected only  the  butchers  who slaughtered  cattle  and not the  butchers  who  slaughtered sheep or goats, did not offend Art. 14 Of the  Constitution. The  different  categories of animals being  susceptible  of classification  into separate groups on the basis  of  their usefulness  to society, the butchers who kill each  category may  also  be placed in distinct classes  according  to  the effect  produced  on  society by the carrying  on  of  their respective occupations.  This classification is based on  an intelligible  differentia which places the petitioners in  a well  defined  class and distinguishes them from  those  who slaughter  sheep or goats and this differentia has  a  close connection with the object sought to be achieved by the  im- pugned  Acts,  namely,  the  preservation,  protection   and improvement of livestock. In  determining  the  question  of  the.  reasonableness  of restrictions imposed on the fundamental rights conferred  by Art.  19(1)(g) the Court cannot proceed on a general  notion of  what  is  reasonable  in the abstract  or  even  on  the consideration  of what is reasonable from the point of  view of  the  person  or persons on  whom  the  restrictions  are imposed.   What the Court has to do is to  consider  whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interests  of the  general  public.  The test of reasonableness  has  been laid  down in State of Madras v. I.  G. Row,  [1952]  S.C.R. 597  at  602.   It  should  also  be  remembered  that   the legislature 631 is the best judge of what is good for the community.  Though a  constitutional question cannot be decided on the  grounds of  the sentiment of a section of the people, it has  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 39  

taken  into  consideration,  though  only  as  one  of   the elements,  in  arriving  at a judicial  verdict  as  to  the reasonableness of the restrictions. The effect of the impugned Acts on the fundamental rights of the   petitioners   under  Art.  19(1)(g)  is   direct   and instantaneous  as soon as the Acts are brought  into  force, and  it has to be determined whether they can  be  justified under  cl. (6) of Art. 19 The country is in short supply  of milch  cattle,  breeding bulls and working bullocks,  and  a total  ban on the slaughter of these which are essential  to the  national economy for the supply of  milk,  agricultural working power and manure is a reasonable restriction in  the interests  of  the general public.  But a total ban  on  the slaughter of useless cattle, which involves a wasteful drain on the nation’s cattle feed which is itself in short  supply and  which  would deprive the useful cattle of  much  needed nourishment,  cannot be justified as being in the  interests of the general public. Under O. XLI r. 2, Of file Supreme Court Rules  intervention is  permitted only to the Attorney-General of India  or  the Advocates-General  for  the  States.   There  is  no   other provision  for permitting a third party to intervene in  the proceedings before the Supreme Court.  In practice, however, the  Supreme  Court, in- exercise of  its  inherent  powers, allows a third party to  intervene when such third party  is a  party to some proceedings in the Supreme Court or in  the High  Courts  where  the same or similar  questions  are  in issue,  for the decision of the Supreme Court will  conclude the case of that party.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 58, 83, 84, 103,  117, 126, 127, 128, 248, 144 & 145 of 1956 & 129 of 1957. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. H.   J. Umrigar, N. H. Hingorani and A. G. Ratnaparkhi,  for the petitioners in all the petitions except Petition No. 103 of 1956.  The impugned Acts infringe the fundamental  rights under  Art.  19(1)(g) of the petitioners who  are  butchers, tanners,  gut merchants, curers and cattle dealers to  carry on their respective trades.  Where, as in the present  case, the enactment on the face of it violates a fundamental right the  burden  lies on those who support it to  show  that  it falls  within  the purview of cl. (6) of Art.  19.   Saghir, Ahmed v. The State of U.P., ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 707 at 726); 632 Chiranjitlal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, ([1950] S.C.R. 869  at 891-892).  The impugned Acts put a total ban on  the trade and business of the petitioners who kill only  cattle. Total  prohibition  of  a trade  which  is  not  immoral  or obnoxious  can  never be reasonable restriction  within  the meaning  of el. (6) of Art. 19.  Chintaman Rao v. The  State of  Madhya  Pradesh,  ([1950]  S.C.R.  759  at  765);   R.M. Sheshadri  v. The District Magistrate ( [1955] 1 S.C.R.  686 at  689, 690); Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. The  Excise  Commis- sioner,  ( [1954] S.C.R. 873); Rashid Ahmed.  The  Municipal Board,  Kairana,  ([1950]  S.C.R. 566).  Total  ban  on  the slaughter  of cattle is not in the interests of the  general public.  Animal husbandry will suffer by a total ban.  There is  shortage  of fodder and pasture in the country  and  the useless and uneconomic cattle will deprive the useful cattle of these things.  Setting up of Gosadans for the  uneconomic cattle will be a tremendous waste of public money.  [Counsel

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 39  

referred to various official reports in this connection.] The  impugned Acts create an odious  discrimination  between butchers  and persons dealing solely in cows,  bulls,  etc., and  those dealing in sheep and goats, and offend  Art.  14. These Acts which single out the petitioners’ community which kills only cows, bulls, etc., are hostile and discriminatory legislation.   Ye Cong Eng v. Trinidad, (70 L. Ed.  1059  at 1071);  Fowler  v. Rhode Island, (97 L. Ed.  828);  Lane  v. Wilson, (83 L. Ed.  1281 at 1287); Ligget Co.  v.  Baldrige, (73 L. Ed. 204). The  impugned Acts also contravene Art. 25 as they  prohibit the Mussalmans from performing the religious practice of the community  to sacrifice the cow on the occasion of Bakr  Id. Ratilal  Panachand  Gandhi v. The State of  Bombay,  ([1954] S.C.R. 1055 at 1063). The directive principles of State policy set out in Art.  48 can never override fundamental rights.  The State of  Madras v.  Sm.  Champakam Dorairajan, ([1951]) S.C.R. 525 at  530); Saghir Ahmed’s Case, ( [1955] ) 1  S.C.R. 707 at 727).   The impugned  Acts traverse, beyond the directive principles  in Art. 48. 633 The  Bihar and the Madhya Pradesh Acts which  affect  inter- State trade in cattle and beef offend Art. 301 and are  void as  the  assent  of  the President  was  riot  taken  before enacting them. Frank  Anthony  and  K. L. Mehta,  for  the  petitioners  in Petition No. 103 of 1956.  Section 9 of the U. P. Prevention of  Cow  Slaughter Act makes the slaughtering  of  cattle  a cognisable   and  non-bailable  offence.   This  and   other provisions of the Act are ex facie restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on their trade.  The onus is  on the respondents to show that the restrictions are reasonable restrictions  in  the  interests  of  the  general   public. Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, ([1950] S.  C. R. 759 at 763); Seghir Ahmed v. The State of U. P.,  ([1955] 1 S. C. It. 707 at 726).  The legislation is colourable  and mala  fide and is inspired by religious motives.   State  of Madras  v. V. G. Rao, ([1952] S. C. R. 597).  Article 48  in so far as its imposes blanket ban on cow would have to yield to  Art. 19 (1) (g).  The restrictions in the Act amount  to total  prohibition  and  extinction of  the  trade  of  beef butchers.   Saghir Ahmed’s case; Dwarka Prasad Laxmi  Narain v.  The  State  of U. P., (  [1954]  S.C.R.  803),  Fairmout Creamery  Co.  v. Minnesota, (71 L. Ed. 893  it  897).   The impugned Act offends Art. 14 as it discriminates against the beef  butchers.   These  butchers  have  a  legal  right  to slaughter  cow  for food or sacrifice.   Naubahar  Singh  v. Qadir  Bux, (A. 1. R. 1930 All. 753); Shahbazkhan  v.  Umrao Puri, (I.  L. R. 30 All. 181); Emperor -v.  Muhammad  Yakub, (I.  L. R. 32 All. 571). C.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, with  Mahabir- Prasad,   Advocate-General   of  Bihar  and  S.   P.   Varma (respondent  in Petitions Nos. 58, 83 and 84 of  1956),  and with  R. H. Dhebar, for the State of Bombay  (respondent  in Petition No. 117 of 1956).  The legislature has thought  fit that  slaughter  of cattle should be stopped  in  the  inter states of animal husbandry and public policy.  It is not for the  Court  to say that such a policy should not  have  been adopted.  Both on the question of policy at-id the extent of the restrictions 634 the  Court should interfere only if it is convinced that  in no view of the matter could the restrictions be  reasonable. There  are  two conflicting opinions on  this  controversial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 39  

matter,  i.  e., whether there should be total ban  or  only partial ban.  In such a case the opinion of the  legislators must prevail and the Court should not interfere where  there is controversy as to facts.  State of -Madras v. V. G.  Rao, ([1952]  S.  C.  R.  597 at 606);  The  State  of  Bihar  v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh, ([1952] S. C. R. 889 at 941);  Arumugham v. State of Madras, (I.  L. R. [1953]  Mad. 937).   Unless it can be said that the restrictions have  no bearing on the object sought to be achieved the  legislation must  be upheld.  Article 37 enjoins the State to apply  the directive  principles  of  State policy in Part  IV  of  the Constitution   in  making  law.,  The  legislation   is   in accordance with the direction given in Art. 48. The object of the legislation is not to control any trade or industry but to improve the breed of cattle and to  organise animal  husbandry and agriculture.  Unless  the  legislation directly hits trade or business it does not infringe Art. 19 (1)  (g).  A. K. Gopalan v. The State, ( [1950] S. C. R.  88 at 101); Ram Singh v. The State of Delhi, ( [1951] S. C.  R. 451  at  455-457); R. S. Ram Jawaya Kapur v.  The  State  of Punjab, ([1955] 2 KS.  C. R. 225); State of Bombay v. R.  M. D. Chamar-baugwala, ( A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 699 at 721). B.Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the State of Bombay  (respondent in  Petitions Nos. 126 to 128 and 248 of 1956), and for  the State  of Madhya Pradesh (respondent in Petition No. 144  of 1956). M.Adhicary,  Advocate-General  for  the,  State  of   Madhya Pradesh  and I. N. Shroff, for the State of  Madhya  Pradesh (respondent  in  Petition  No. 145  of  1956),  adopted  the arguments of C. K. Daphtary. H.   N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India,  G.C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the State of U. P. (respondent  in Petitions Nos. 103 of 1956 and 129 of 1957).  The provisions of  the U. P. Act have a reasonable relation to the  purpose in view i. e. the directive 635 in Art. 48 and consequently the Act cannot be said to offend Art.  19  (1)  (g).  Chintaman Rao v. The  State  of  Madhya Pradesh,  ([1950]  S. C. R. 759 at 763).  According  to  the facts   and  figures  given  in  the  Gosamvardhan   Enquiry Committee’s  Report  the  cattle  population  was   actually decreasing  and  total  ban on slaughter  was  necessary  to protect  and  preserve the cattle.  The State of U.  P.  had made ample provisions for looking after the decrepit cattle, and such cattle also was not uneconomic as it yielded  hides and manure. The  U. P. Act which prohibits the slaughter of  cattle  but not  that  of  buffaloes  does not offend  Art.  14  as  the discrimination  is  based upon proper  classification.   The buffalo does not require any protection.  The female buffalo is in no danger as its yield of milk is very high.  The  he- buffalo is not very useful for draught purposes and there is no  need to protect it.  Besides, the buffalo population  is steadily increasing. The  U. P. Act does not violate Art. 25.  Article 25 of  our Constitution is similar to Art. 8 of the Irish Constitution. There  is  no  religious compulsion  on  the  Mussalmans  to sacrifice a cow on Bakr Id Day. Thakurdas   Bhargava,  as  amicus  curiae.   The   directive principles  of State policy in Part IV of  the  Constitution are superior to fundamental rights and the enactments  which are  in  pursuance of the directions given by  Art.  48  are valid  and constitutional even though they may infringe  the fundamental rights of the petitioners.  The total ban on cow slaughter  in the impugned Acts is justified and is  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 39  

interests  of  the general public.  The  facts  and  figures given  in the official reports are inaccurate, and there  is no  real  shortage  of fodder or  pasture  land.   There  is shortage  of  milk  in the country and it  is  essential  to protect  the  cow.  The bullock takes the largest  share  in meeting   the   power  requirement  for   our   agricultural production.   Cow  dung manure contributes about  rupees  63 crores per year to our national income. H.J. Umrigar, in reply. Frank Anthony, also replied. 636 1958.  April 23.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS   C.  J.-These  12  petitions  under  Art.  32  of   our ,Constitution  raise  the  question  of  the  constitutional validity of three several legislative enactments banning the slaughter of certain animals passed by the States of  Bihar, Uttar   Pradesh  and  Madhya  Pradesh   respectively.    The controversy concerning the slaughter of cows has been raging in  this  country for a number of years and in the  past  it generated   considerable  illwill  amongst  the  two   major communities  resulting even in riots and civil commotion  in some places.  We are, however, happy to note that the  rival contentions  of the parties to these proceedings  have  been urged  before  us without importing into them  the  heat  of communal  passion and in a rational and objective way, as  a matter  involving constitutional issues should be.  Some  of these  petitions  come from Bihar, some from U. P.  and  the rest from Madhya Pradesh, but as they raise common questions of  law, it will be convenient to deal with and  dispose  of them together by one common judgment. Petitions  Nos.  58  of  1956, 83 of 1956  and  84  of  1956 challenge  the  validity  of  the  Bihar  Preservation   and Improvement  of  Animals  Act,  1955  (Bihar  11  of  1956), hereinafter  referred to as the Bihar Act.  In Petition  No. 58 of 1956 there are 5 petitioners, all of whom are  Muslims belonging  to  the Quraishi community which is  said  to  be numerous  and  an  important  section  of  Muslims  of  this country.  The members of the community are said to be mainly engaged   in   the  butchers’  trade  and   its   subsidiary undertakings  such  as  the sale  of  hides,  tannery,  glue making, gut making and blooddehydrating, while some of  them are  also engaged in the sale and purchase of cattle and  in their  distribution over the various areas in the  State  of Bihar as well as in the other States of the Union of  India. Petitioners Nos.  1 and 2 are butchers and meat vendors who, according  to  the petition, only slaughter cattle  and  not sheep   or   goats   and   are  called   "   Kasais   "   in contradistinction to the "’Chicks " who slaughter 637 only  sheep and goats.  After slaughtering the cattle  these petitioners sell the hides to tanners or bide merchants  who are  also members of their community and the intestines  are sold   to  gut  merchants.   It  is  said  that  there   are approximately  500 other Kasais in Patna alone apart from  2 lacs  of  other  Kasais all over the State  of  Bihar.   The correctness  of  these  figures  is  not  admitted  by   the respondent  State  but we do not doubt that  the  number  of Kasais is considerable.  Petitioner No. 3 is the owner of  a tanning  factory  and Petitioner No. 4 is  a  gut  merchant, while  Petitioner  No. 5 is the General Secretary  of  Bihar State  Jamiatul Quraish.  In petition No. 83 there  are  180 petitioners  residing  at different places in the  State  of Bihar who are all Muslims whose occupation is that of Kasais or cattle dealers or exporters of hides.  In Petition No. 84 there  are 170 petitioners all residents of  Patna  District

