Supreme Court Judgement On GOHATYA 2005 (Full text)

Supreme Court Judgement On GOHATYA 2005
(Full text) 

https://archive.org/stream/SC_judgement_on_cow_slaughtering_2005_india/Supreme%20Court%20Judgement%20on%20GOHATYA_djvu.txt

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 1 of 51 

CASE NO. : 

Appeal (civil) 4937-4940 of 1998 

PETITIONER : 

State of Gujarat 

RESPONDENT: 

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors . 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/10/2005 

BENCH: 

CJI R.C. LAHOTI,B.N. AGRAWAL,ARUN KUMAR G.P. MATHUR C.K. THAKKER P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN 

<\ 

JUDGMENT: 

JUDGMENT 

WITH 

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4941-44 of 1998 

Shree Ahimsa Army Manav Kalyan 

Jeev Daya Charitable Trust 

Versus 

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab 

Jamat, Ahmedabad & Ors. 

and 

\\ 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4945 of 1998 

Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh 

Versus 

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab 

Jamat, Ahmedabad & Ors. 

\005Appellant 

005Respondents 

\005Appellant 

005Respondents 

R.C. LAHOTI, CJI 

Section 2 of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat 

Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994) which 

introduced certain amendments in Section 5 of the Bombay 

Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (as applicable to the State of 

Gujarat) has been struck down as ultra vires the Constitution by 

the High Court of Gujarat . These three sets of appeals by 

special leave have been filed thereagainst . 

A chain of events, legislative and judicial, lead to the 

impugned enactment . To appreciate the core issue arising for 

decision in these appeals and also the constitutional questions 

arising therein, it will be useful to set out the preceding events in 

their chronological order. 

PART - I 

Backdrop of Events 

Legislative history leading to impugned enactment 

With a view to conserve the cattle wealth of the State of 

Bombay, the State Government enacted the Bombay Animal 

Preservation Act, 1948 and prohibited slaughter of animals which 

were useful for milch, breeding or agricultural purposes. This 

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 2 of 51 

Act was substituted by the Bombay Animal Preservation Act of 

1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act') . The 

provisions relevant for our purpose are contained in Sections 5 

and 6. Sub-sections (1) , (2) and (3) of Section 5 and Section 6 

are extracted and reproduced hereunder : 

"5. (1) Notwithstanding any law for the time 

being in force or any usage to the contrary, no 

person shall slaughter or cause to be 

slaughtered any animal unless, he has 

obtained in respect of such animal a certificate 

in writing from the Competent Authority 

appointed for the area that the animal is fit for 

slaughter. 

(2) No certificate shall be granted under sub- 

section (1) , if in the opinion of the Competent 

Authority\027 

(a) the animal, whether male 

or female, is useful or likely 

to become useful for the 

purpose of draught or any 

kind of agricultural 

operations; 

(b) the animal, if male, is 

useful or likely to become 

useful for the purpose of 

breeding; 

(c) the animal, if female, 

useful or likely to become 

useful for the purpose of 

giving milk or bearing 

offspring. 

(3) Nothing in this section 

slaughter of any animal above 

fifteen years for bona-fide 

Provided that a certificate in writing for 

such slaughter has been obtained from the 

Competent Authority. 

XXX 

XXX 

XX. 

XXX 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

6. No animal in respect of which a certificate 

has been issued under section 5 shall be 

slaughtered in any place other than a place 

specified by such authority or officer as the 

State Government may appoint in this behalf. " 

The Preamble to the Act stated \026 "WHEREAS it is expedient 

to provide for the preservation of animals suitable for milch, 

breeding or for agricultural purposes; It is hereby enacted \005as 

follows : - " 

The Statement of Objects and Reasons stated inter alia \026 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 51 

"It is now proposed to repeal the Bombay Animal Preservation 

Act, 1948 and to undertake fresh legislation, on the basis of a 

model bill recommended by the Government of India, in order to 

stamp out slaughter in unauthorized places and abetment of 

offences which were not covered by the Bombay Animal 

Preservation Act, 1948". 

The State of Gujarat was formed in the year 1960. 

Gujarat Legislature enacted The Bombay Animal Preservation 

(Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 whereby the 

Bombay Act was extended to the State of Gujarat in order to 

achieve uniformity in law in different parts of the State with 

regard to this subject. The Saurashtra Animal Preservation Act, 

1956 which was applicable to that part of Gujarat which formed 

part of erstwhile State of Saurashtra was repealed. Apart from 

extending the Bombay Act, Section 5 of the Bombay Act, which 

was called 'the principal Act' in the Gujarat Act of 1961, was also 

amended by Section 4 thereof which reads as under: 

4. Amendment of Section 5 of Bombay LXXII of 

1954.- In section 5 of the principal Act, - 

(1) After sub-section (1) , the following sub- 

section shall be inserted, namely :- 

" (1A) No certificate under sub-section (1) 

shall be granted in respect of a cow. 

(2) in sub-section (2) , for the words "No 

certificate" the words, brackets, figure and 

letter "In respect of an animal to which 

sub-section (1A) does not apply, no 

certificate" shall be substituted; 

(3) in sub-section (3) , for the words "religious 

purposes" the words, "religious purposes, 

if such animal is not a cow" shall be 

substituted. 

The above Act was assented to by the Governor on the 1st 

May, 1961 which was published in the Gujarat Government 

Gazette, Extraordinary, Part IV, dated May 6, 1961. The objects 

of such extension were mainly two : (i) to achieve uniformity in 

law in different parts of the State; and (ii) to impose a ban on 

cow slaughter. The amendment introduced by Section 4 of the 

Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Extension and 

Amendment) Act, 1961 indicates that slaughter of cow was 

totally banned. 

In 1979, the Gujarat Legislature enacted the Bombay 

Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1979 to further 

amend the Bombay Act . Section 2 of this Act is relevant which is 

extracted and reproduced hereunder: 

2. Amendment of section 5 of Bom. LXXII of 

1954. In the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 

1954, Bom. LXXII of 1954, (hereinafter referred to 

as "the principal Act"), in section 5, 

(1) for sub-section (1A) , the following shall be substituted, 

namely : 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 51 

" (1A) No certificate under sub-section (1) shall be 

granted in respect of 

(a) a cow; 

(b) the calf of a cow, whether male or female 

and if male, whether castrated or not; 

(c) a bull below the age of sixteen years; 

(d) a bullock below the age of sixteen years"; 

(2) for sub-section (3) , the following sub-section shall be 

substituted, namely: 

" (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to 

(a) the slaughter of any of the following 

animals for such bonafide religious purposes, 

as may be prescribed, namely: 

(i) any animal above the age of fifteen years 

other than a cow, bull or bullock; 

(ii) a bull above the age of fifteen years; 

(Hi) a bullock above the age of fifteen years; 

/ \ 

(b) the slaughter of any animal not being a 

cow or a calf of a cow, on such religious days 

as may be prescribed. 

Provided that a certificate in writing for the 

slaughter referred to in clause (a) or (b) has bee. 

obtained from the Competent Authority . " 

The Act was preceded by an Ordinance, a reference to 

which is not necessary. The Statement of Objects and Reasons 

of the Act are stated as under: 

"Under the existing provisions of the 

Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, 

although there is a total prohibition against 

the slaughter of a cow, the slaughter of 

progeny of a cow, that is to say bulls, bullocks 

and calves is prohibited, like that of other 

bovines only if they are useful or likely to 

become useful for the purposes of draught, 

agricultural operations, breeding, giving milk 

or bearing off spring. In order to give effect to 

the policy of the Government towards further 

securing the directive principle laid down in 

article 48 of the Constitution namely 

prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves 

and other milch and draught cattle, it was 

considered necessary to impose a total 

prohibition against slaughter of the aforesaid 

progeny of a cow below the age of eighteen 

years as they are useful for the aforesaid 

purposes \ 005 " 

The above-said Act was assented to by the Governor on 

16th October 1979. The Act was given retrospective effect by 

sub-section (2) of Section 1 thereof, which provided that the 

amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 28th 

November, 1978. 

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 5 of 51 

Digressing a little from the narration of legislative 

development, here itself we may indicate that the constitutional 

validity of the above amendment introduced by the Gujarat 

Legislature into the Bombay Act was put in issue and came to be 

dealt with initially by the Gujarat High Court and then this Court 

by a Constitution Bench in Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai 

Qureshi and Others v. State of Gujarat, (1986) 3 SCC 12. 

The Gujarat High Court turned down the challenge and the 

decision of the Gujarat High Court was upheld by this Court . We 

will revert back to this decision a little later. 

This was followed by the impugned legislation, the Bombay 

Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994. The 

Bombay Act of 1954 referred to as 'the principal Act' was further 

amended by Section 2 of the amending Act which reads as 

under : 

2. In the Bombay Animal Preservation 

Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the 

principal Act ") , in section 5, - 

(1) in sub-section (1A) , for clauses (c) 

and (d) , the following clauses shall be 

substituted, namely :— 

"(c) a bull; 

(d) a bullock. "; 

(2) in sub-section (3) , - 

(i) in clause (a) , sub-clauses (ii) and 

(Hi) shall be deleted; 

(ii) in clause (b) , after the words "calf 

of a cow", the words "bull or bullock" shall 

inserted. " 

\\ 

The Act was preceded by an Ordinance, a reference 

provisions whereof is unnecessary. The Preambl 

reads as under: 

"WHEREAS it is established that cow and her 

progeny sustain the health of the nation by 

giving them the life giving milk which is so 

essential an item in a scientifically balanced 

diet; 

AND WHEREAS the working bullocks are 

indispensable for our agriculture for they supply 

power more than any other animal; 

AND WHEREAS the working bullocks are often 

useful in ploughing the fields, drawal of water 

from the wells and also very useful for drawing 

carts for transporting grains and fodders from 

the fields to the residences of farmers as well 

as to the Agricultural Market Yards; 

AND WHEREAS the dung of the animal is 

cheaper than the artificial manures and 

extremely useful for production of bio-gas; 

AND WHEREAS it is established that the back- 

bone of Indian agriculture is, in a manner of 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 51 

speaking the cow and her progeny and have, 

on their back, the whole structure of the Indian 

agriculture and its economic system; 

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to give 

effect to the policy of the State towards 

securing the principles laid down in articles 47, 

48 and in clauses (b) and (c) of articles 39 of 

the Constitution of India and to protect, 

preserve and sustain cow and its progeny; " 

The Statement of Objects and Reasons and the facts set 

out therein are of relevance and significance and hence are 

reproduced hereunder: 

"The existing provisions of the Bombay 

Animal Preservation Act, 1954 provides for 

prohibition against the slaughter of cow, calf 

of a cow, and the bulls and bullocks below the 

age of sixteen years. It is an established fact 

that the cow and her progeny 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 economy of the State of Gujarat is 

still predominantly agricultural. In the 

agricultural sector, use of animals for milch, 

draught, breeding or agricultural purposes 

has great importance. It has, therefore, 

become necessary to emphasise preservation 

and protection of agricultural animals like 

bulls and bullocks. With the growing adoption 

of non-conventional energy sources like bio- 

gas plants, even waste material have come to 

assume considerable value. After the cattle 

cease to breed or are too old to do work, they 

still continue to give dung for fuel, manure 

and bio-gas, and therefore, they cannot be 

said to be useless. It is well established that 

the backbone of Indian agriculture is, in a 

manner of speaking , the cow and her progeny 

and have on their back, the whole structure 

of the Indian agriculture and its economic 

system. 

In order to give effect to the policy of 

the State towards securing the principles laid 

down in articles 47, 48 and clause (b) and (c) 

of article 39 of the Constitution of India, it 

was considered necessary also to impose total 

prohibition against slaughter of progeny of 

cow. 