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 39  

who are also Muslims belonging to the Quraishi community and who  carry on business as Kasais or dealers of cattle.   All the  petitioners  in these three petitions are  citizens  of India. The Bill, which was eventually passed as the Bihar Act,  was published  in  the  Bihar Gazette on April  20,  1953.   The scheme of the Bill, as originally drafted, was, it is  said, to put a total ban only on the slaughter of cows and  calves of  cows below three years of age.  The Bill was sent  to  a Select  Committee  and  its  scope  appears  to  have   been considerably enlarged, as will be seen presently.  The Bill, as eventually passed by the Bihar Legislature, received  the assent  of  the  Governor  on December  8,  1.955,  and  was published  in  the  Official Gazette on  January  11,  1956. Section  1 of the Act came into force immediately upon  such publication,  but before any notification was  issued  under sub-s. (3) of s. 1 bringing the rest of the Act or any  part of it into force in the State or any part of it, the present petitions  were filed in this Court challenging the  consti- tutional  validity  of  the Act.   On  applications  for  an interim order restraining the State of Bihar from issuing  a notification under s. 1(3) of the Act bringing the Act  into operation   having  been  made  in  these   petitions,   the respondent State, by and through the learned 638 Solicitor General of India, gave an undertaking not to issue such notification until the disposal of these petitions and, in  the  premises, no order was considered necessary  to  be made on those applications. Petition No. 103 of 1956 has been filed by two  petitioners, who are both Muslims residing in Uttar Pradesh and  carrying on business in that State, the first one as a hide  merchant and  the second as a butcher.  Petitioners in  Petition  No. 129 are eight in number all of whom are Muslims residing and carrying  on  business  in  Uttar  Pradesh  either  as   gut merchants  or cattle dealers, or Kasais or beef  vendors  or bone  dealers  or hide merchants or  cultivators.   All  the petitioners in these two applications are citizens of India. By  these  two  petitions  the  petitioners  challenge   the validity  of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of  Cow  Slaughter Act,  1955 (LT.  P. 1 of 1956), hereinafter referred  to  as the U. P. Act and pray for a writ in the nature of  mandamus directing the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh not to  take any steps in pursuance of the U. P. Act or to interfere with the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Petitions Nos. 117 of 1956, 126 of 1956, 127 of 1956, 128 of 1956,  248  of 1956, 144 of 1956 and 145 of 1956  have  been filed  by  6,  95,  541, 58, 37,  976  and  395  petitioners respectively,  all  of  whom are Muslims  belonging  to  the Quraishi  Community and are mainly engaged in the  butchers’ trade  and its subsidiary undertaking such as the supply  of hides,   tannery,   glue  making,   gutmaking   and   blood- dehydrating.  Most of them reside at different places which, at the dates of the filing of these petitions were parts  of the  State  of Madhya Pradesh, but which or parts  of  which have,  in  the course of the recent re-organisation  of  the States,  been transferred to and amalgamated with the  State of  Bombay.  In consequence of such re-organisation  of  the States the State of Bombay has had to be substituted for the respondent  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  in  the  first  five petitions and to be added in the sixth petition, for a  part of the district in which the petitioners resided had been so transferred, while the State of Madhya Pradesh continues  to be the respondent in the seventh 639

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 39  

petition.By these petitions the petitioners %II of whom are citizens Of India, challenge the validity of the  C. P.  and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949 (C. P. and Berar Lll  of 1949), as subsequently amended. In  order  to  appreciate the  arguments  advanced  for  and against  the constitutional validity of the  three  impugned Acts  it  will  be  necessary  to  refer  to  the   relevant provisions  of the Constitution under or pursuant  to  which they  have been made.  Reference must first be made to  Art. 48  which  will be found in Chapter IV of  the  Constitution which enshrines what are called the directive principles  of )State policy.  Under Art. 37 these directive principles are not  enforceable  by any court of law but  are  nevertheless fundamental  in the governance of the country and are to  be applied by the State in making laws. Article 48 runs thus:- Organisation         48.  The  State  shall   endeavour   of agriculture and           to organise agriculture ’and animal husbandry.         animal husbandry oil modern and                      scientific lines and shall, in parti-                      cular, take steps for preserving                      and improving the breeds, and                      prohibiting the slaughter, of cows                      and calves and other milch and                      draught cattle." The principal purpose of this article, according to  learned counsel  for  the petitioners, is to direct  the  ,State  to endeavour  to organise agriculture and animal  husbandry  on modern  and scientific lines and the rest of the  provisions of  that  article are ancillary to this  principal  purpose. They contend that the States are required to take steps  for preserving and improving the breeds and for prohibiting  the slaughter of the animals specified therein only with a  view to implement that principal purpose, that is to say, only as parts  of the general scheme for organising our  agriculture and  animal  husbandry  on  modern  and  scientific   lines. Learned  counsel for the petitioners refer to  the  marginal note to Art. 48 in support of their contention on this  part of the case.  They also rely on entry 15 640 in  List  II of the Seventh Schedule  to  the  Constitution. That entry reads: " Preservation, protection and improvement of  stock  and  prevention of  animal  diseases;  veterinary training  and  practice." There is no  separate  legislative head for prohibition of slaughter of animals and that  fact, they  claim,  lends  support to their  conclusion  that  the prohibition  of  the slaughter of animals specified  in  the last  part  of Art. 48 is only ancillary  to  the  principal directions  for preservation, protection and improvement  of stock, which is what is meant by organising agriculture  and animal  husbandry.  Learned counsel for the respondents  and Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava, who appears as amicus cutriae, on the  other  hand, maintain that the article  contains  three distinct and separate directions, each of which should, they urge,  be  implemented  independently  -and  as  a  separate charge.   It is not necessary for us, on this  occasion,  to express a final opinion on this question.  Suffice it to say that  there  is no conflict between the different  parts  of this  article  and  indeed  the  two  last  directives   for preserving and improving the breeds and for the  prohibition of  slaughter of certain specified animals represent, as  is indicated  by  the  words " in  particular  ",  two  special aspects  of the preceding general directive  for  organising agriculture  and animal husbandry on modern  and  scientific lines.  Whether the last two directives are ancillary to the first  as  contended for by learned counsel  for  the  peti-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 39  

tioners or are separate and independent items of  directives as  claimed by counsel on the other side, the directive  for taking steps for preventing the slaughter of the animals  is quite  explicit and positive and contemplates a ban  on  the slaughter  of  the several categories of  animals  specified therein,  namely,  cows and calves and  other  cattle  which answer  the  description of milch or  draught  cattle.   The protection recommended by this part of the directive is,  in our  opinion, confined only to cows and calves and to  those animals  which  are  presently  or  potentially  capable  of yielding  milk or of doing work as draught cattle  but  does not,  from  the very nature of the purpose for which  it  is obviously recommended, extend to cattle which at 641 one time were milch or draught cattle but which have  ceased to  be such.  It is pursuant to these  directive  principles and in exercise of the powers conferred by Arts. 245 and 246 of  the  Constitution read with entry 15 in List 11  of  the Seventh  Schedule thereto that the, Legislatures  of  Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya, Pradesh have respectively  enacted the  statutes which are challenged as unconstitutional.   In order  properly, to appreciate the meaning and scope of  the impugned  Acts it has to be borne in mind that each  one  of those  Acts  is  a  law  with  respect  to  "  preservation, protection   and   improvement  of  stock   ",   and   their constitutional  validity  will  have to be  judged  in  that context   and   against  that  background.    Keeping   this consideration  in  view,  we  proceed  now  to  examine  the relevant provisions of the three Acts. The  title of the Bihar Act is " An Act to provide  for  the preservation and improvement of certain animals in the State of  Bihar."  Sub-section  (3) of s.  1  provides  that  that section  shall  come into force at once  and  the  remaining provisions  of the Act or any of them shall come into  force on  such date as the State Government may, by  notification, appoint  and  that  different dates  may  be  appointed  for different provisions and for different areas.  Section 2  is the definition section and the following definitions are  to be noted: (a)  " Animal " means- (i)bull,  bullock, cow, heifer, buffalo, calf,  sheep,  goat and-any other ruminating animal; (ii) poultry; and (iii)     elephant, horse, camel, ass, mule, dog, swine  and such other domesticated animals as may be specified in  this behalf  by  the  State Government  by  notification  in  the Official Gazette; (b)............................................................ (c)  "  bull  " means an uncastrated male above the  age  of three years belonging to the species of bovine cattle ; (d)  "  bullock  " means a castrated male above the  age  of three  years  belonging to the species specified  in  clause (e)" calf " means a female or a castrated or 642 uncastrated  male,  of  the age of  three  years  and  below belonging to the species specified in clause (c); (f)......................................................... (g)  "  cow " means a female above the age  of  three  years belonging to the species specified in clause (e) ; Section  3, which is the principal section for the  purposes of the Bihar Petitions, runs as follows: " 3. Prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull or bullock. 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 a cow, the calf of a cow, a bull or a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 39  

bullock; Provided 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." Section  4  provides  for  penalties  for  contravention  or attempted contravention or abetment of contravention of  any of  the provisions of s. 3. The remaining provision; in  the following  three chapters are not material for  our  present purpose.   It  will be noticed that the words "  bull  ",  " bullock  ",  " calf " and " cow" have been defined  in  cls. (c), (d), (e) and (g) of s. 2 as belonging to the species of bovine cattle.  The expression " species of  bovine cattle " is  wide  enough to in-elude and does in  ordinary  parlance include  buffaloes,(male,  or  female  adults  or   calves). Therefore,   the  corresponding  categories  of   buffaloes, namely, buffalo bulls, buffalo bullocks, buffalo calves  and she-buffaloes must be taken as included in the four  defined categories  of  the  species of bovine cattle  and  as  such within  the prohibition embodied in s. 3 of the Act.  It  is to be, noted, however, that the allegations in the petitions and  the affidavits in opposition proceed on the  assumption that  buffaloes (male or female adults or calves)  were  not within  the protection of the section and, indeed, when  the attention  of learned counsel for the petitioners was  drawn to the reference to the " species of bovine cattle " in each of the four definitions, they 643 still  made  an  attempt  to  support  the  latter  view  by suggesting that if buffaloes were to be included within  the words defined in cls. (c), (d), (e) and (g), then there  was no necessity for specifying it separately in the  definition of " animal " in el. (a).  This argument does not appear  to us  to be sound at all, for, then, on a parity of  reasoning it was wholly unnecessary to specify    heifer   "  in   the definition of " animal ". If heifer     is    not   to    be included in the definition of cow "     because heifer "  is separately enumerated in ’the definition of animal " then an astounding  result will follow, namely, that  the  operative part  of s. 3 will not prohibit the slaughter of " heifer  " at all-a result which obviously could not possibly have been intended.   The  obvious reason for the enumeration  of  the different  categories  of  animals in the  definition  of  " animal " must have been to provide a word of wide import  so that  all those sections where the wider word " animal "  is used  may apply to the different kinds of animals  included- within that term.  If the intention of the Bihar legislature was  to exclude buffaloes (male or female adults or  calves) from the protection of s. 3 then it must be said that it has failed to fulfil its intention. The  U.  P.  Act  is intituled "  An  Act  to  prohibit  the slaughter  of  COW and its progeny in  Uttar  Pradesh."  The preamble to the Act recites the expediency " to prohibit and prevent  the  slaughter  of cow and  its  progeny  in  Uttar Pradesh".   Although  the 17.  P. Act has  been  made  under entry  15  in  List  11  and  presumably  pursuant  to   the directives contained in Art. 48 nowhere in the Act is  there any  express  reference  whatever  to  the  "  preservation, protection  or  improvement of stock." Section 2  defines  " beef " as meaning the flesh of cow but does not include  the flesh of cow contained in sealed containers and imported  as such in Uttar Pradesh.  Clause (b) is very important, for it defines  "  cow " as including a bull, bullock,  heifer,  or calf.  Section 3, which is the operative section runs thus: 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any 82

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 39  

644 other law for the time being in force or 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 any cow in any place in Uttar Pradesh." Two exceptions are made by s. 4 in respect of cows suffering from contagious or infectious disease or which is  subjected to  experimentation  in the interest of  medical  or  public health research.  Section 5 prohibits the sale or  transport of  beef or beef products in any form except  for  medicinal purposes  and  subject to’ the provisions of  the  exception therein  mentioned.   Section 6, on which  counsel  for  the State  relies, provides for the establishment, by the  State Government or by any local authority wherever so directed by the  State Government, of institutions as may  be  necessary for  taking care of uneconomic cows.  Under s. 7  the  State Government  may  levy  such  charges  or  fees,  as  may  be prescribed for keeping uneconomic cows in the  institutions. Section  8 provides for punishment for contravention of  the provisions  of ss. 3, 4 and 5. Section 9 makes the  offences created by the Act cognisable and non-bailable.  Section  10 gives  power to the State Government to make rules  for  the purpose  of carrying into effect the provisions of the  Act. It should be noted that the U. P. Act protects the " cow  ", which,  according  to the definition, includes  only  bulls, bullocks,  heifer and calves.  There is no reference to  the species of bovine cattle and, therefore, the buffaloes (male or  female  adults  or calves) are  completely  outside  the protection of this Act. The  C. P. and Berar Act of 1949 was originally intituled  " An  Act  to provide for preservation of certain  animals  by controlling the slaughter thereof," and the preamble recited that  it was " expedient to provide for the preservation  of certain  animals  by  controlling  the  slaughter  thereof." ,Animal " was defined in s. 2 as meaning an animal specified in  the  schedule.   The schedule  specified  the  following categories of animals, namely, (1) bulls, (2) bullocks,  (3) cows,  (4)  calves, (5) male and female  buffaloes  and  (6) buffalo   calves.   Section  4  originally  prohibited   the slaughter 645 of  an  " animal " without certificate.  There was  then  no total  ban  on the slaughter of any animal as  defined.  ,In 1951, the C. P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, was amended  by the Madhya Pradesh Act XXIII of 1951.   By  this amending Act the words, " by prohibiting or " were added  to the   long  title  and  the  preamble  before  the  word   " controlling " and a new clause was added to s. 2 as el.  (i) (a) defining " cow " as including a female calf of a cow and sub-s. 1 of s. 4 was amended so as to read as follows: "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the. time being in force or in any usage to the contrary, no person- (a)  shall slaughter a cow; or (b)  shall slaughter any other animal unless he has obtained in  respect  of such other animal a certificate  in  writing signed by the executive authority and the veterinary officer for  the area in which the animal is to be slaughtered  that the animal is fit for slaughter." Thus  a total ban was imposed on the slaughter of  cows  and female  calf  of  a cow and the male calf of  a  cow,  bull, bullock,  buffalo  (male or female adult or calf)  could  be slaughtered on obtaining a certificate.  The Act was further amended  in  1956  by Act X of  1956  substituting  for  the amended definition of " cow " introduced by the amending Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 39  