As the Gujarat Legislative Assembly was 

not in session the Bombay Animal 

Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Ordinance, 

1993 to amend the said Act was promulgated 

to achieve the aforesaid object in the interest 

of general public. This Bill seeks to replace the 

said Ordinance by an Act of the State 

Legislature. " 

The Challenge to the Constitutional Validity 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 51 

The constitutional validity of the abovesaid legislation, that 

is, the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 

1994 was put in issue by four writ petitions filed in the High 

Court which were heard and disposed of by a common judgment 

dated April 16, 1998. Two of the writ petitions were filed by 

individuals who were butchers by profession, and are known as 

Kureshis . Two writ petitions were filed by the representative 

bodies of Kureshis . Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh sought for 

intervention before the High Court and was allowed to be 

impleaded as a party- respondent in the writ petitions . Hinsa 

Virodhak Sangh, Jivan Jagruti Trust and Gujarat Prantiya Arya 

Pratinidhi Sabha also sought for intervention and they were also 

allowed to be impleaded by the High Court as party-respondents 

in the writ petitions . The High Court allowed the writ petitions 

and struck down the impugned legislation as ultra vires the 

Constitution. The High Court held that the Amendment Act 

imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights 

and therefore, it was ultra vires the Constitution. The effect of 

the judgment of the High Court as summed up by the learned 

Judges would be that there would not be a total ban on the 

slaughter of bulls or bullocks above the age of 16 years; in other 

words animals could be slaughtered consistently with the 

provisions of the parent Act as it stood prior to the amendment 

brought in by Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994. Feeling aggrieved by 

the said decision, the State of Gujarat and Akhil Bharat Krishi 

Goseva Sangh have filed these appeals . Shree Ahimsa Army 

Manav Kalyan Jeev Daya Charitable Trust, a Public Trust has 

filed an appeal by special leave, seeking leave of this Court to 

file the appeal, which has been granted. 

On 17.2.2005, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, before 

which the appeals came up for hearing directed the matter to be 

placed for hearing before a Constitution Bench in the following 

terms of the order : 

"Parties to these appeals agree that the issue 

involved in these appeals requires 

interpretation of the provisions of the 

Constitution of India especially in regard to 

the status of Directive Principles vis- '-vis the 

Fundamental Rights as well as the effect of 

introduction of Articles 31C and 51A in the 

Constitution . 

Therefore, in view of Article 145(3) of the 

Constitution, we think it appropriate that this 

matter should be heard by a Bench of at least 

5 Judges. " 

On 19.7 .2005, the Constitution Bench which heard the 

matter referred it to a Bench of seven Judges on an opinion that 

certain prior decisions of this Court by Constitution Benches 

might call for reconsideration. This is how the matter came to 

be heard by this Bench . 

We have heard Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee and 

Shri S.K. Dholakia, Senior Advocates who led the submissions 

made on behalf of the appellants in the three sets of appeals. 

We have also heard Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate and Shri 

Ramesh P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, who led the arguments on 

behalf of the respondents (writ petitioners in High Court) in the 

several appeals. Before we notice and deal with the submissions 

made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 51 

respondents, it will be useful to set out and deal with some of 

the decisions delivered by this Court which have been relied on 

by the High Court in its impugned judgment, and on which 

implicit and forceful reliance was placed by the learned senior 

counsel for the respondents in support of the judgment of the 

High Court . 

Relevant Decisions of this Court 

The most important and leading decision is Mohd. Hanif 

Quareshi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors . 1959 SCR 629 

(hereinafter referred to as 'Quareshi-I' ) . We propose to deal 

with this case somewhat in detail . 

Three legislative enactments banning the slaughter of 

certain animals were passed respectively by the States of Bihar, 

Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In Bihar, the Bihar 

Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1956 (Bihar Act 

II of 1956) was introduced which imposed a total ban on the 

slaughter of all categories of animals belonging to the species of 

bovine cattle. In Uttar Pradesh, the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of 

Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act I of 1956) was enacted which 

also imposed a total ban on the slaughter of cows and her 

progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and cows. In the 

State of Madhya Pradesh, it was the C.P. and Berar Animal 

Preservation Act (Act LII of 1949) which was amended and 

applied. It imposed a total ban on the slaughter of cows and 

female calf of a cow. The male calf of a cow, bull, bullock, 

buffalo (male or female, adult or calf) could be slaughtered only 

on obtaining a certificate . The bans, as imposed by the three 

legislations were the subject matter of controversy. 

The challenge to the constitutional validity of the three 

legislations was founded on the following three grounds, as was 

dealt with in the judgment : (i) that the total ban offended the 

religion of the Muslims as the sacrifice of a cow on a particular 

day is enjoined or sanctioned by Islam; (ii) that such ban 

offended the fundamental right guaranteed to the Kasais 

(Butchers) under Article 19(1) (g) and was not a reasonable and 

valid restriction on their right; and (Hi) that a total ban was not 

in the interest of the general public. On behalf of the States, 

heavy reliance was placed on Article 48 of the Constitution to 

which the writ petitioners responded that under Article 37 the 

Directive Principles were not enforceable by any court of law 

and, therefore, Article 48 had no relevance for the purpose of 

determining the constitutional validity of the impugned 

legislations which were alleged to be violative of the fundamental 

rights of the writ petitioners . 

Dealing with the challenge to the constitutional validity of 

the legislations , their Lordships reiterated the well accepted 

proposition based on several pronouncements of this Court that 

there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of 

an enactment and that the burden lies upon him who attacks it 

to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional 

principles. The legislative wisdom as expressed in the impugned 

enactment can be pressed into service to support the 

presumption. Chief Justice S.R. Das spoke for the Constitution 

Bench and held :- (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of 

all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes , male or 

female, was quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with 

the Directive Principles laid down in Article 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 

capable of being used as milch or draught cattle was also 

reasonable and valid; and (Hi) that a total ban on slaughter of 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 51 

she-buffaloes , bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they 

ceased to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working 

as draught animals could not be supported as reasonable in the 

interests of the general public and was invalid. 

The first ground of challenge was simply turned down due 

to the meagre materials placed before their Lordships and the 

bald allegations and denials made by the parties. No one 

specially competent to expound the religious tenets of Islam filed 

any affidavit and no reference was made to any particular Surah 

of the Holy Quran which, in terms, requires the sacrifice of a 

cow. It was noticed that many Muslims do not sacrifice cow on 

the BakrI'd day. Their Lordships stated, inter alia :- 

"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 members 

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." (p. 651) 

'" 

In State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashutosh Lahiri, 

(1995) 1 SCC 189, this Court has noted that sacrifice of any 

animal by muslims for the religious purpose on BakrI'd does not 

include slaughtering of cow as the only way of carrying out that 

sacrifice. Slaughtering of cow on BakrI'd is neither essential to 

nor necessarily required as part of the religious ceremony . An 

optional religious practice is not covered by Article 25(1). On 

the contrary, it is common knowledge that cow and its progeny, 

i.e., bull, bullocks and calves are worshipped by Hindus on 

specified days during Diwali and other festivals like Makr 

Sankranti and Gopashtmi . A good number of temples are to be 

found where the statue of 'Nandi' or 'Bull' is regularly 

worshipped. However, we do not propose to delve further into 

the question as we must state, in all fairness to the learned 

counsel for the parties, that no one has tried to build any 

argument either in defence or in opposition to the judgment 

appealed against by placing reliance on religion or Article 25 o 

the Constitution. 