of 1951 as cl. (1)(a) of s. 2 of the C. P. and Berar  Animal Preservation  Act,  1949,  a new definition of "  cow  "  as including  a male or female calf of a cow, bull, bullock  or heifer and a new schedule specifying only (1) cows, (2) male and female buffaloes and (3) buffalo calves was  substituted for  the  original  schedule to the Act.   Shortly  put  the position in Madhya Pradesh has been this: while under the C. P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, as it originally stood, the slaughter of all categories of animals  mentioned in  the  original  schedule  were  only  controlled  by  the requirement of a certificate from the appropriate  authority before  the actual slaughter, by the amending Act  XXIII  of 1951,  a total ban was imposed on the slaughter of " cows  " which was then defined as including only a female calf of a 646 cow  and  the slaughter of all other categories  of  animals coming  within  the  original schedule  was  controlled  and finally  after  the amending Act X of 1956, there is  now  a total  ban  on the slaughter of " cows " which  by  the  new definition  includes a male or female calf of a  cow,  bull, bullock or heifer so that the male and female buffaloes  and buffalo  calves (male and female) can still  be  slaughtered but   on  certificate  issued  by  the  proper   authorities mentioned  in  the Act.  The Madhya Pradesh Act X  of  1956, amending  the C. P. and Berar Animal peservation Act,  1949, received the assent of the Governor on May 18, 1956.  The C. P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, as amended up to 1956, is hereinafter referred to as the Madhya Pradesh Act.’ To  sum  up, under the Bihar Act there is in  the  State  of Bihar a total ban on slaughter of all categories of  animals of the species of bovine cattle.  In Uttar Pradesh there is, under the If.  P. Act, a total ban on the slaughter of  cows and  her  progeny which include bulls, bullocks,  heifer  or calves.  The buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) are completely  outside  the  protection of  the  Act.   In  the present  Madhya  Pradesh and the  districts  which  formerly formed   part  of  Madhya  Pradesh  but  have   since   been transferred  to  the State of Bombay and  where  the  Madhya Pradesh law including the Madhya Pradesh Act still  applies, there is a total ban on the slaughter of cow, male or female calves  of  a  cow,  bulls, bullocks,  or  heifers  and  the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) are controlled  in  that  their  slaughter  is  permitted  under certificate  granted by the proper authorities mentioned  in the  Act.  No exception has been made in any of these  three Acts  permitting  slaughter  of cattle even  for  bona  fide religious purposes such as has been made, say, in the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1948 (Bom.  LXXXI of 1948). As  already  stated  the petitioners, who  are  citizens  of India,  and  Muslims  by  religion,  mostly  belong  to  the Quraishi   community  and  are  generally  engaged  in   the butchers’  trade  and its subsidiary  undertakings  such  as supply of hides, tannery, glue making, gut making 647 and  blood  de-hydrating, Those, who carry on  the  butchers trade,  are  mostly.  Kasais who, the petitioners  say  kill only  cattle but not ship or goat which are  slaughtered  by other  persons known as Chicks.  Learned  counsel  appearing for  the petitioners challenge the, constitutional  validity of  the  Acts  respectively  applicable  to  them  on  three grounds,  namely,  that they offend the  fundamental  rights guaranteed  to them by Arts. 14 ’ 19(1)(g) and 25.   Learned counsel appearing for the respondent States, of course, seek to support their respective enactments by controverting  the reasons  advanced  by learned counsel for  the  petitioners.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 39  

Bharat Go-Sevak Samaj, All India AntiCow-Slaughter  Movement Committee,  Sarvadeshik  Arya  pratinidhi Sabha  and  M.  P. Gorakshan  Sangh put in petitions for leave to intervene  in these proceedings.  Under Order XLI, rule 2, of’ the Supreme Court Rules intervention is permitted only to the  Attorney- General  of India or the Advocates General for  the  States. There  is no other express provision for permitting a  third party to intervene in the proceedings before this Court.  In practice,  however, this Court, in exercise of its  inherent powers,  allows a third party to intervene when  such  third party is a party to some proceedings in this Court or in the High  Courts  where the same, or similar  questions  are  in issue, for the decision of this Court will conclude the case of  that  party.  In the present case,  however,  the  peti- tioners for intervention are not parties to any  proceedings and  we  did not think it right to permit them  formally  to intervene   in  these  proceedings;  but  in  view  of   the importance of the questions involved in these proceedings we have heard Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava, who was instructed  by one of these petitioners for intervention, as amicus curiae. We are deeply indebted to all learned counsel appealing  for the  parties  and  to  Pandit  Thakurdas  Bhargava  for  the valuable assistance they have given us. Before  we  actually  take tip and  deal  with  the  alleged infraction  of  the petitioners’ fundamental rights,  it  is necessary  to  dispose of a preliminary question  raised  by Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava.  It will be recalled 648 that the impugned Acts were made by the States in  discharge of  the obligations laid on them by Art. 48 to endeavour  to organise agriculture and animal husbandry and in  particular to  take steps for preserving and improving the  breeds  and prohibiting  the  slaughter of  certain  specified  animals. These directive principles, it is true, are not  enforceable by any court of law but nevertheless they are fundamental in the  governance  of the country and it is the  duty  of  the State  to give effect to them.  These laws having thus  been made in discharge of that fundamental obligation imposed  on the State, the fundamental rights conferred on the  citizens and  others  by  Chapter III of  the  Constitution  must  be regarded  as  subordinate  to  these  laws.   The  directive principles, says learned counsel, are equally, if not  more, fundamental and must prevail.  We are unable to accept  this argunent  as sound.  Article 13(2) expressly says  that  the State  shall not make any law which takes away  or  abridges the  rights  conferred by Chapter III  of  our  Constitution which  enshrines  the  fundamental  rights.   The  directive principles  cannot  over-ride this  categorical  restriction imposed on the legislative power of the State.  A harmonious interpretation has to be placed upon the Constitution and so interpreted  it  means  that  the  State  should   certainly implement the directive principles but it must do so in such a  way  that  its  laws do not  take  away  or  abridge  the fundamental rights, for otherwise the protecting  provisions of  Chapter  III will be " a mere rope of sand  ".  As  this Court  has  said in the State of Madras v.  Smt.   Champakam Dorairajan  (1) , "The directive principles of State  policy have  to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter  on Fundamental Rights". Coming  now  to the arguments as to the violation of  4  the petitioners’  fundamental rights, it will be  convenient  to take  up  first the complaint founded on Art.  25(1).   That article runs as follows: "  Subject to public order, morality and health and  to  the other  provisions  of  this Part, all  persons  are  equally

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 39  

entitled  to freedom of conscience and the right  freely  to profess, practise and propagate religion". (1)  [1951] S.C.R. 525 531- 649 After referring to the provisions of el. (2) which lays down certain  exceptions which are not material for  our  present purpose  this Court has, in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v.  The State of Bombay (1) explained the meaning and scope of  this article thus: "  Thus,  subject  to the restrictions  which  this  article imposes,  every  person has a fundamental  right  under  our Constitution  not merely to entertain such religious  belief as may be approved of by his judgment   or conscience but to exhibit hisbelief and ideas in such  overt acts  as  are enjoinedor  sanctioned  by  his religion  and  further  to propagatehis religious views for the edification of others. Itis immaterial also  whether the propagation is made  by a  person  in his individual capacity or on  behalf  of  any church  or  institution.  The free exercise of  religion  by which is meant the performance of outward acts in  pursuance of  relgious belief, is, as stated above, subject  to  State regulation imposed to secure order, public health and morals of the people.  " What then, we inquire, are the materials placed before us to substantiate  the  claim  that the sacrifice  of  a  cow  is enjoined  or sanctioned by Islam ? The materials  before  us are  extremely meagre and it is surprising that on a  matter of  this description the allegations in the petition  should be  so vague.  In the Bihar Petition No. 58 of 1956 are  set out the following bald allegations: That  the petitioners further respectfully submit  that  the said  impugned section also violates the fundamental  rights of  the  petitioners  guaranteed tinder Article  25  of  the Constitution in-as-much as on the occasion of their Bakr  Id Day,  it  is  the religious  practice  of  the  petitioners’ community to sacrifice a cow on the said occasion.  The poor members of the community usually sacrifice one cow for every 7 members whereas it would require one sheep or one goat for each  member which would entail considerably  more  expense. As a result of the total ban imposed by the impugned section the  petitioners would not even be allowed to make the  said sacrifice which is a practice (1)  [1954] S.C.R. 1055, 1062-1063. 650 and  custom  in their religion, enjoined upon them  by  ’the Holy   Quran,  and  practised  by  all  Muslims  from   time immemorial and recognised as such in India.  " The  allegations in the other petitions are similar.  ,These are  met  by  an  equally bald denial in  para.  21  of  the affidavit in opposition.  No affidavit has been filed by any person specially competent to expound the relevant tenets of Islam.   ’No  reference  ’is made in  the  petition  to  any particular Surah of the Holy Quran which, in terms, requires the  sacrifice  of  a cow.  All that was  placed  before  us during  the argument were Surah XXII, Verses 28 and 33,  and Surah  XXII,.   What the Holy book enjoins  is  that  people should  pray unto the Lord and make sacrifice.  We  have  no affidavit   before   us  by  any  Maulana   explaining   the implications  of those Verses or throwing any light on  this problem.   We,  however,  find it laid  down  in  Hamilton’s translation  of Hedaya Book XLIII at p. 592 that it  is  the duty  of  every  free  Mussulman,  arrived  at  the  age  of maturity, to offer a sacrifice on the Yd Kirban, or festival of the sacrifice, provided he be then possessed of Nisab and be  not  a  traveller.  The sacrifice  established  for  one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 39  

person is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel.  It is therefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goat for one person  or a cow or a camel for seven persons.  It does  not appear to be obligatory that a person must sacrifice a  cow. The  very  fact  of an option seems to run  counter  to  the notion  of an obligatory duty.  It is, however, pointed  out that  a  person  with six other members of  his  family  may afford  to sacrifice a cow but may not be able to afford  to sacrifice  seven  goats.   So  there  may  be  an   economic compulsion although there is no religious compulsion.  It is also  pointed  out  that from  time  immemorial  the  Indian Mussalmans have been sacrificing cows and this practice,  if not enjoined, is certainly sanctioned by, their religion and it  amounts to their practice of religion protected by  Art. 25.  While the petitioners claim that the sacrifice of a cow is essential, the State denies the obligatory nature of  the religious   practice.    The   fact,   emphasised   by   the respondents, cannot be                         651 disputed,  namely, that many Mussalmans do not  sacrifice  a cow on the Bakr Id Day.  It is part of the known history  of India  that  the  Moghul Emperor Babar  saw  the  wisdom  of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice  and  directed  his son  Humayun  to  follow  this example.   Similarly  Emperors Akbar,  Jehangir,  and  Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter.  Nawab Hyder Ali of Mysore made cow slaughter an offence punishable with  the cutting of the hands of the offenders.  Three of the  member of  the Gosamvardhan Enquiry Committee set up by  the  Uttar Pradesh Government in 1953 were Muslims and concurred in the unanimous recommendation for total ban on slaughter of cows. We have, however, no material on the record before us  which will  enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing  facts, that  the  sacrifice of a cow on that day is  an  obligatory overt  act for a Mussalman to exhibit his  religious  belief and  idea.   In the premises, it is not possible for  us  to uphold this claim of the petitioners. The  next  complaint  is against the  denial  of  the  equal protection   of  the  law.   It  is  thus  formulated:   The petitioners are Muslims by religion and butchers (Kasais) by occupation and they carry on the trade of selling beef.  The impugned  Acts prejudicially affect only the  Muslim  Kasais who kill cattle but not others who kill goats and sheep  and who  sell goats’ meat and mutton.  It is,  therefore,  clear that  only the Muslim Kasais, who slaughter only cattle  but not  sheep or goats, have been singled out for  hostile  and discriminatory  treatment.  Their further grievance is  that the U. P. Act makes a distinction even between butchers  who kill  cattle and butchers who kill buffaloes and the  Madhya Pradesh  Act  also  makes  a  like  discrimination  in  that slaughter   of  buffaloes  is  permitted,   although   under certificate,  while slaughter of cows, bulls,  bullocks  and calves   are  totally  prohibited.   In  the  premises   the petitioners   contend  that  the  law  which  permits   such discrimination  must  be  struck down as  violative  of  the salutary provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 83 652 The meaning, scope and effect of Art. 14, which is the equal protection clause in our Constitution, has been explained by this Court in a series of decisions in cases beginning  with Chiranjitlal Choudhury v. The Union of India (1) and  ending with the recent case of Ram Krishna Dalmia and others v. Sri Justice S. R.Tendolkar (2).  It is now well established that while  Art. 14 forbids class legislation it does not  forbid

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 39  

reasonable  classification for the purposes  of  legislation and  that in order to pass the test of  permissible  classi- fication  two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i)  the classification   must   be  founded   on   an   intelligible differentia  which distinguishes persons or things that  are grouped together from others left out of the group and  (ii) such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought  to  be  achieved by the statute  in  question.   The classification,  it  has  been  held,  may  be  founded   on different  bases,  namely,  geographical,  or  according  to objects or occupations or the like and what is necessary  is that   there  must  be  a  nexus  between  the   basis   of’ classification   and   the   object   of   the   Act   under consideration.   The  pronouncements of this  Court  further establish,  amongst  other things, that there  is  always  a presumption  in  favour  of  the  constitutionality  of   an enactment  and that the burden is upon him, who attacks  it, to  show  that  there  has been a  clear  violation  of  the constitutional principles.  The courts, it is accepted, must presume  that  the  legislature  understands  and  correctly appreciates  the needs of its own people, that its laws  are directed  to problems made manifest by experience  and  that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds.  It  must be  borne in mind that the legislature is free to  recognise degrees  of harm and may confine its restrictions  to  those cases  where  the  need is deemed to  be  the  clearest  and finally  that  in  order  to  sustain  the  presumption   of constitutionality  the  Court may  take  into  consideration matters  of common knowledge, matters of common report,  the history  of  the times and may assume every state  of  facts which can be conceived existing at the time of  legislation. We, therefore, proceed to examine (1) [1950] S.C.R. 869.          (2) [1959] S.C.R. 279. 653 the  impugned  Acts  in the light  of  the  principles  thus enunciated by this Court. The impugned Acts, it may be recalled, have been made by the States  in discharge of the obligations imposed on  them  by Art. 48.  In order to implement the directive principles the respective   Legislatures  enacted  the  impugned  Acts   in exercise  of the powers conferred on them by Art.  246  read with  entry 15 in List II of the Seventh Schedule.   It  is, therefore,  quite  clear  that  the  objects  sought  to  be achieved   by  the  impugned  Acts  are  the   preservation, protection  and  improvement of  livestocks.   Cows,  bulls, bullocks and calves of cows are no doubt the most  important cattle for the agricultural economy of this country.  Female buffaloes yield a large quantity of milk and are, therefore, well looked after and do not need as much protection as cows yielding  a  small  quantity of milk  require.   As  draught cattle  male buffaloes are not half as useful  as  bullocks. Sheep  and goat give very little milk compared to  the  cows and the female buffaloes and have practically no utility  as draught  animals.   These different  categories  of  animals being susceptible of classification into separate groups  on the  basis of their usefulness to society, the butchers  who kill  each category may also be placed in  distinct  classes according to the effect produced on society by the  carrying on  of their respective occupations.  Indeed  the  butchers, who  kill  cattle,  according  to  the  allegations  of  the petitioners themselves in their respective petitions, form a well   defined  class  based  on  their  occupation.    That classification is based on an intelligible differentia which places  them in a well defined class and distinguishes  them from those who kill goats and sheep and this differentia has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 39  

a close connection with the object sought to be achieved  by the  impugned Act, namely, the preservation, protection  and improvement  of  our  livestock.  The  attainment  of  these objectives  may  well necessitate that the  slaughterers  of cattle  should  be  dealt with  more  stringently  than  the slaughterers  of, say, goats and sheep.  The impugned  Acts, therefore,  have  adopted  a  classification  on  sound  and intelligible basis and can quite clearly stand the test laid down in 654 the decisions of this Court.  Whatever objections there  may be against the validity of the impugned Acts the -denial  of equal  protection of the laws does not, prima facie,  appear to  us to be one of them.  In any case, bearing in mind  the presumption of constitutionality attaching to all enactments founded on the recognition by the court of the fact that the legislature  correctly  appreciates  the needs  of  its  own people  there  appears to be no escape from  the  conclusion that  the petitioners have not discharged the onus that  was on  them and the challenge under Art. 14 cannot,  therefore, prevail. Learned  counsel for the petitioners then take  their  final stand on Art. 19(1)(g).  Immediately learned counsel for the respondents counter the charge by saying that Art.  19(1)(g) can hit only the law which purports to directly violate  its provisions.   The impugned Acts, we are reminded, have  been made in implementation of the directive principles laid down in Art. 48 and are laws with respect to matters set forth in entry  15  of  List II and it is emphasised  that  the  sole purpose  of these enactments is to secure the  preservation, protection and improvement of stock and that its real aim is not  to take away or abridge the rights guaranteed  by  Art. 19(1)(g).   If at all, these enactments may only  indirectly and incidentally affect those, rights but that  circumstance cannot  alter  their real nature and purpose.   Reliance  is placed  in  support  of this  contention  on  the  following observations  of Kania C. J. in A. K. Gopalan v.  The  State (1). " If there is a legislation directly attempting to control a citizen’s  freedom of speech or expression, or his right  to assemble  peaceably  and without aims,  etc.,  the  question whether  that  legislation is saved by the  relevant  saving clause  of  article’  19  will  arise.   If,  however,   the legislation  is  not  directly in respect of  any  of  these subjects,  but  as  a  result  of  the  operation  of  other legislation,  for  instance,  for  punitive  or   preventive detention,  his  right  under any of  these  sub-clauses  is abridged, the question of the application of article 19 does not  arise.   The  true approach is  only  to  consider  the directness of the legislation and not what will (1)  [1950] S.C.R. 88, 101. 655 be the result of the detention otherwise valid, on the  mode of the detenue’s life.  " This  part  of  the  argument  advanced  on  behalf  of  the respondents  is further sought to be reinforced by the  fact that the above observations of Kania C. J. had  subsequently been adopted by this Court in Ram Singh v.The State of Delhi (1).  Those observations of Kania C.    J.  should,  in  our opinion, be read in the context of the facts of those cases. It  should be remembered that both these cases arose out  of orders  made  under  the  Preventive  Detention  Act,  1950. Article  22,  which  is to be found in Chapter  III  of  the Constitution,   recognises  the  necessity  for   preventive detention, however odious it may be.  The purpose of the Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 39  

under  which  the detention orders had been  made  in  those cases,  was to prevent the persons concerned from acting  in any  manner prejudicial to one or other of the three  impor- tant matters specified therein.  The effect of the execution of the orders was to deprive those persons of their  liberty according  to  procedure  established  by  law.   Preventive detention,  like punitive detention, having taken  away  the personal  liberty of those persons they could not claim  the rights under Art. 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) for those were the rights of free men.  It was, therefore, considered that  the primary  and direct object of the Preventive Detention  Act, 1950, being, inter alia, to secure the security of the State and  maintenance  of  law  and  order,  its  impact  on  the fundamental  rights  was indirect and,  therefore,  the  Act could not be challenged for breach of the fundamental rights under  Art. 19(1).  The position in the cases now before  us is  quite  different.   The  last  part  of  the   directive principles  embodied  in Art. 48 require the State  to  take steps for prohibiting the slaughter of the specified animals and  this directive can only be carried out  by  prohibiting the  petitioners and other butchers (Kasais)  from.  slaugh- tering  them.  There can be no mistake about the  directness of  these legislations vis-a-vis the petitioners  and  other butchers  and  the  effect of these  legislations  on  their rights  is  direct  and instantaneous as soon  as  they  are brought into force.  The title of the U. P. Act (1)  [1951]1 S.C.R. 451, 456-457. 656 does  not  even  attempt to conceal the  directness  of  its impact  on the butchers of Uttar Pradesh.  The  argument  of learned counsel for the respondents on this point cannot  be accepted  and the question of the alleged violation of  Art. 19(1)(g) has to be dealt with on merits. The  complaint of the petitioners under Art. 19 (1)  (g)  is that  the  impugned Acts, if enforced, will compel  them  at once  to  close  down their business and  will,  in  effect, amount  to  a complete denial of their right  to  carry  oil their  occupation,  trade  or  business  in  spite  of   the mandatory  provisions  of Art. 19(1)(g).  The  objection  is elaborated  thus:  The  livelihood of a  butcher  of  cattle depends  on the existence of many factors.  First he has  to purchase the cattle which he will slaughter.  The statistics will show that a large number of cattle are slaughtered  for food  every  year.  According to Table 11 on p.  24  of  the Report  on the Marketing of Cattle in India 18,93,000  heads of  cattle  and 6,09,000 buffaloes were slaughtered  in  the year 1948.  Taking that 7 goats are the equivalent in  flesh of   cow or buffalo these butchers who  slaughter  25,02,000 bovine cattle will have to find 7 times that number of goats or sheep, that is to say, they will have to have 1,75,14,000 extra  goats  and sheep per year. This it is  said,  is  not available  in -India.  Then the butchers will have  to  find buyers  for this enormous quantity of goats’ meat or  mutton the  price of which, according to the figures given at  p.12 of the Expert Committee’.-, Report, is very much higher than that  of  beef.   Poorer  people  may  afford  to  buy  beef occasionally but goat-,’ meat or mutton will be beyond their reach  and consequently there will not be a market for  sale of the meat of so many goats and sheep and the butchers will have to reduce the number of goats and sheep for purposes of slaughter and that will reduce their income to a  negligible figure.   Further,  what will they do with the skins  of  so many goats, and sheep ? They will not have ready sale in the market  as hides of cows and buffaloes have, for the  latter are  used  in the manufacture of boots, shoes,  suit  cases,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 39  

belts  and other leather goods while the skins of goats  and sheep will be useless 657 for such purpose.  The same considerations will apply to the guts.   There is, therefore, no escape, say learned  counsel for  the petitioners from the inevitable conclusion  that  a total  ban on the slaughter of all animals belonging to  the species   of  bovine  cattle  will  bring  about   a   total prohibition  of the business and occupation of the  butchers (Kasais).   Clause  (6) of Art. 19, no doubt,  protects  the operation of the existing laws in so far as they impose  and do  not prevent the State from making any law  imposing,  in the interest of the general public, reasonable  restrictions on  the  exercise of the right conferred by  Art.  19(1)(g). But   restrictions,  they  say,  cannot  extend   to   total prohibition and reference is made to the observations to  be found  in  some  of  the  decisions  of  this  Court.    The contention  is  that  the  State  may  regulate  but  cannot annihilate  a business which a citizen has a right to  carry on. The  rival  contention is thus  formulated:  The  dictionary meaning of the word " butcher " is " slaughterer of  animals for  food,  dealer in meat".  It is one of the  three  well- known  occupations  included  in the homely  phrase,  "  the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker".  The  expression "  butcher ", as popularly understood now, has no  reference to any particular animal.  The term is now applicable to any person  who slaughters any animal for food.  Taken  in  this larger  sense,  the facts alleged in the petitions  do  not, according  to learned counsel for the respondents,  indicate that  any of the impugned Acts has the effect of  completely stopping   the  petitioners’  businesses.   They   seek   to illustrate  their point thus: Take the case  of  piece-goods merchants.   Some may deal in country made  piece-goods  and others may import and sell piece-goods manufactured, say, in England  or  Japan.  Some may deal in dhotis and  saris  and others may confine their activities to the purchase and sale of long cloth or other varieties of piece-goods.  They  are, however, all piece-goods merchants.  Suppose in the interest of  our indigenous textile industry and to protect the  best interests of the general public it becomes necessary to stop the import of foreign cloth altogether.  Such stoppage  will not prevent any cloth 658 merchant  from  carrying on his trade or business  as  cloth merchant,  for  he can still deal in  cloth  and  piecegoods manufactured in India.  Will any piece-goods merchant, whose business was only to import foreign piece-goods for sale  in India,  be heard to complain that the stoppage of import  of foreign cloth has completely prevented him from carrying  on business  as  a piece goods merchant  and,  therefore,  such stoppage  of import of foreign cloth being more than a  mere restriction  violates  his  fundamental  right  under   Art. 19(1)(g)  ?  Where, they ask, will the argument  lead  us  ? Suppose that the import of one particular variety of  piece- goods,  say saris, is stopped but import of dhotis  and  all other varieties of piece-goods are allowed.  On a  reasoning at par with that urged in the last case should not a  dealer who  imports only that variety of piece-goods the import  of which has been stopped be entitled to say that his  business has  been  completely  stopped ? Suppose the  State  in  the interest  of Khadi and cottage industries imposes a  ban  on the manufacture or sale of cloth of a very fine count,  will a  merchant who deals only in fine cloth be entitled to  say that as he deals only in fine cloth, the ban has  completely

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 39  

prohibited  the carrying on of his business ? The  truth  of the  matter, they submit, is that the ban on the  import  of foreign  cloth or on the manufacture of cloth of  very  fine count  is  only  a restriction imposed  on  the  piece-goods business, for the ban affects one or more of the segments of that  business  but  leaves the  other  segments  untouched. There is, therefore, only some restriction imposed on piece- goods merchants in that they cannot deal in certain kinds of piece-goods, but they are not wholly prevented from carrying on  piece-goods  business.  The position, they say,  is  the same  in  the  case of  butchers  (Kasais).   The  butchers’ business, they point out, has several segments and a ban  on one segment may be complete prohibition of the activities of that  segment,  for  restriction is complete as  far  as  it extends, but in the larger context of the butchers’ business such  a  ban, they submit, operates only as  a  restriction. Far  less, it is said can a dealer in hides,  complain  that the ban 659 imposed on the slaughter of cattle and buffaloes prevent him from,  carrying on his, business as a hide merchant, for  he call  still carry on his business in ,fallen hides.   Indeed the statistics collected in the Report of Marketing of Hides in  India, Second Edition, p.9, show that the percentage  of fallen  hides to the total cattle population is 8.8  whereas the  percentage  of slaughtered hides to  the  total  cattle population is 1.4. The.  same  argument has been  advanced  regarding  gut merchants and other dealers in subsidiary things. It is not necessary for us to dilate upon or to express  any opinion   on   the  rival  contentions  as   abstract   pro. positions  .  The matter has to be dealt  with  objectively. What  do  the Acts actually provide ? In Uttar  Pradesh  the petitioners  can freely slaughter buffaloes (male or  female adults or calves) and sell their meat for food.  It is  also open to them to slaughter goats and sheep and sell the meat. Therefore,  so  far  as the butchers of  Uttar  Pradesh  are concerned, there A,, obviously no total prohibition of their occupation  but only some restrictions have been imposed  on them in respect of one part of their occupation, namely, the slaughter of cows, bulls, bullocks, and calves of cows.   In Madhya  Pradesh  the Act, it is true,  totally  forbids  the slaughter  of  cows including bulls, bullocks and  cows  but permits the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female adults or calves)  under  certain conditions.   Therefore,  in  Madhya [Pradesh  also  there  is no  law  totally  prohibiting  the carrying  on of the business of a butcher.  In  Bihar  there is,  no  doubt,  a total ban against the  slaughter  of  all animals  belonging  to the, species of bovine  cattle  which includes buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) but  it is  still  possible for the butchers of Bihar  to  slaughter goats  and sheep and sell goats’ meat and mutton  for  food. As will be -seen hereafter the total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) irrespective of their age or usefulness is, in our view, not a  reasonable restriction imposed on, the butchers  (Kasais) in  the  interest  of the general  public  and  that  being, therefore, void, no question can arise, even in 660 Bihar, of any total prohibition of the rights of butchers to carry on their occupation or business.  In this view of  the matter  we  need  express  no final  opinion  on  the  vexed question  as to whether restrictions permissible  under  cl. (6)  of  Art.  19 may extend  to  total  prohibition.   That question was left open by this court in Saghir Ahmed v.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 39  