Dealing with the challenge founded on Article 14 of the 

Constitution, their Lordships reiterated the twin tests on the 

anvil of which the reasonability of classification for the purpose 

of legislation has to be tested, namely, (i) that 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) that such differentia must have a rational 

relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in 

question (p. 652). Applying the twin tests to the facts of the 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 51 

cases before them, their Lordships held that it was quite clear 

that the objects sought to be achieved by the impugned Acts 

were 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 (p. 

653) . Their Lordships added :— 

"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 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 Article 

14 cannot, therefore, prevail." (p. 653) 

The challenge to the constitutional validity founded under 

Article 14 was clearly and in no unmistaken terms turned down 

The third contention, that is, whether the "total 

prohibition" could be sustained as a reasonable restriction on the 

fundamental right of the butchers to slaughter animals of their 

liking or in which they were trading, was dealt with in great 

detail. This is the aspect of the decision of the Constitution 

Bench in Quareshi-I which, in the submission of the learned 

senior counsel for the appellants, was not correctly decided and, 

therefore, calls for reconsideration. The question was dealt with 

by their Lordships from very many angles . Whether the 

restrictions permissible under clause (6) of Article 19 may 

extend to "total prohibition" was treated by their Lordships as 

a vexed question and was left open without expressing any final 

opinion as their Lordships chose to concentrate on the issue as 

to whether the restriction was at all reasonable in the interests 

of the general public, de hors the fact whether it could be held to 

be partial or total . 

Their Lordships referred to a lot of documentary evidence 

which was produced before them, such as (i) the figures of 1951 

Animals' Census; (ii) Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India 

issued by the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Ministry 

of Goods and Agriculture, Government of India, 1956; and (Hi) 

the figures given in the First and Second Five Years Plans and so 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 51 

on. Their Lordships concluded that if the purpose of sustaining 

the health of the nation by the usefulness of the cow and her 

progeny was achieved by the impugned enactments the 

restriction imposed thereby could be held to be reasonable in the 

interest of the general public. 

Their Lordships referred to other documents as well . The 

findings of fact arrived at, based on such evidence may briefly be 

summed up. In the opinion of their Lordships, cow progeny 

ceased to be useful as a draught cattle after a certain age and 

they, although useful otherwise, became a burden on the limited 

fodder available which, but for the so-called useless animals, 

would be available for consumption by milch and draught 

animals. The response of the States in setting up Gosadans 

(protection home for cow and cow progeny) was very poor. It 

was on appreciation of the documentary evidence and the 

deduction drawn therefrom which led their Lordships to conclude 

that in spite of there being a presumption in favour of the 

validity of the legislation and respect for the opinion of the 

legislatures as expressed by the three impugned enactments, 

they were inclined to hold that a total ban of the nature imposed 

could not be supported as reasonable in the interests of the 

general public. 

/ / %\ 

While dealing with the submissions made by the learned 

senior counsel before us, we would once again revert to this 

judgment. It would suffice to observe here that, excepting for 

one limited ground, all other grounds of challenge to the 

constitutional validity of the impugned enactments had failed. 

In Abdul Hakim Quraishi & Ors . v. 

State of Bihar, (1961) 2 SCR 610 (hereinafter referred to as 

Quraishi-II) once again certain amendments made by the 

Legislatures of the States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar 

Pradesh were put in issue. The ground of challenge was 

confined to Article 19(1) (g) read with Article 19(6) . The ban as 

imposed by the impugned Act was once again held to be 'total' 

and hence an unreasonable restriction. The Constitution Bench, 

by and large, chose to follow the dictum of this Court in 

Quareshi-I . 

In Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh & 

Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 853, the State Government issued a 

notification whereby the earlier notification issued by the 

Jabalpur Municipality which permitted the slaughter of bulls and 

bullocks along with other animals was recalled. Para 6 of the 

judgment notes the anguish of the Constitution Bench, as in the 

opinion of their Lordships , the case was apparently another 

attempt, though on a restricted scale, to circumvent the 

judgment of this Court in Quareshi-I . Vide para 9, their 

Lordships have noticed the decision of this Court in Narendra 

Kumar & Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors., (1960) 2 

SCR 375, which upholds the view that the term "restriction" in 

Articles 19(5) and 19(6) of the Constitution includes cases of 

"prohibition" also. Their Lordships drew a distinction between 

cases of "control" and "prohibition" and held that when the 

exercise of a fundamental right is prohibited, the burden of 

proving that a total ban on the exercise of the right alone would 

ensure the maintenance of the general public interest lies heavily 

upon the State. As the State failed in discharging that burden, 

the notification was held liable to be struck down as imposing an 

unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the 

petitioners . 

In Haji Usmanbhai Hassanbhai Qureshi and Ors. v. 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 51 

State of Gujarat, (1986) 3 SCC 12 (hereinafter referred to as 

' Qureshi-III' ) the constitutional validity of the Bombay Act as 

amended by Gujarat Act 16 of 1961 was challenged. The ban 

prohibited slaughter of bulls and bullocks below the age of 16 

years. The petitioners pleaded that such a restriction on their 

right to carry on the trade or business in beef and allied articles 

was unreasonable . Yet another plea was urged that the total 

ban offended their religion as qurbani (sacrifice) at the time of 

BakrI'd or Id festival as enjoined and sanctioned by Islam. The 

High Court rejected the challenge on both the grounds. The writ 

petitioners came in appeal to this Court . The appeal was 

dismissed. While doing so, this Court took note of the material 

made available in the form of an affidavit filed by the Under 

Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Agriculture, Forest and 

Cooperation Department wherein it was deposed that because 

of improvement and more scientific methods of cattle breeding 

and advancement in the science of looking after the health of 

cattle in the State of Gujarat, today a situation has been reached 

wherein the cattle remain useful for breeding, draught and other 

agricultural purposes above the age of 16 years as well. As the 

bulls and bullocks upto the 16 years of age continued to be 

useful, the prescription of the age of 16 years up to which they 

could not be slaughtered was held to be a reasonable restriction, 

keeping in mind the balance which has to be struck between 

public interest which requires useful animals to be preserved, 

and permitting the appellants (writ petitioners) to carry on their 

trade and profession. The test of reasonableness of the 

restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 

19(1) (g) was held to have been satisfied. 

The challenge based on Article 14 of the Constitution 

alleging the impugned legislation to be discriminatory, as it was 

not uniform in respect of all cattle, was rejected. 

The Court also held that buffaloes and their progeny, on 

the one hand and cows and their progeny, on the other hand 

constitute two different classes and their being treated 

differently does not amount to hostile discrimination. 

In Hashmattullah v. State of M.P. and Others, (1996) 

4 SCC 391, vires of M.P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan 

(Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991 imposing a total ban on the 

slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State of Madhya Pradesh 

was challenged. The validity of the amending Act was upheld by 

the High Court . The writ petitioners came up in appeal to this 

Court which was allowed and the amending Act was struck down 

as ultra vires the Constitution. 

In State of West Bengal and others v. Ashutosh 

Lahiri and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 189, the legislation impugned 

therein permitted slaughter of cows on the occasion of BakrI'd 

subject to an exemption in that regard being allowed by the 

State Government . The power to grant such an exemption was 

challenged. The High Court allowed the writ petition and struck 

down the power of the State Government to grant such an 

exemption. There was a total ban imposed on the slaughter of 

healthy cows and other animals mentioned in the schedule under 

Section 2 of the Act. The State of West Bengal appealed. On a 

review of earlier decisions of this Court, the three- Judge Bench 

concluded that it was a settled legal position that there was no 

fundamental right of Muslims to insist on slaughter of healthy 

cows on the occasion of BakrI'd. The contention that not only an 

essential religious practice under Article 25(1) of Constitution, 

but even optional religious practice could be permitted, was 

discarded. The Court held \026 "We, therefore, entirely concur with 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 51 

the view of the High Court that slaughtering of healthy cows on 

BakrI'd is not essential or required for religious purpose of 

Muslims or in other words it is not a part of religious requirement 

for a Muslim that a cow must be necessarily sacrificed for 

earning religious merit on BakrI'd. " 

Issues in Present Set of Appeals 

Though there is no explicit concession given but it became 

clear during the course of prolonged hearing before us that the 

decision of this case hinges much on the answer to the question 

whether the view of this Court in Quareshi-I is to be upheld or 

not . While the submission of the learned senior counsel for the 

appellants has been that, to the extent the Constitution Bench in 

Quareshi-I holds the total ban on slaughter of cow progeny to 

be unconstitutional, it does not lay down good law for various 

reasons, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners- 

respondents has submitted that Quareshi-I leads a chain of five 

decisions of this Court which in view of the principle of stare 

decisis, this Court should not upset . The learned senior counsel 

for the appellants find following faults with the view taken by 

this Court in Quareshi-I, to the extent to which it goes against 

the appellants :- 

(1) Quareshi-I holds Directive Principles of State Policy 

to be unenforceable and subservient to the 

Fundamental Rights and, therefore, refuses to assign 

any weight to the Directive Principle contained in 

Article 48 of the Constitution and refuses to hold that 

its implementation can be a valid ground for proving 

reasonability of the restriction imposed on the 

Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 19(1) (g) of 

the Constitution \026 a theory which stands discarded in 

a series of subsequent decisions of this Court . 

(2) What has been noticed in Quareshi-I is Article 48 

alone; Article 48A and Article 5lA(g) were not 

noticed as they were not available then, as they 

were introduced in the Constitution by Forty-second 

Amendment with effect from 3 . 1 . 1977 . 

(3) The meaning assigned to "other milch and draught 

cattle" in Quareshi-I is not correct. Such a narrow 

view as has been taken in Quareshi-I does not fit 

into the scheme of the Constitution and, in 

particular, the spirit of Article 48. 

<\ 

(4) Quareshi-I does not assign the requisite weight to 

the facts contained in the Preamble and Statement 

of Objects and Reasons of the enactments impugned 

therein . 

(5) 'Restriction' and 'Regulation' include 'Prohibition' and 

a partial restraint does not amount to total 

prohibition. Subsequent to the decision in 

Quareshi-I the trend of judicial decisions in this 

area indicates that regulation or restriction within the 

meaning of Articles 19(5) and 19(6) of the 

Constitution includes total prohibition - the question 

which was not answered and left open in 

Quareshi-I . 

(6) In spite of having decided against the writ petitioners 

on all their principal pleas, the only ground on which 

the constitutional validity of the impugned 

enactments was struck down in Quareshi-I is 

founded on the finding of facts that cow progeny 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 51 

ceased to be useful after a particular age, that 

preservation of such 'useless cattle' by establishment 

of gosadan was not a practical and viable 

proposition, that a large percentage of the animals, 

not fit for slaughter, are slaughtered surreptitiously 

outside the municipal limits, that the quantum of 

available fodder for cattle added with the 

dislodgment of butchers from their traditional 

profession renders the total prohibition on slaughter 

not in public interest. The factual situation has 

undergone a drastic change since then and hence 

the factual foundation, on which the legal finding has 

been constructed, ceases to exist depriving the later 

of all its force. 

The learned senior counsel for the appellants further 

submitted that Quareshi-I forms the foundation for subsequent 

decisions and if the very basis of Quareshi-I crumbles, the 

edifice of subsequent decisions which have followed Quareshi-I 

would also collapse. We will examine the validity of each of the 

contentions so advanced and at the end also examine whether 

the principle of stare decisis prevents us from reopening the 

question answered in favour of writ petitioners in Quareshi-I . 

PART \026 II 

Question-1. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles :— 

"It was the Sapru Committee (1945) which initially 

suggested two categories of rights: one justiciable and the other 

in the form of directives to the State which should be regarded as 

fundamental in the governance of the country \005 Those directives 

are not merely pious declarations . It was the intention of the 

framers of the Constitution that in future both the Legislature and 

the Executive should not merely pay lip service to these 

principles but they should be made the basis of all legislative and 

executive actions that the future Government may be taking in 

matter of governance of the country. (Constituent Assembly 

Debates, Vol.7, at page 41)" (See: The Constitution of India, D.J. 