State O. U. P. and others (1) and in The State of Bombay  v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala (2) and in the view we have taken on the  facts  and  construction  of  the  several  Acts  under consideration,  does not call for an answer in disposing  of these petitions.  The question that calls for an answer from us  is  whether  these restrictions are  reasonable  in  the interests of the general public. Clause  (6) of Art. 19 protects a law which imposes  in  the interest  of the general public reasonable  restrictions  on the  exercise of the right conferred by sub cl. (g)  of  cl. (1) of Art. 19.  Quite obviously it is left to the court, in case  of  dispute, to determine the  reasonableness  of  the restrictions  imposed  by  the  law.   In  determining  that question the court, we conceive, cannot proceed on a general notion  of what is reasonable in the abstract or even  on  a consideration  of what is reasonable from the point of  view of  the  person  or persons on  whom  the  restrictions  are imposed.  The right conferred by sub-cl. (g) is expressed in general  language  and  if  there  had  been  no  qualifying provision  like el. (6), the right so conferred  would  have been an absolute one.  To the person who has this right  any restriction will be irksome and may well be regarded by  him as unreasonable.  But the question cannot be decided on that basis.  What the court has to do is to consider whether  the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interests of  the general  public.   In the State of Madras v. V. 0.  Row  (3) this  court has laid down the test of reasonableness in  the following terms: "  It is important in this context to bear in mind that  the test  of  reasonableness,  wherever  prescribed,  should  be applied to each individual statute impugned-, (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707, 724.    (2) [1957] S.C.R. 874. (3) [1952] S.C.R. 597, 607. 661 and  no  abstract standard, or general pattern,  of  reason- ableness  can be laid down as applicable to all cases.   The nature  of  the right alleged to have  been  infringed,  the underlying  purpose of the restrictions imposed, the  extent and  urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby,  the disproportion  of the imposition, the prevailing  conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.  In evaluating  such  elusive  factors  and  forming  their  own conception  of what is reasonable, in all the  circumstances of a given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy and  the scale of values of the judges participating in  the decision  should  play an important part, and the  limit  to their  interference with legislative judgment in such  cases can  only be dictated by their sense of  responsibility  and self-restraint   and  the  sobering  reflection   that   the Constitution  is meant not only for people of their  way  of thinking  but for all, and that the majority of the  elected representatives  of  the  people have,  in  authorising  the imposition  of  the  restrictions,  considered  them  to  be reasonable." These observations have been adopted by this Court in  later cases, e. g., The State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal  Bose (1) and Ebrahim Vazir Mavat v. The State of Bombay (2).   In this  connection  it  will  also be  well  to  remember  the observation  of  Mahajan  J.  in  The  State  of  Bihar   v. Maharajadhiraj  Sir  Kameshwar  Singh  of  Dharbangha   (3), namely, that " the legislature is the best judge of what  is good  for  the community, by whose suffrage  it  comes  into existence....... This should be the proper approach for  the court  but the ultimate responsibility for  determining  the validity  of the law must rest with the court and the  court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 39  

must  not  shirk  that  solemn  duty  cast  on  it  by   the Constitution.   We have, therefore, to approach the  problem now  before us in the light of the principles laid  down  by this Court. The avowed object of each of the impugned Acts is to  ensure the preservation, protection, and improvement of the cow and her progeny.  This solicitude (1) (1954] S.C.R. 587, 627.  (2) [1954] S.C.R. 933, 949-950,                 (3) [1952] S.C.R. 889, 041. 662 arises  out of the appreciation of the usefulness of  cattle in  a  predominantly  agricultural  society.   Early  Aryans recognised  its importance as one of the most  indispensable adjuncts  of  agriculture.  It would appear  that  in  Vedic times  animal  flesh formed the staple food of  the  people. This  is attributable to the fact that the climate  in  that distant  past  was extremely cold and the Vedic  Aryans  had been   a  pastoral  people  before  they  settled  down   as agriculturists.   In  Rg.  Vedic times goats,  sheep,  cows, buffaloes and even horses were slaughtered for food and  for religious  sacrifice and their flesh used to be  offered  to the Gods.  Agni is called the " eater of ox or cow " in  Rg. Veda (VIII. 43, 11).  The staying of a great ox (Mahoksa) or a  "  great  Goat  " (Mahaja) for  the  entertainment  of  a distinguished  guest  has  been enjoined  in  the  Satapatha Brahmana (111. 4. 1-2).  Yagnavalkya also expresses  similar view (Vaj 1. 109).  An interesting account of those    early days  will be found in Rg.  Vedic Culture by Dr. A. C.  Das, Ch. 5, pp. 203-5, and in the History of Dharmasastras  (Vol. II-,  Part  II) by P. V. Kane at pp.  772-773.   Though  the custom  of slaughtering of cows and bulls  prevailed  during the Vedic period, nevertheless, even in the Rg.  Vedic times there seems to have grown up a revulsion of feeling  against the  custom.   The cow gradually came to acquire  a  special Sanctity and was called " Aghnya " (not to be slain).  There was  a  school of thinkers amongst the Rsis, who  set  their face  against the custom of killing such useful  animals  as the  cow and the bull.  High praise was bestowed on the  cow as  will  appear from the following verses from  Rg.   Veda, Book VI, Hymn XXVIII (Cows) attributed to the authorship  of Sage Bhardvaja: "  1. The kine have come and brought good fortune; lot  them rest in the cow-pen and be happy near US. Here  let  them  stay prolific,  many  coloured,  and  yield through many morns their milk for Indra. 6. O cows, ye fatten e’en the worn and wasted, and make  the unlovely beautiful to look on. Prosper  my house, ye with auspicious voices, your power  is glorified in our assemblies. 663 7.   Crop  goodly  pasturages and be  prolific;  drink  pure sweet water at good drinking places. Never  be thief or sinful man your master, and may the  dart of Rudra still avoid you. (Translation by Ralph Griffith).  Verse 29 of Hymn 1 in Book X.of Atharva Veda forbids cow slaughter in the following words: "  29.  The slaughter of an innocent, O Kritya, is an  awful deed, Slay not cow, horse, or man of ours.  " Hymn 10 in the same Book is a rapturous glorification of the cow: "  30.   The  cow is Heaven, the cow is Earth,  the  cow  is Vishnu, Lord of life, The  Sadhyas and the Vasus have drunk the outpourings of the cow. 34.  Both  Gods and mortal men depend for life and being  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 39  

the cow. She hath become this universe; all that the sun ,surveys  is she.  " P.V.  Kane argue,, that in the times of’ the Rg.  Veda  only barren cows,if at all, were killed for sacrifice or meat and cows yielding milk were held to be not fit for being killed. It  is  only  in this way, according to him,  that  one  can explain  and  reconcile the apparent  conflict  between  the custom of killing COWS for food and the high praise bestowed oil  the cow in Rg.  Vedic times.  It would appear that  the protest  raised  against  the  slaughter  of  cows   greatly increased in volume till the custom was totally abolished in a  later age.  The change of climate perhaps also  make  the use  of beef food unnecessary and even injurious to  health. Gradually cows became indicative of the wealth of the owner. The Neolithic Aryans not having been acquainted with metals, there were no coins in current use in the earlier stages  of their  civilisation, but as they were eminently  a  pastoral people almost every family possessed a sufficient number  of cattle and ’some of them exchanged them for the  necessaries of  their life,.  The value of cattle (Pasu)was,  therefore, very  great with the early Rg.  Vedic Aryans.   The  ancient Romans also used the word pecus or pecu (pasu) in the  sense of wealth or money.  The English words, 664 "  Pecuniary  " and " impecunious ", are  derived  from  the Latin  root pecus or pecu, originally meaning  cattle.   The possession of cattle in those days denoted wealth and a  man was considered rich or poor according to the large or  small number  of  cattle  that he owned.   In  the  Ramayana  King Janaka’s  wealth  was described by reference  to  the  large number of herds that he owned.  It appears that the cow  was gradually  raised  to the status  of  divinity.   Kautilya’s Arthasastra  has a special chapter (Ch.  XXIX) dealing  with the "superintendent of cows" and the duties of the owner  of cows  are  also referred to in Ch.  XI of Hindu Law  in  its sources  by Ganga Nath Jha.  There can be no gainsaying  the fact  that  the  Hindus in general hold  the  cow  in  great reverence and the idea of the, slaughter of cows for food is repugnant  to  their notions and this sentiment has  in  the past  even  led to communal riots.  It is also a  fact  that after  the  recent partition of the country  this  agitation against the slaughter of cows has been further  intensified. While  we agree that the constitutional question  before  us cannot  be  decided on grounds of  mere  sentiment,  however passion  ate it may be, we, nevertheless, think that it  has to  be taken into consideration, though only as one of  many elements,  in  arriving  at a judicial  verdict  as  to  the reasonableness of the restrictions. Cattle  in  India, it is said, has a treble  role  to  play, namely, (i) to produce milk for food, (ii) bulls for draught and (iii) manure for agriculture.  It is necessary to advert to the arguments advanced under each head.  According to the 1951  census  there were 15,60,00,000 heads  of  cattle  and 4,00,00,000  of buffaloes making a total of 19,60,00,000  or roughly 20,00,00,000 of animals belonging to the species  of bovine  cattle.   In  India there are 123  heads  of  cattle including  buffaloes per square mile and 43 heads  to  every 100  persons.   Out  of  the  total  cattle  population   of 15,60,00,000  and  buffalo population of  4,00,00,000  there were in Bihar 1,52,97,000 cattle and 33,16,000 buffaloes, in Madhya  Pradesh  1,48,58,000 heads of cattle  and  26,00,000 buffaloes  and in Uttar Pradesh 2,35,13,000 heads of  cattle and 92,50,000 buffaloes.                                           665

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 39  

The total distribution of cattle and buffaloes, according to age, sex and work, was as follows:-           Males                 Cattle         Buffaloes Breeding bulls                     6,52,0003,06,000 Working bullocks            5,88,18,00060,36,000 Bulls and bullocks over three years not in use for breed- ing and work, i. e., useless.  27,35,0004,66,000 Young stock under once year.  97,63,000    28,70,000 Young stock one to three             years of age.      1,22,57,000  23,84,000 Total                    8,42,25,000  1,20,02,000           Females Breeding cows, i.e., cows, over 3 years kept for breeding or milk production.        4,67,23,000  2,10,08,000 Cows over 3 years used for work.                        23,17,000    5,34,000 Cows over 3 years not in use for work or breeding purposes, i. e., useless.    12,02,0003,15,000 Young stock over 1 year.     93,05,00042,02,000 Young stock 1 to 3 years of age.                          1,25,44,00052,83,000      Total             7,20,91,000    3,13,42,000      Grand total         15,63,16,000   4,33,44,000 As stated in the Report on the Marketing of Cattle in  India issued  by  the  Directorate of  Marketing  and  Inspection, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, 1956, the proportion of males in cattle is a little more than half of  the  total  cattle  population whilst  in  the  case  of buffaloes,  females  predominate and are about  3/4  of  the total.  For agricultural purposes male cattle are  generally preferred for their comparative lightness and active nature. Of  the  total 39,57,000 unserviceable heads  of  cattle  in India  there  were  5,35,000 in Bihar,  1,55,000  in  Madhya Pradesh  and  1,84,000  in  Uttar  Pradesh.   Of  the  total 7,81,000 666 unserviceable buffaloes there were 1,20,000 in Bihar, 15,000 in Madhya Pradesh and 28,000 in Uttar Pradesh. Although,  according to the census figures given above,  our cattle  wealth is, in number, the highest in the  world  the milk  production  is perhaps the lowest.  According  to  the figures given in the Second Five Year Plan, at the beginning of  the  First  Five  Year Plan the  milk  output  was  over 1,80,00,000  ton,;.   The average yield of milk per  cow  in India  was  413  pounds which is about  the  lowest  of  any country  in  the  world  as  against  8,000  pounds  in  the Netherlands,  7,000  pounds in Australia,  6,000  pounds  in Sweden and 5,000 pounds in the U.S.A. Out of the total yield she-buffaloes  give 54% while cows give only  42%.   Buffalo milk is richer in fat, 6 to 7% as compared to 4.5% of fat in the cow’s milk,. But cows milk is richer in other  important content.,,  and is more easily digestible.  The average  per capita consumption of milk and milk products was worked  out by  the First Five Year Plan at 5.5 ounces, i.e., about  2.5 chhataks  or  1/6 of a seer per day, though  10  ounces  are recommended by nutrition experts.  In the Facts and  Figures about  Bihar published in 1955 by the Department  of  Public Relations,  the average annual. milk yield is stated  to  be 620  lbs.  per  cow  and 1,526  lbs.  per  buffalo.   It  is recognised in Human Nutrition vis-a-vis Animal Nutrition  in India,  a  Memorandum  prepared by  the  Nutrition  Advisory Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 39  

Animal  Committee  of  the Indian  Council  of  Agricultural Research  that  the  performance  of  Indian  much  animals, particularly of cows, is extremely poor and that from a more economic  point  of  view  there does not  seem  to  be  any justification  for maintaining animals yielding 2 pounds  of milk or less per day and perhaps these animals would  better be eliminated.  But, as the Memorandum also says, one should realise,  before  such  a  drastic  action  is  taken,   the consequences  that  may  follow from the  adoption  of  this policy,  for if the animals giving 2 pounds or less of  milk are condemned as unsuitable it will mean elimination of more than  90%  of the present day much cows and  loss  of  about 70,00,000 tons out of 97,00,000 tons of annual 667 gross  production of milk from this group, besides  a  large number  of bullocks that they will bear.  According  to  the table  of  the  human food requirement  recommended  by  the Nutrition  Advisory  Committee  of  the  Indian  Council  of Medical Research 10 ounces of milk per adult unit per day is necessary  to  make tip a balanced diet.   The  total  human population,  according  to  1951  census,  was  35,68,00,000 which,  at  the current rate of increase, was  estimated  to have  reached the figure of 37,76,00,000 in 1956.   Treating children  below 10 years of age as 0.83 of adult value,  the total adult unit is calculated at 31,30,00,000.  At the rate of  10  ounces of milk per adult per day  we  Would  require 3,23,00,000 tons of milk per annum.  It is clear, therefore, that  in  India, where a large section  of  tile  population consists  of  vegetarians, there is a huge shortage  in  the supply of milk.  Cows and other milch cattle, therefore, are of  very  great  value to this  country.  If  milk  yielding capacity  were  the  only  consideration  the  comparatively smaller number of female buffaloes which produce 54% of  the total  milk  supply  of our  country  would  obviously  have deserved  a  far  greater preference over the  cows  in  our estimation.   But,  as  pointed  out  by  Pandit   Thakurdas Bhargava, there is another important consideration which  is perhaps  more  important from the standpoint of  human  food supply.   It is the bullock that takes the largest share  in meeting   the  power  requirements  for   our   agricultural production.   Based  perhaps on age  old  experience  Indian agriculturists habitually prefer a cow bullock to a  buffalo bullock.   As a result of the evolutionary process of  trial and error, we find in this country about 10 cow bullocks for every buffalo bullock as is shown by the 1951 census figures set out above.  If this relative distribution is  considered unavoidable for our crop production, we may expect no change in  the existing ratio in the population of the two  species unless a revolution can be brought about in our methods  and practice  of land cultivation.  According to the  Report  on the  Marketing of Cattle in India, 1956, p. 22, animals  are utilised   in   India   under  four   heads:(1)   used   for cultivating6,54,22,000 (2) used 85 668 for  carting  in  urban areas-11,80,000  (3)  used  as  pack animals-67,705  and (4) used in oil crushers,  etc.4,30,000, making  up  the total of 6,70,99,705.  As  against  this  we have,  according to the 1951 census figures set  out  above, 5,88,18,000  working  bullocks  and  60,36,000  working  he- buffaloes, aggregating to 6,48,54,000.  There is therefore a shortage  of  22,45,705 bullocks including  buffaloes  which presumably  represent the dry cows and female buffaloes  put to  agricultural  labour, as shown in the Second  Five  Year Plan at pp. 281-282.  It is true that tractors have begun to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 39  

be  used but they are still of a negligible number  and  for many  years  to come the country will have  to  depend  upon animal  power  for her agricultural operations in  order  to grow enough food for meeting the demands of the fast growing human  population.  In Uttar Pradesh, according to the  1951 census, there were 2,35,12,839 heads of cattle and 92,50,488 buffaloes, making a total of 3,27,63,327.  The total area of Uttar Pradesh was 7,22,78,809 acres out of which 4,92,30,120 acres were under cultivation.  If a pair of bullocks can  be taken  on an average to cover 10 acres the total area  under cultivation  will  require  98,46,000  bullocks.   The  1951 census  figures  show  1,15,00,000  of  bullocks  which  are slightly  in excess of the number of bullocks  required  for the  purposes  of cultivation only.  Indeed  both  in  Uttar Pradesh and in Bihar, according to the First Five Year Plan, p.  247, there was a surplus of about 40,00,000 of  bullocks while in the Punjab and Pepsu the number available was  just adequate to meet the demands.  If, however, account is taken of  the  other  purposes for which  bullocks  may  be  used, namely,  for carting or as pack animals or for  working  oil crushers  or  drawing water from the  wells  for  irrigation purposes,  the total available animal power will fall  short of the requirements.  In addition to that we have to keep in view  the necessity for further expansion of the  cultivated area  to  meet  the food requirements of  the  fast  growing population,  and in that case the deficit will go  up  still further.   In  Bihar, according to the  Facts  and  Figures, 1956,  the total number of animal population of  the  bovine species were:-      669      Cattle      Cows and oxen (adults)        1,15,64,310      Cows and oxen (young stock)    37,33,166      Buffaloes (adult)              23,78,293      Buffaloes (young stock)        9,37,582      The number of working cattle andbuffaloes works out to one for every 6 acres of net area under cultivation.   It follows,  therefore,  that our working animals  are  perhaps just  about  sufficient  to supply the  power  to  keep  our agricultural  operations up to the necessary  standard,  but the  demand for food is growing and more lands will have  to be  brought  under cultivation and we shall  require  a  far large number of these animals. There  are  in India, 6,50,000 breeding bulls  and  3,10,000 breeding buffaloes.  There are 4,63,40,000 breeding cows and 2,09,90,000 breeding buffaloes.  According to the First Five Year  Plan,  1). 274, approximately 750 farm bred  bulls  of known pedigree are distributed annually by the Government in different States for developing and improving the draught as well  as the milch breeds.  Besides there are some  approved bulls belonging to private owners.  But the existing  number of  private  bulls  meets  less than 0.  15%  of  the  total requirements of the country.  According to the Report on the Marketing  of  Cattle in India, p. 9, service  bulls  number approximately 6,52,000 or about 0.4% of the total cattle  in the  country.  In the absence of an arrangement to  castrate or  remove  the  inferior bulls before a  pedigree  bull  is located  in an area, the progeny of the pedigree bulls  have access to scrub, which nullifies the efficiency achieved  in the  first  generation.  It is, therefore,  clear  that  the breeding  bulls (cattle and buffaloes) are  insufficient  to meet  the  requirements.  It is true that  the  practice  of artificial insemination has been introduced in some  centres but for many years to come Indian animal husbandry will have to  depend on the ordinary breeding bulls.  We are in  short

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 39  

supply of them. The third utility of these animals (cattle and buffaloes) is the dung.  The First Five Year Plan at p. 255 670 records  that  80,00,00,000 tons of dung are  available  per annum.  50% of this is used as fuel by cultivators  and  the other  50% is used as manure.  If suitable supplies of  fuel could  be made available to the cultivators then the  entire quantity of dung could be used for manure.  It is  doubtful, however,  if the cultivators would be in a position  to  pay for  the  fuel  and utilise the entirety  of  the  dung  for manure.   Cattle  urine  is also useful  for  the  nitrogen, phosphates and potash contents in it.  In terms of money the dung  and the urine will account for a large portion of  the agricultural  income  in  India.   Indeed  Pandit  Thakurdas Bhargava  appearing  as  amnicus  curiae  has  claimed   Rs. 63,00,00,000  per  year as the contribution of the  dung  of these animals to the national income. The   discussion   in  the  foregoing   paragraphs   clearly establishes the usefulness of the cow and her progeny.  They sustain  the  health of the nation by giving them  the  life giving   milk   which  is  so  essential  an   item   in   a scientifically  balanced  diet.  The  working  bullocks  are indispensable  for  our agriculture, for they  supply  power more  than  any  other  animal.   Good  breeding  bulls  are necessary  to  improve  the breed so that  the  quality  and stamina of the future cows and working bullocks may increase and  the production of food and milk may improve and  be  in abundance.   The  dung  of the animal is  cheaper  than  the artificial  manures and is extremely useful.  In short,  the backbone  of Indian agriculture is in a manner  of  speaking the  cow and her progeny.  Indeed Lord Linlithgow has  truly said-" The cow and the working bullock have on their patient back  the whole structure of Indian agriculture.  "  (Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India, p. 20).  If, therefore, we  are to attain sufficiency in the production of food,  if we  are to maintain the nation’s health, the efficiency  and breed   of  our  Cattle  population  must  be   considerably improved.   To  attain the above objectives we  must  devote greater  attention  to  the  preservation,  protection   and improvement  of the stock and organise our  agriculture  and animal  husbandry on modern and scientific lines.  We  have, therefore,  to examine the provisions of the  impugned  Acts and 671 ascertain   whether   they  help  in  achieving   the   said objectives,  or are calculated to hinder that  process.   In that  context all the considerations above alluded  to  must enter the judicial verdict and if the impugned Acts  further the aforesaid purpose then only can the restrictions imposed by  the  impugned  Acts  be said to  be  reasonable  in  the interest of the general public. We turn now to the other side of the picture.  In  examining the conspectus of the problem the Court cannot overlook  the fact, emphasised in the petition, that the petitioners and a very  large  number of similarly situated persons,  even  if their number does not come up to the figure mentioned in the petition,  are butchers (Kasais) by occupation and  make  an income  of about Rs. 150 to Rs. 200 per month and that  they will be seriously affected, if not completely thrown out  of occupation,  by the impugned Acts.  It is true, for  reasons hereinbefore  stated,  that they cannot complain  that  they have  been  completely  deprived  of  their  occupation   or business  but the enactments, if valid, will compel them  to make fresh arrangements for the supply of animals which  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 39  

permitted to be slaughtered for food.  Theoretically it  may not  be impossible for them to do so, but in practice it  is more than likely to cause considerable inconvenience to them and  may  even involve extra expenses for  them.   The  hide merchants,  who, they say in the petition, have  made  their arrangements for the supply to them of hides of  slaughtered animals  up  to  95 % of their  requirements,  may  find  it difficult  to make fresh arrangements for  procuring  fallen hides.   The  same observations may be made  about  the  gut merchants.   The immediate effect of the operation of  these Acts  is to cause a serious dislocation of the  petitioners’ business without any compensatory benefit.  In Saghir  Ahmad v.  The State of U. P. (1), at p. 727 this  Court  observed, with  respect  to the persons engaged in running  buses  for carrying passengers: " One thing, however, in our opinion, has a decided  hearing on the question of reasonableness and that is the  immediate effect which the legislation is likely to (1)[1955] 1 S.C.R. 707,724. 672 produce.  Hundreds of citizens are earning their  livelihood by  carrying on this business on various routes  within  the State of Uttar Pradesh.  Although they carry on the business only  with the aid of permits, which are granted to them  by the   authorities   under  the  Motor   Vehicles   Act,   no compensation has been allowed to them under the Statute.  " Similar  inconvenience  may  easily  be  supposed  to   have befallen  the petitioners and others of their class and  the immediate  and possibly adverse impact of the impugned  Acts on  their occupation or business must, therefore,  be  taken into account as one Of the important factors in judging  the reasonableness or otherwise of the said Acts. There  is  also no getting away from the fact that  beef  or buffalo  meat is an item of food for a large section of  the people in India and in particular of the State of Bihar  and Uttar  Pradesh.   Table  11 at p. 24 of the  Report  on  the Marketing of Cattle in India shows that in the year 1948 the annual demand for cattle and buffaloes for purposes of  food was:  1.8,93,000  heads of cattle  and  6,09,000  buffaloes. These figures indicate that beef and buffalo flesh are  used for  food by a large section of the people in India.  It  is wellknown  that poorer sections of Muslims,  Christians  and members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes consume beef  and buffalo  flesh.  There is also a limited demand for beef  by the  foreign  population.   Buffaloes  yield   comparatively coarse  and tough meat of inferior quality and  consequently the demand for beef is greater than that for buffalo  flesh. Further  the  price of the buffalo flesh is 20 to  40%  less than that of beef.  The prices of beef and buffalo meat  are much  cheaper  than  that  of  mutton  or  goat’s  meat  and consequently beef and buffalo flesh come within the reach of the  poorer  people perhaps for a day or two  in  the  week. According  to the figures given in the Report of the  Expert Committee at 1). 12, in 1938 in -Bombay the prices were  Rs. 0-3-9  per  pound of beef, Rs. 0-2-0 per  pound  of  buffalo flesh  and Rs. 0-5-6 for mutton and goats’ flesh.   In  1950 these prices went up respectively to Rs. 0-12-0, Rs.  0-11-0 and Rs. 1-3-0. 673 The  comparatively  low prices of beef, and  buffalo  flesh, which are nearly half of that of mutton or goats’ flesh,  is the  main  reason  for  their  demand.   Habit  is   perhaps secondary.   Learned  counsel for some of:  the  petitioners cited  the case of the boys and girls residing  in  boarding houses  attached to the Anglo-Indian schools where the  only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 39  

meat  which  the boarding school authorities can  afford  to supply  as part of the diet of the growing children is  beef and  that  only on a day or two in the week.  The  Acts,  if enforced,  will prevent them. from having even  this  little bit  of nourishment and amenity. It is true that  after  the partition of the country the Muslim population has decreased and further    that  some  Muslims may not  habitually  take beef  or buffalo flesh, but even so a large section  of  the poorer  people  belonging  to  the  Muslim,  Christian   and Scheduled  Castes  communities do consume beef  and  buffalo flesh.  And this is not merely a matter of amenity or luxury but is at any rate partially’, a matter of necessity.  Table VII  set out at p. 32 of the Memorandum on  Human  Nutrition vis-a-vis Animal Nutrition in India recommends one ounce  of meat  daily whereas the available quantity is much less  and the attainable quantity under the new plan may be 1/3  ounce or a little more.  Poorer people, therefore, who can  hardly afford  fruit  or  milk or ghee are likely  to  suffer  from malnutrition,  if they are deprived of even one  out-ice  of beef  or buffalo flesh which may sometimes be  within  their reach.   This aspect of the matter must also be  taken  into account in assessing the reasonableness of the provisions of the impugned Acts. The  number of cattle and buffaloes not fit for breeding  or working  has already been set out.  Further  particulars  in detail  are  available  from Appendices II and  III  to  the Report  on  the Marketing of Cattle in India.   The  figures given there show that according to the 1951 census the total number  of unserviceable male cattle was 27,35,000 and  that of  female cattle was 12,02,000. Out of these there were  in Bihar  2,93,000 male and2,42,000 female, in  Madhya  Pradesh 1,24,000 male and31,000 female and in Uttar Pradesh 674 1,63,000   male  and  21,000  female.    The   unserviceable buffaloes  in the whole of India, according to 1951  census, were 7,81,000 out of which 4,66,000 were males and  3,15,000 were  females.  Out of the total there were in Bihar  61,000 male  buffaloes  and  59,000 female,  buffaloes,  in  Madhya Pradesh  10,000  male  and 5,000 female,  in  Uttar  Pradesh 16,000 male and 12,000 female.  According, to the First Five Year Plan, p. 273, the overall estimates made by the  Cattle Utilisation  Committee  show that about 10 % of  the  cattle population  in  India  or roughly  1,14,00,000  adults  were unserviceable  or  unproductive.  The Report of  the  Cattle Preservation  and Development Committee also put the  figure of old, decrepit and unproductive cattle at 10% of the total population.   Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava does not accept  the correctness of these figures.  It is difficult to find one’s way  out of the labyrinth of figures and it will  be  futile for  us  to  attempt to come to a  figure  of  unserviceable agricultural   animals  which  may  even  be   approximately correct.  For our purpose it will suffice to say that  there is  a fairly large number of cattle and buffaloes which  are not  of  any  use for breeding  or  working  purposes.   The position may be accepted as correctly summed up at p. 274 of the  First  Five Year Plan where it is stated,  inter  alia, that  there is a deficiency of good milch cows  and  working bullocks  and  that  there exists a surplus  of  useless  or inefficient animals. The  presence of a large number of useless  and  inefficient cattle in the midst of the good ones affect our agricultural economy  in  two ways.  In the first place and this  is  the crux  of the matter-this surplus stock is pressing upon  the scanty  fodder and feed resources of the country and  is  an obstacle to making good the deficit,.  As pointed out by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 39  