De, Second Edition, 2005, p. 1367). If we were to trace the 

history of conflict and irreconciliability between Fundamental 

Rights and Directive Principles, we will find that the development 

of law has passed through three distinct stages. 

To begin with, Article 37 was given a literal meaning 

holding the provisions contained in Part IV of the Constitution to 

be unenforceable by any Court. In The State of Madras v. 

Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCR 525, it was held 

that the Directive Principles of State Policy have to conform to 

and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. The 

view was reiterated in Deep Chand and Anr. v. The State of 

Uttar Pradesh and Others, 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 8. The Court 

went on to hold that disobedience to Directive Principles cannot 

affect the legislative power of the State. So was the view taken 

in In Re : The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 , 1959 SCR 995. 

With L.C. Golak Nath and others v. State of Punjab 

and Another, (1967) 2 SCR 762, the Supreme Court departed 

from the rigid rule of subordinating Directive Principles and 

entered the era of harmonious construction. The need for 

avoiding a conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive 

Principles was emphasized, appealing to the legislature and the 

courts to strike a balance between the two as far as possible. 

Having noticed Champakam (supra) even the Constitution 

Bench in Quareshi-I chose to make a headway and held that the 

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 15 of 51 

Directive Principles nevertheless are fundamental in the 

governance of the country and it is the duty of the State to give 

effect to them. "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 

Part III will be a 'mere rope of sand' . " Thus, Quareshi-I did 

take note of the status of Directive Principles having been 

elevated from ' sub-ordinate' or ' sub- servient' to 'partner' of 

Fundamental Rights in guiding the nation. 

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru 

and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr . , (1973) 4 SCC 225, a 

thirteen-Judge Bench decision of this Court is a turning point in 

the history of Directive Principles jurisprudence . This decision 

clearly mandated the need for bearing in mind the Directive 

Principles of State Policy while judging the reasonableness of the 

restriction imposed on Fundamental Rights. Several opinions 

were recorded in Kesavananda Bharati and quoting from them 

would significantly increase the length of this judgment . For our 

purpose, it would suffice to refer to the seven-Judge Bench 

decision in Pathumma and Others v. State of Kerala and 

Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 1, wherein the learned Judges neatly 

summed up the ratio of Kesavananda Bharati and other 

decisions which are relevant for our purpose. Pathumma (supra) 

holds : - 

" (1) Courts interpret the constitutional 

provisions against the social setting of the 

country so as to show a complete 

consciousness and deep awareness of the 

growing requirements of society, the 

increasing needs of the nation, the burning 

problems of the day and the complex issues 

facing the people, which the legislature, in 

wisdom, through beneficial legislation, seeks 

to solve. The judicial approach should be 

dynamic rather than static, pragmatic and not 

pedantic and elastic rather than rigid. This 

Court while acting as a sentinel on the qui 

vive to protect fundamental rights guaranteed 

to the citizens of the country must try to 

strike a just balance between the fundamental 

rights and the larger and broader interests of 

society so that when such a right clashes with 

a larger interest of the country it must yield to 

the latter. (Para 5) 

(2) The Legislature is in the best position to 

understand and appreciate the needs of the 

people as enjoined in the Constitution. The 

Court will interfere in this process only when 

the statute is clearly violative of the right 

conferred on a citizen under Part III or when 

the Act is beyond the legislative competence 

of the legislature . The courts have recognised 

that there is always a presumption in favour 

of the constitutionality of the statutes and the 

onus to prove its invalidity lies on the party 

which assails it . (Para 6) 

(3) The right conferred by Article 19(1) (f) is 

conditioned by the various factors mentioned 

in clause (5) . (Para 8) 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 51 

(4) The following tests have been laid down as 

guidelines to indicate in what particular 

circumstances a restriction can be regarded as 

reasonable : 

(a) In judging the reasonableness 

of the restriction the court has to 

bear in mind the Directive 

Principles of State Policy. (Para 

8) 

(b) The restrictions must not be 

arbitrary or of an excessive nature 

so as to go beyond the 

requirements of the interests of 

the general public. The legislature 

must take intelligent care and 

deliberation in choosing the 

course which is dictated by reason 

and good conscience so as to 

strike a just balance between the 

freedom in the article and the 

social control permitted by the 

restrictions under the article. 

(Para 14) 

(c) No abstract or general pattern 

or fixed principle can be laid down 

so as to be of universal 

application. It will have to vary 

from case to case and having 

regard to the changing conditions, 

the values of human life, social 

philosophy of the Constitution, 

prevailing conditions and the 

surrounding circumstances all of 

which must enter into the judicial 

verdict . (Para 15) 

(d) The Court is to examine the 

nature and extent, the purport 

and content of the right, the 

nature of the evil sought to be 

remedied by the statute, the ratio 

of harm caused to the citizen and 

the benefit conferred on the 

person or the community for 

whose benefit the legislation is 

passed. (Para 18 ) 

(e) There must be a direct and 

proximate nexus or a reasonable 

connection between the restriction 

imposed and the object which is 

sought to be achieved. (Para 20) 

(f) The needs of the prevailing 

social values must be satisfied by 

the restrictions meant to protect 

social welfare. (Para 22) 

(g) The restriction has to be 

viewed not only from the point of 

view of the citizen but the 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 51 

problem before the legislature and 

the object which is sought to be 

achieved by the statute. In other 

words, the Court must see 

whether the social control 

envisaged by Article 19 (1) is 

being effectuated by the 

restrictions imposed on the 

fundamental right . However 

important the right of a citizen or 

an individual may be it has to 

yield to the larger interests of the 

country or the community. (Para 

24) 

(h) The Court is entitled to take 

into consideration matters of 

common report history of the 

times and matters of common 

knowledge and the circumstances 

existing at the time of the 

legislation for this purpose. (Para 

25) " 

(underlining by us) 

/ \ 

In State of Kerala and Anr. v. N.M. Thomas and Ors . , 

(1976) 2 SCC 310, also a seven-Judge Bench of this Court culled 

out and summarized the ratio of this Court in Kesavananda 

Bharati. Fazal Ali, J extracted and set out the relevant extract 

from the opinion of several Judges in Kesavananda Bharati 

and then opined: 

"In view of the principles adumbrated by 

this Court it is clear that the directive principles 

form the fundamental feature and the social 

conscience of the Constitution and the 

Constitution enjoins upon the State to 

implement these directive principles. The 

directives thus provide the policy, the 

guidelines and the end of socio-economic 

freedom and Articles 14 and 16 are the means 

to implement the policy to achieve the ends 

sought to be promoted by the directive 

principles. So far as the courts are concerned 

where there is no apparent inconsistency 

between the directive principles contained in 

Part IV and the fundamental rights mentionec 

in Part III, which in fact supplement each 

other, there is no difficulty in putting a 

harmonious construction which advances the 

object of the Constitution. Once this basic fact 

is kept in mind, the interpretation of Articles 

14 and 16 and their scope and ambit become 

as clear as day. " 

The message of Kesavananda Bharati is clear. The 

interest of a citizen or section of a community, howsoever 

important, is secondary to the interest of the country or 

community as a whole. For judging the reasonability of 

restrictions imposed on Fundamental Rights the relevant 

considerations are not only those as stated in Article 19 itself or 

in Part-Ill of the Constitution; the Directive Principles stated in 

Part-IV are also relevant. Changing factual conditions and State 

policy, including the one reflected in the impugned enactment, 

have to be considered and given weightage to by the courts while 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 51 

deciding the constitutional validity of legislative enactments . A 

restriction placed on any Fundamental Right, aimed at securing 

Directive Principles will be held as reasonable and hence intra 

vires subject to two limitations : first, that it does not run in clear 

conflict with the fundamental right, and secondly, that it has 

been enacted within the legislative competence of the enacting 

legislature under Part XI Chapter I of the Constitution. 

In Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & 

Ors . v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai & Anr . , (1986) 3 SCC 

20, what was impugned before the High Court was a standing 

order issued by the Municipal Commissioner of the State of 

Ahmedabad, increasing the number of days on which slaughter 

houses should be kept closed to seven, in supersession of the 

earlier standing order which directed the closure for only four 

days. The writ petitioner, a beef dealer, challenged the 

constitutional validity of the impugned standing orders (both, the 

earlier and the subsequent one) as violative of Articles 14 and 

19(1) (g) of the Constitution . The challenge based on Articles 14 

of the Constitution was turned down both by the High Court and 

the Supreme Court . However, the High Court had struck down 

the seven days closure as not "in the interests of the general 

public" and hence not protected by Clause (6) of Article 19 of the 

Constitution. In appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation, 

the Constitution Bench reversed the Judgment of the High Court 

and held that the objects sought to be achieved by the impugned 

standing orders were the preservation, protection and 

improvement of live-stock, which is one of the Directive 

Principles . Cows, bulls, bullocks and calves of cows are no doubt 

the most important cattle for our agricultural economy. They 

form a separate class and are entitled to be treated differently 

from other animals such as goats and sheep, which are 

slaughtered. The Constitution Bench ruled that the expression 

"in the interests of general public" is of a wide import covering 

public order, public health, public security, morals, economic 

welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in Part IV 

of the Constitution. 

In Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Others, v 

Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Anr. , (1992) 3 SCC 336, the 

Constitution Bench clearly ruled (vide para 27) \026 "Ordinarily any 

restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or 

effectuating a directive principle can be presumed to be a 

reasonable restriction in public interest . " Similar view is taken in 

Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. and Anr. , 

(1995) 1 SCC 501. 

Directive Principles 

Long back in The State of Bombay and anr. v. F.N. 

Balsara, 1951 SCR 682, a Constitution Bench had ruled that in 

judging the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the 

Fundamental Rights, one has to bear in mind the Directive 

Principles of State Policy set-forth in Part IV of the Constitution, 

while examining the challenge to the constitutional validity of law 

by reference to Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution . 

In a comparatively recent decision of this Court in M.R.F. 

Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Govt, and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 227, 

this Court, on a conspectus of its various prior decisions 

summed up principles as 'clearly discernible' , out of which three 

that are relevant for our purpose, are extracted and reproduced 

hereunder . 

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 19 of 51 

"13. On a conspectus of various decisions of 

this Court, the following principles are clearly 

discernible : 

(1) While considering the 

reasonableness of the restrictions , the court 

has to keep in mind the Directive Principles of 

State Policy. 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

(3) In order to judge the 

reasonableness of the restrictions , no abstract 

or general pattern or a fixed principle can be 

laid down so as to be of universal application 

and the same will vary from case to case as 

also with regard to changing conditions, values 

of human life, social philosophy of the 

Constitution, prevailing conditions and the 

surrounding circumstances. 

XXX 

X, 

XX 

XXX 

XXX 

, 

(6) There must be a direct and 

proximate nexus or a reasonable connection 

between the restrictions imposed and the 

object sought to be achieved. If there is a 

direct nexus between the restrictions and the 

object of the Act, then a strong presumption in 

favour of the constitutionality of the Act 

naturally arise. (See: Kavalappara 

Kottarathil Kochuni Vs. State of Madras 

and Kerala, (1960) 3 SCR 887; O.K. Ghosh 

Vs. E.X. Joseph, 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 789) 

Very recently in Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors . 

v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 589, this Court while 

dealing with the case of a total prohibition reiterated that 

'regulation' includes 'prohibition' and in order to determine 

whether total prohibition would be reasonable, the Court has to 

balance the direct impact on the fundamental right of the citizens 

as against the greater public or social interest sought to be 

ensured. Implementation of the Directive Principles contained in 

Part IV is within the expression of 'restriction in the interests of 

the general public' . 

Post Kesavananda Bharati so far as the determination of 

the position of Directive Principles, vis-a-vis Fundamental Rights 

are concerned, it has been an era of positivism and creativity. 

Article 37 of the Constitution which while declaring the Directive 

Principles to be unenforceable by any Court goes on to say \026 

"that they are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of 

the country. " Several clauses of Article 37 themselves need to be 

harmoniously construed assigning equal weightage to all of them. 

The end part of Article 37 \026 "It shall be the duty of the State to 

apply these principles in making laws " is not a pariah but a 

constitutional mandate. The series of decisions which we have 

referred to hereinabove and the series of decisions which 

formulate the 3-stages of development of the relationship 

between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights undoubtedly 

hold that, while interpreting the interplay of rights and 

restrictions , Part-Ill (Fundamental Rights) and Part-IV (Directive 

Principles) have to be read together. The restriction which can 

be placed on the rights listed in Article 19(1) are not subject only 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 51 

to Articles 19(2) to 19(6); the provisions contained in the chapter 

on Directive Principles of State Policy can also be pressed into 

service and relied on for the purpose of adjudging the 

reasonability of restrictions placed on the Fundamental Rights. 