expert  Committee Report at p. 59 the greatest  handicap  in improving  our  cattle wealth is the lack  of  resources  in feeding them.  Any effort to improve cattle will fail unless they are properly fed.  The table set out on that very  page of that Report records a deficiency of 6,00,00,000 tons,  i. e.,  33% in straw or Kadbi 10,40,00,000 tons, i.e.,  13%  in green fodder and 2,65,20,000 tons, i. e., 675 70%  in  concentrates (i. e., oil cakes,  bran,  oil  seeds, maize’  barley and gram, etc.). It is pointed out  that  the figures  shown against green fodder are not  the  quantities which  are  presently  available  but!  which  can  be  made available if forest’ resources are fully, tapped.  According to  this  Report  even if the  forest  resources  are  fully utilised  there  will still be a deficiency of  13%  in  the supply.  The actual availability of this item is limited  by the  fact  that green fodder is, only available  during  the monsoon  months  and much of this is wasted by the  lack  of country-wide   arrangements  for  its   conservation.    The estimated requirements and the present supply of food stuffs for  animals  is  also  given in Table V at  p.  23  of  the Memorandum on Human Nutrition vis-a-vis Animal Nutrition  in India which tallies with and is more or less about the  same as  those given in the Report of the Expert Committee  above referred to.  Table V also shows a deficiency of 6,00,00,000 tons  of  straw or Kadbi 1,78,00,000 tons of  green  fodder. The  shortage  of  concentrates, i. e.,  oil  cakes,  maize, barley, gram, cotton seed and bran vary between 8,50,000  to 71,17,000  tons.   According to the estimate  given  in  the First  Five  Year  Plan at p. 273  the  quantity  of  fodder available  is  about  75% of  requirements  while  available concentrates of feeds would suffice only for about 28 % of 1 the  cattle.  The, figures given at p. 24 of the  report  of the  Gosamvardhan  Enquiry Committee set up  by,  the  Uttar Pradesh  Government are interesting.  The total cattle:  and buffalo  population  in,  Uttar  Pradesh  is  estimated   at 3,27,63,327.  The scientific food requirements of this total population,  according to, the Western standard, are:  first set  out.  Then begins a: process of scaling down,  for  the above-  scale is, considered to be somewhat lavish  for  our low sized village cattle.  The Indian standard, according to this  report,  will,  require much  less  and  the  figures, according to Indian standards, are next set out.   Evidently these,   figures  also,  show  a,  very  big  gap   between, requirements  and the available, quantities.  So the  report says  that  event,  this  may,  be  reduced  and  -what   is significantly  86 676 described as the " critical limit " is then set out.  It  is not quite intelligible why an Indian cow should not  require even an Indian standard of ration.  Be that as it may,  even for the " critical limit " the quantity available is far too short.   The  gap  between the critical limit  and  what  is available  is respectively 1,80,00,000 tons of  dry  matter, 15,00,000 tons of protein and 28,61,70,00,000 therms.  It is conceded  that  the  requirements  of  mixed  population  of 3,27,63,327  heads of animals may be taken  as  representing 2,71,30,000  adult  units  and with  the  present  available supply  of  straw, green feed and concentrates  these  adult units  cannot  be  fully  fed even  on  the  critical  limit standard.  The available supply can support only 1,59,20,000 adult  units  leaving 1, 1 2, 1 0,000 units  unfed.   It  is recognised  by this Report that with an increase  in  cattle population   and  better  prophylactic   treatment   against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 39  

contagious diseases, the trend of population will be towards an  increase  and the deficiency in  nutrition  will  become still  more  pronounced.   The  remedy  suggested  is   that attention  be paid urgently towards the production  of  more fodder from cultivated land and utilisation of all  marginal and  sub-marginal  land  for  augmenting  food  and   fodder sources. With a large population of animals in which the majority  is not yielding adequate and prompt returns to the owners,  the animals are naturally allowed to fenad for themselves and to subsist  on  whatever the agriculturist is able  to  provide from  his scanty sources for the maintenance of  his  stock. Naturally, therefore, the problem of substantial  precentage of  uneconomical  cattle has cropped up along with  that  of stray, wild, old, diseased and uneconomical animals.   These old and useless animals roaming about at pleasure in  search of  food  are  a  nuisance and a source  of  danger  in  the countryside.  They grow wild and become a menace to the crop production.   As  pointed out by the Report  of  the  Expert Committee,  the danger was actually seen by the  members  of that  Committee in Pepsu where, it is significant  to  note, the slaughter is banned completely. 677 The  presence of a large number of old and  useless  animals also has a bad effect on the quality of the breed.  There is a  tendency for this population to multiply and  bring  into being  progeny  of a very inferior kind which  is  bound  to adversely  affect the production of milk or  bullock  power. It  is absolutely necessary that this surplus cattle  should be  separated from the good and robust animals and  a  total ban  on  slaughter of cattle and buffaloes  will  contribute towards worsening the present condition. The Cattle Preservation and Development Committee set up  by the  Government  of  India in 1948 at p. 47  of  its  Report recommended,  as  a panacea for the evil menace  of  useless cattle,   a   scheme  for  the   establishment   of   cattle concentration  camp for the old and useless cattle.   It  is this scheme which subsequently came to be known by the  name of Gosadans.  At pp. 48 and 49 are set out the estimates  of cost  of  establishing  and running a camp  to  house  2,000 cattle.  The non-recurring cost on land, cattle sheds, staff and  servants’  quarters  is shown at  Rs.  32,000  and  the recurring  cost,  namely,  salary  of  manager,   stock-man, chaukidars.  and others on the establishment  together  with allowances  is shown at Rs. 13,000 per year and it is  hoped that  a  sum of Rs. 5,000 will be derived from the  sale  of hides,  manure, etc.  According to the Report of the  Expert Committee each Gosadhan housing 2,000 heads of cattle  would have  to  have 4,000 acres of land which would permit  of  a rotational and controlled grazing practice and provision has to be made for the surplus grass during the rainy season  to be  preserved  for  the scarcity months.   There  should  be thatched sheds for protection of the cattle against  weather and  wild animals and fodder is to be cultivated on a  small part  of  the  4,000 acres.  By the end of  1954,  when  the Report of the Expert Committee came to be made, the cost had gone  up  from  what  they were  in  1948  when  the  Cattle Preservation and Development Committee Report had been made. The  estimated cost, according to the Report of  the  Expert Committee,  of  establishing and running of  a  Gosadan  for 2,000 heads of cattle is shown as: nonrecurring 678 Rs.  50,000,  and recurring Rs. 25,000 per  year.   On  this basis  the recurring cost alone will work out at  Rs.  12.50 per head of cattle per annum for preserving useless  cattle.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 39  

The  figures given in the Gosamvardhan  Enquiry  Committee’s Report are interesting.  Taking the total number of cattle,% in  Uttar Pradesh not used for breeding or work at  1,83,276 in  1951,  the State will require 91 Gosadans  each  with  a housing capacity for 2,000 heads of cattle.  Even taking one acre  per  animal  instead  of  two  acres  per  animal   as recommended  by  the Expert Committee Report,  91  Gosadan,s will require nearly 2,00,000 acres of land.  The cost of  91 Gosadans  will be non-recurring Rs. 45,50,000 and  recurring Rs. 22,75,000 per annum.  It appears from the revised  model for Gosadans for 500: heads of cattle to be run by the State Governments set out in Appendix II to the Proceedings of the Fifth  Annual  General  Meeting of the  Central  Council  of Gosamvardhan  held at Now Delhi on February 21,  1957,  that the non-recurring cost will be Rs. 39,000 and the  recurring running cost will be Rs. 12,000.  It is estimated that there will be an income of Rs. 2,500 from the sale of hides,  etc. Allowing  this,  the net annual recurring cost will  be  Rs. 9,500 for 500 heads of cattle which works out at Rs. 19  per head of cattle per annum.  As regards Gosadans to be run  by private institutions it is said in the same Appendix II that those  institutions  will be given a subsidy of Rs.  18  per head  per annum out of which 75% would %,be  contributed  by the Centre and the remaining 25% by the State.  Thus for the preservation of the useless cattle the country will pay  Rs. 19  or  Rs. 18 per head of such useless  cattle  per  annum, whereas our total national expenditure on education (Central and States including local bodies) in 1955-1956 was only Rs. 4-9 per capita as against Rs. 104.6 per capita in the United Kingdom  and  Rs. 223.7 per capita in the United  States  of America and our target for 1957-1958 works out at Rs. 5  per capita  per annum.  It will be noticed that in none  of  the schemes  is  even  a pice provided  for  fodder.   The  idea evidently is that the cattle will be left there to fend  for themselves on whatever grass or 679 other green feed they can get by grazing.  If one  remembers that  though  green fodder may be available in  the  monsoon months,  there will be a dearth, of them in the dry  months, one  will at once see that the segregating of the cattle  in the concentration camp will only be to leave them to a  fate of slow death.  The very idea that these animals should  eke out their livelihood by grazing and that Gosadans should  be located in out of the way places, appeared to the authors of the Memorandum on Human Nutrition vis-a-vis Animal Nutrition at  p. 47, to belie the humanitarian considerations  on  the basis of which the scheme was conceived. Theory  apart,  the Gosadan scheme has ’been tried  and  the result is not at all encouraging.  The First Five Year Plan, obviously  as  an  experimental measure,  provided  for  the establishment  of 160 Gosadans each housing 2,000  heads  of cattle,  at  a cost of about Rs.  97,00,000.   The  Planning Commission  recognised that these measures would touch  only the  fringe of the problem and the success of  the  movement would  depend  on the amount of public  support,  especially from  charitable institutions that it received.   The  sheer weight of the figures of expenses compelled the Gosamvardhan Enquiry  Committee  to recognise that if  the  unwanted  and uneconomic  cows  and their progeny have to  be  effectively saved from slaughter, the responsibility had to be shared by the  individual,  the community and so on, for it  would  be utterly   impracticable  to  expect  that  the   burden   of collection  of such animals from villages  and  transporting them to the Gosadans would be within the exclusive means and competence of the State.  That Committee certainly  expected

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 39  

the  State to share a particular portion of the  expenditure which legitimately fell in its sphere of responsibility, but the  Committee felt, and said so in so many words,  that  by far  the  most  substantial portion  of  the  responsibility should  rest on the owners and the community itself  for  it was but equitable to expect that if the cow had to be really saved  from  slaughter the cost on this  account  should  be equitably borne by the people and the State.  This 680 part  of  the Report of the Gosamvardhan  Enquiry  Committee reads  like wishful thinking and amounts to only hoping  for the  best.   When the conscience of the  individual  or  the community  did not prevent the Hindu owner from selling  his dry cow to the butcher for a paltry sum of Rs. 30 to Rs.  40 per  head,  when the Hindu sentiment for  the  divinity  and sanctity  attributed  to  the cow has to be  propped  up  by legislative compulsion, when according to its own Report  at p.  41  the Dharmada and Brit collected by the  Hindu  busi- nessmen  on each commercial transaction ostensibly  for  the benefit of the cow is not made available in full and finally when  Goshalas have had to be closed down for want of  funds and public support, when the country cannot spend more  than Rs.  5 per capita per annum on the education of the  people, it seems to be somewhat illogical and extravagant, bordering on  incongruity,  to  frame a scheme  for  establishment  of Gosadans  for preserving useless cattle at a cost of Rs.  19 or  Rs.  18  per  head per annum and  which  will,  for  its success,  admittedly have to depend on the same elusive  and illusory  public  support or 75% subsidy  from  the  Central Government. What  has been the result of the experiment?   According  to the Report of the Expert Committee since the First Five Year Plan  only  17  Gosadans had been started  in  Bihar,  Uttar Pradesh,  Pepsu,  Coorg,  Bhopal,  Kutch,  Vindhya  Pradesh, Tripura and Saurashtra put together.  Not even one of  these 17  establishments is fully stocked.  There are  only  about 5,293  animals  in  these 17  Gosadans  instead  of  34,000. According  to the Gosamvardhan Enquiry  Committee’s  Report, only  two  Gosadans had been established up to the  date  of that Report in Uttar Pradesh.  The Second Five Year Plan (p. 283) shows that out of the 160 Gosadans for which  provision had been made in the First Five Year Plan, only 22  Gosadans had  been established.  According to the Facts  and  Figures about   Bihar,  1955,  p.  88,  three  Gosadans   had   been established  at  Berwadih, Nirmali and Monghyr  where  there were  about 700 uneconomic animals at that time  instead  of 6,000  which  should have been there as  per  the  estimated capacity for each Gosadan. 681 What,  in  the  view  of  the  several  committees,  is  the conclusion ? According to the Memorandum on Human  Nutrition Vis-a-vis  Animal  Nutrition  in India, p.  4,  the  present scheme  of  establishing Gosadans for  segregating  old  and useless  animals  can serve only a limited, purpose  and  if extended  countrywide,  it is likely to hinder  rather  than help  the problem of disposing of, the surplus animals.   At p.  47  the authors of this Memorandum appear to  have  felt that  in  advocating, the adoption of Gosadan  Scheme  on  a countrywide,  basis, sufficient consideration had  not  been given  to  its practical aspects.  It is  pointed  out  that according  to  the  present estimate  the  total  number  of useless  animals  is four times the number the  Second  Five -Year  Plan  had  estimated and  that  consequently,  having regard  to  the  huge  size of  our  cattle  population  the existing   number  of  the  useless  section  would   remain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 39  

unchanged  for  many  years to come and that a  sum  of  Rs. 3,04,00,000 will be required only for pounding such animals. The   Expert  Committee’s  Report  is  quite  definite   and emphatic.   Paragraph  133 of that Report at P.  62  clearly expresses the opinion that Gosadans do not offer a  solution to  the problem.  To house and maintain all  these  animals, thousands  of  Gosadans on lakhs of acres of land  would  be needed.   In addition to the huge nonrecurring  expenses,  a very  high  recurring annual expenditure would  have  to  be incurred.,  In view of this and in view of  the  indifferent response from the States in setting up Gosadans, the  Expert Committee came to the conclusion that the Gosadan scheme was not likely to offer any solution for the problem of  useless cattle  and that it would be far more desirable  to  utilise the  limited  resources  of  the  country  to  increase  the efficiency of the useful cattle. The  Report  of  the  Cattle  Preservation  and  Development Committee  did not recommend the immediate total ban on  the slaughter of all cattle.  They recommended the establishment of  concentration  camps, later  on  euphemistically  called Gosadans,  and though total ban was the ultimate  objective, it  did  not,  for the moment,  prohibit  the  slaughter  of animals over the age of 14 years and of animals of any age 682 permanently  unfit  for work or breeding owing, to  age  or, deformity.   In para. 134 of the Expert  Committee’s  Report at,  p. 63 it, is stated clearly that the total ban  on  the slaughter  of all cattle would not be in the best  interests of the country as it is merely a negative and not a positive approach to the problem.  They consider that a  constructive approach  to  the  problem will be, to see  that  no  useful animal is slaughtered and that the country’s. resources  are fully harnessed to produce better and more efficient cattle. Neither  the First Five Year Plan nor -the Second Five  Year Plan  accepted the idea of a total ban on the  slaughter  of cattle.   Indeed, according to the Second Five Year Plan,  a total  ban will help the tendency for the number of  surplus cattle  to increase and, in their view, a total ban  on  the slaughter  of all cows, calves and other milch  and  draught cattle  will  defeat  the  very  object  of  the   directive principles embodied in Art. 48 of the Constitution.  We find from para. 6 on p. 283 of the Second Five Year Plan that the Gosadan  scheme  did  not make  any,  real  or  satisfactory progress and that altogether 22 Gosadans housing only  8,000 cattle had been established by the States up to the date  of that  document  and  even  then  many  of  the  States   had encountered difficulty in, securing the areas of land needed for  their; operations.  The Planning Commission  considered that  it  would be impossible to establish enough  of  these Gosadans  and they reached the conclusion that  in  defining the scope. of the ban on the slaughter of cattle the  States should  take  a,  realistic view  of  the  fodder  resources available  in the country. and the extent to which they  can get the. co-operation of voluntary organisations to bear the main  responsibility  for,  maintaining  unserviceable,  and unproductive  cattle with a measure of assistance  from  the Goverment land general support from; the people., As already stated,’  the,  Memorandum  on  Human  Nutrition  vis-a-vis, Animal.   Nutrition  at  p. 4 expressed the  view  that  the Gosadan  scheme  can, serve only a limited purpose  and,  if extended countrywide was likely, to hinder, rather than help the  problem  of disposing of the, surplus  animals,  appart From the huge initial cost.  A, large, concentration of 683 useless  animals  within a restricted area, the  authors  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 39  

that  Memorandum  feared, might lead  to  considerable  soil erosion  due  to  overgrazing  and  there  might  be   every possibility  of contagious and parasitic diseases  spreading from these animals to the surrounding area.  It is only  the Gosamvardan  Enquiry  Committee  which  had  recommended  an immediate  total  ban  on  the  slaughter  of  all   cattle, irrespective  of age or sex.  It should, however,  be  noted that even that Committee did not recommend such a total  ban as  a measure independent of all other considerations.   Its recommendation  in this behalf was linked up with and was  a part  of  a  scheme which depended, for its  success,  on  a variety of imponderable matters, like public enthusiasm  and support for the establishment and maintenance of Gosadans in a  high  state of working, efficiency, the capacity  of  the State to bring more lands under cultivation, reclamation  of the  jungle lands and the like.  It may be noted  also  that although in some of the States total ban has been imposed on the  slaughter of cattle, many of the States have  not  con- sidered it necessary to impose such a blanket ban.  Thus the Assam  Cattle  Protection  Act,  1950,  the  Bombay   Animal Preservation  Act,  1948, the West Bengal  Animal  Slaughter Control  Act, 1950, the Hyderabad Slaughter of  Animal  Act, 1950, the Travancore-Cochin Notification permit slaughter of cattle and buffaloes over specified years of age.  Even  the Madhya  Pradesh Act, as criminally enacted, did not place  a total ban on the slaughter of all cattle. In earlier times there being enough of pastures and  smaller human  and  cattle population and restricted needs,  it  was possible  to  rear large and valuable herds and  organise  a system   of   balanced  economy  as  far   as   agricultural development  was  concerned.  Thus, while  the  country  was producing  enough  grain for the requirement  of  the  human population   there  was  an  adequate  area  available   for plentiful grazing of animals, which, supplemented by  fodder available   from   agricultural  production,   assisted   in developing  the  types of quality animals required  for  the needs of the 87 384 times  and the area in question (Report of the  Gosamvardhan Enquiry  Committee).  The position has considerably  changed since  then.   There  has been a  large  increase  in  human population  and  famines and epidemics having  been  largely brought  under  control, there has been an increase  in  the animal  population  also.  Already there  is  a  competition between  man  and the animal for the  available  land.   The growing human population needs more food for which more land is  required.  The refugee problem has yet to be solved  and sufficient  land has to be found for settling  the  refugees therein.    With   organised   facilities   for   artificial fertilisers  and the introduction of scientific  methods  of cultivation agricultural production is expected to  increase and the problem of food for human consumption may be capable of a satisfactory solution.  But as regards the cattle  feed the gap between the requirement and the available quantities is so wide that there is little possibility, in any foresee- able  future, of the country producing enough to  feed  them adequately. To  summarise:  The  country is in  short  supply  of  milch cattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks.  If the  nation is  to  maintain itself in health and  nourishment  and  get adequate  food,  our cattle must be improved.  In  order  to achieve  this  objective  our  cattle  population  fit   for breeding  and work must be properly fed and whatever  cattle food is now at our disposal and whatever more we can produce

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 39  

must  be  made available to the useful cattle which  are  in presenti  or will in futuro be capable of yielding  milk  or doing  work.  The maintenance of useless cattle  involves  a wasteful  drain  on the nation’s cattle feed.   To  maintain them  is  to deprive the useful cattle of  the  much  needed nourishment.  The presence of so many useless animals  tends to  deteriorate  the breed.  Total ban on the  slaughter  of cattle, useful or otherwise, is calculated to bring about  a serious dislocation, though not a complete stoppage, of  the business of a considerable section of the people who are  by occupation  butchers  (Kasais), hide merchants  and  so  on. Such  a ban will also deprive a large section of the  people of what may 685 be their staple food.  At any rate, they will have to forego the  little protein food which may be within their means  to take  once  or twice in the week.  Preservation  of  useless cattle  by  establishment of Gosadans is  not,  for  reasons already indicated, a practical proposition.  Preservation of these useless animals by sending them to concentration camps to fend for themselves is to leave them to a process of slow death  and does no good to them.  On the contrary, it  hurts the best interests of the nation in that the useless  cattle deprive  the useful ones of a good part of the cattle  food, deteriorate  the breed and eventually affect the  production of  milk  and breeding bulls and working  bullocks,  besides involving an enormous expense which could be better utilised for more urgent national needs. We are not unmindful of the fact that beef and buffalo flesh from  calves  under  one  year of  age.  heifers  and  young castrated  stock yielding meat of a superior  quality  fetch comparatively  higher prices in the market  and,  therefore, the tendency of the butchers naturally is to slaughter young calves.   This  circumstance clearly warns us  that  calves, heifers and young castrated stock (cattle and buffalo) which will  in  future supply us milk and power  for  purposes  of agriculture require protection.  We also do not fail to bear in  mind  that for very good and cogent  reasons  cows  also require  protection.  Cows give us milk and her progeny  for future  service.  Unfortunately, however, the  average  milk yield  of a cow, as already stated, is very much  less  than that   of  a  she-buffalo.   As  the  Gosamvardhan   Enquiry Committee’s  Report points out, despite all  the  veneration professed  for  the cow, when it comes to  the  question  of feeding, the she-buffalo always receives favoured  treatment and the cow has to be satisfied with whatever remains  after feeding the she-buffaloes, bullocks, and calves in order  of priority.  The growth of cities and heavy demand for milk in the  urban areas have contributed to the slaughter  of  good stock.   For want of space no freshly calved animal  can  be brought  in  without getting rid of one that had  gone  dry. Salvage facilities not being available or, if available, 686 being  uneconomical,  the  professional  gowalas,  who   are mostly,  if  not  wholly, Hindus, find  it  uneconomical  to maintain  the cow after she goes dry and  consequently  sell her  to  the butcher for slaughter at Rs. 30 to Rs.  50  per head,  irrespective of her age and  potential  productivity, and  import a fresh cow.  The veneration professed  for  the sanctity  attached  to the cow does not  prevent  them  from doing  so.   In  big towns  the  municipal  regulations  are stringent  and slaughter is permitted only of  unserviceable and  unproductive  animals.   Instances  are  not  uncommon, however,  that  to get an animal passed for  slaughter,  the teeth  or  the  rings  round the horns  of  the  animal  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 39  

tampered  with and sometimes a cow is even maimed  in  order that  she may be passed by the veterinary inspector  as  fit for  slaughter.  Cows, which are rejected by the  inspector, are taken out of the limits of the cities and slaughtered in the rural areas.  As slaughter is not confined to registered slaughter  houses,  the number of useful animals  which  are slaughtered cannot be given accurately.  It is estimated  in the  Report  of the Expert Committee at p. 2 that  at  least 50,000  high yielding cows and she-buffaloes from cities  of Bombay,  Calcutta  and Madras alone are  sent  annually  for permature slaughter and are lost to the country.  The causes of  slaughter of useful cattle are enumerated at pp.  2,  3, and  9 of that Report, namely, lack of space in  the  cities and suburban areas, long dry period, want of arrangement for breeding  bulls  at the proper time, the anxiety to  get  as much  milk  out of the cow as possible, -the  high  cost  of maintenance  of cows in the cities and the  difficulties  in the matter of obtaining adequate fodder.  For these  reasons many animals are sent to the slaughter houses through  sheer economic pressure and are replaced by fresh animals imported from breeding areas.  The danger of such premature slaughter is  greater for the cow, for being an animal with  a  scanty yield  of  milk it does not pay the owner  to  maintain  her through the long dry period and hence there is an inducement for  adopting even cruel practices to get her passed by  the inspectors.  But a dry she-buffalo is well worth  preserving and maintaining 687 in  expectation  of  rich  return  at  the  next  lactation. Besides,  buffaloes for slaughter will not fetch as  good  a price  as  cows would do.  Likewise there will not  be  much inducement to the agriculturist or other owner to part  with the breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle and. buffalo) as long as they are serviceable.  For their sheer usefulness and  their high market value as breeding or working  animals the breeding bulls and working bullocks, as long as they are fit,  are, to the agriculturists, worth more than the  price of their flesh in gold.  There can hardly be any  inducement for  maiming  valuable animals which, as breeding  bulls  or working   animals,   can  at  any  time   fetch   from   the agriculturists a price higher than what the maimed ones will fetch  from  the butchers.  The breeding bulls  and  working bullocks  (cattle and buffaloes) do not, therefore,  require as much protection as cows and calves do. The  next question is as to what should be the scope of  the ban  on  the  slaughter of animals.  One view  is  that  the slaughter  of  all  animals (cattle and  buffaloes)  of  all categories should be regulated by the State and that animals below  a  specified age or not suffering from  some  natural deformity should not be allowed to be slaughtered.   Drastic and  stringent  regulations have been imposed  by  municipal laws and have been tried but experience shows that they  are not  sufficient  at least to protect the cow.  It  has  been found  to be extremely difficult to enforce the  regulations for inadequacy of staff and veterinary inspectors, little or no  check  on the veterinary inspectors who succumb  to  the pressure or inducements of the butchers and pass animals not really useless as and for useless and aged animals.  A large percentage  of  the  animals  not  fit  for  slaughter   are slaughtered  surreptitiously outside the  municipal  limits. For   reasons  of  economy  rapacious  gowalas  or   callous agriculturists find it uneconomical to maintain the dry  cow and even resort to cruel practices and maim the cow in order to  get  her passed for slaughter.  As already  stated,  the she-buffalo  and  the breeding bulls  and  working  bullocks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 39  

(both cattle and buffaloes) for their value, present and 688 future,  do not ruin the same amount of danger as a dry  cow does.  Regulation of slaughter of animals above a  specified age may not be quite adequate protection for the cow but may be  quite  sufficient  for the breeding  bulls  and  working bullocks and the she-buffaloes.  These considerations induce us  to  make  an exception even in favour  of  the  old  and decrepit cows.  The counsel for the petitioners, be it  said to their credit, did not contend otherwise. After  giving our most careful and anxious consideration  to the pros and cons of the problem as indicated and  discussed above  and keeping in view the presumption in favour of  the validity  of  the  legislation and  without  any  the  least disrespect to the opinions of the legislatures concerned  we feel that in discharging the ultimate responsibility cast on us  by  the Constitution we must approach  and  analyse  the problem  in an objective and realistic manner and then  make our pronouncement on the reasonableness of the  restrictions imposed  by  the impugned enactments.   So  approaching  and analysing  the problem, we have reached the  conclusion  (i) that  a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all  ages  and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female, is quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with  the directive principles laid down in Art. 48, (ii) that a total ban  on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls  or working  bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as  long  as they  are as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable  and valid  and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter  of  she- buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease  to  be  capable of yielding milk or  of  breeding  or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public. We  now  proceed to test each of the impugned  Acts  in  the light  of the aforesaid conclusions we have arrived  at  The Bihar  Act, in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of  cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and  female, is valid.  The Bihar Act makes  no  distinction between  she-buffaloes,  bulls  and  bullocks  (cattle   and buffaloes) which are useful  as  milch or breeding or draught animals  and  those which  are not and indiscriminately prohibits  slaughter  of she-buffaloes,  bulls  and  bullocks  (cattle  and  buffalo) irrespective  of their age or usefulness.  In our  view  the ban  on  slaughter  of  she-buffaloes,  breeding  bulls  and working  bullocks (cattle. and buffalo) which are useful  is reasonable  but of those which are not useful is not  valid. The  question  as to when a she-buffalo,  breeding  bull  or working bullock (cattle and buffalo) ceases to be useful and becomes   useless   and  unserviceable  is  a   matter   for legislative  determination.   There is no provision  in  the Bihar Act in that behalf.  Nor has our attention been  drawn to any rule which may throw any light on the point.  It  is, therefore,   not   possible  to  apply   the   doctrine   of severability  and  uphold the ban on the slaughter  of  she- buffaloes,  breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle  and buffalo)  which are useful as milch or breeding  or  working animals  and strike down the ban on the slaughter  of  those which  are  useless.   The  entire  provision  banning   the slaughter  of  she-buffaloes, breeding  bulls,  and  working bullocks  (cattle and buffalo) has, therefore, to be  struck down.   The  result is that we uphold and declare  that  the Bihar Act in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all  ages and calves of cows and calves of  buffaloes,  male and  female, is constitutionally valid and we hold that,  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 39  

so  far  as  it  totally prohibits  the  slaughter  of  she- buffaloes,  breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle  and buffalo), without prescribing any test or requirement as  to their  age  or usefulness, it infringes the  rights  of  the petitioners  under  Art. 19 (1) (g) and is  to  that  extent void. As regards the U. P. Act we uphold and declare, for  reasons already stated, that it is constitutionally valid in so  far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of  cows, male and female, but we hold that in so far as  it purports to totally prohibit the slaughter of breeding bulls and  working  bullocks  without  prescribing  any  test   or requirement  as  to  their age  or  usefulness,  it  offends against Art. 19 (1) (g) and is to that extent void. 690 As  regards the Madhya Pradesh Act we likewise declare  that it  is constitutionally valid in so far as it prohibits  the slaughter  of cows of all ages and calves of cows, male  and female,  but  that  it  is void in  so  far  as  it  totally prohibits  the  slaughter  of breeding  bulls  and  working- bullocks  without prescribing any test or requirement as  to their age or usefulness.  We also hold that the Act is valid in  so  far as it regulates the slaughter of  other  animals under  certificates  granted by  the  authorities  mentioned therein. In  the  premises  we direct the respondent  States  not  to enforce  their respective Acts in so far as they  have  just been  declared  void by us.  The parties will bear  and  pay their own costs of these applications. Petitions partly allowed.