Question \026 2 Fundamental Rights and Articles 48, 48-A and 

51-A (g) of Constitution 

Articles 48, 48-A and 51-A(g) (relevant clause) of the 

Constitution read as under :- 

"48. Organisation of agriculture and 

animal husbandry. \027The State shall 

endeavour to organise agriculture and animal 

husbandry on modern and scientific lines and 

shall, in particular, take steps for preserving 

and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the 

slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch 

and draught cattle. 

48-A. Protection and improvement of 

environment and safeguarding of forests 

and wild life. \027The State shall endeavour to 

protect and improve the environment and to 

safeguard the forests and wild life of the 

country. 

51-A. Fundamental duties . \027It shall be the 

duty of every citizen of India\027 

(g) to protect and improve the natural 

environment including forests, lakes, rivers 

and wild life, and to have compassion for 

living creatures; " 

Articles 48-A and 51-A have been introduced into the body 

of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-second 

Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 3.1.1977. These 

Articles were not a part of the Constitution when Quareshi-I , 

Quraishi-II and Mohd. Faruk' s cases were decided by this 

Court. Further, Article 48 of the Constitution has also been 

assigned a higher weightage and wider expanse by the Supreme 

Court post Quareshi-I . Article 48 consists of two parts. The 

first part enjoins the State to "endeavour to organize agricultural 

and animal husbandry" and that too "on modern and scientific 

lines". The emphasis is not only on 'organization' but also on 

'modern and scientific lines' . The subject is 'agricultural and 

animal husbandry' . India is an agriculture based economy . 

According to 2001 census, 72.2% of the population still lives in 

villages (See- India Vision 2020, p. 99) and survives for its 

livelihood on agriculture, animal husbandry and related 

occupations . The second part of Article 48 enjoins the State, 

de hors the generality of the mandate contained in its first part, 

to take steps, in particular, "for preserving and improving the 

breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and 

other milch and draught cattle". 

Article 48-A deals with "environment, forests and wild life". 

These three subjects have been dealt with in one Article for the 

simple reason that the three are inter-related. Protection and 

improvement of environment is necessary for safeguarding 

forests and wild life, which in turn protects and improves the 

environment . Forests and wild life are clearly inter-related and 

inter-dependent. They protect each other. 

Cow progeny excreta is scientifically recognized as a 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 51 

source of rich organic manure. It enables the farmers avoiding 

the use of chemicals and inorganic manure. This helps in 

improving the quality of earth and the environment . The 

impugned enactment enables the State in its endeavour to 

protect and improve the environment within the meaning of 

Article 48A of the Constitution. 

By enacting clause (g) in Article 51-A and giving it the 

status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be 

achieved by the Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and 

message of Articles 48 and 48A is honoured as a fundamental 

duty of every citizen. The Parliament availed the opportunity 

provided by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 

1976 to improve the manifestation of objects contained in Article 

48 and 48-A. While Article 48-A speaks of "environment", Article 

51-A(g) employs the expression "the natural environment" and 

includes therein "forests, lakes, rivers and wild life". While Article 

48 provides for "cows and calves and other milch and draught 

cattle", Article 51-A(g) enjoins it as a fundamental duty of every 

citizen "to have compassion for living creatures", which in its 

wider fold embraces the category of cattle spoken of specifically 

in Article 48. 

In AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS and Ors . , (2002) 

1 SCC 428, a three-Judge Bench of this Court made it clear that 

fundamental duties, though not enforceable by writ of the court, 

yet provide valuable guidance and aid to interpretation and 

resolution of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt, 

peoples' wish as expressed through Article 51-A can serve as a 

guide not only for resolving the issue but also for constructing or 

moulding the relief to be given by the courts. The fundamental 

duties must be given their full meaning as expected by the 

enactment of the Forty-second Amendment . The Court further 

held that the State is, in a sense, 'all the citizens placed 

together' and, therefore, though Article 51A does not expressly 

cast any fundamental duty on the State, the fact remains that 

the duty of every citizen of India is, collectively speaking, the 

duty of the State. 

In Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. v. Union of India 

& Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594, a governmental decision to 

give utmost importance to the training programme of the Indian 

Administrative Service selectees was upheld by deriving support 

from Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution, holding that the 

governmental decision was in consonance with one of the 

fundamental duties. 

In State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Ors., 

(1997) 4 SCC 7, this Court interpreted the object of writing the 

confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls by 

deriving support from Article 51-A(j) which enjoins upon every 

citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to strive 

towards excellence, individually and collectively . 

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. 

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1986 (Supp) SCC 517, a 

complete ban and closing of mining operations carried on in the 

Mussoorie hills was held to be sustainable by deriving support 

from the fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51-A(g) of the 

Constitution. The Court held that preservation of the 

environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a 

task which not only Governments but also every citizen must 

undertake. It is a social obligation of the State as well as of the 

individuals . 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 51 

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India 

& Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606, a three-Judge Bench of this Court 

read Article 48-A and Article 51-A together as laying down the 

foundation for a jurisprudence of environmental protection and 

held that "Today, the State and the citizens are under a 

fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment, 

including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion 

for living creatures" . 

In State of W.B. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 

4 SCC 129, Articles 48 and 51-A(g) of the Constitution were 

read together and this Court expressed that these provisions 

have to be kept in mind while interpreting statutory provisions . 

It is thus clear that faced with the question of testing the 

constitutional validity of any statutory provision or an executive 

act, or for testing the reasonableness of any restriction cast by 

law on the exercise of any fundamental right by way of 

regulation, control or prohibition, the Directive Principles of State 

Policy and Fundamental Duties as enshrined in Article 51-A of 

the Constitution play a significant role. The decision in 

Quareshi-I in which the relevant provisions of the three 

impugned legislations was struck down on the singular ground of 

lack of reasonability , would have decided otherwise if only Article 

48 was assigned its full and correct meaning and due weightage 

was given thereto and Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) were available 

in the body of the Constitution. 

Question \026 3 : Milch and draught cattle, meaning of, in 

Article 48 

Article 48 employs the expression 'cows and calves and 

other milch and draught cattle' . What meaning is to be assigned 

to the expression 'milch and draught cattle'? 

\ 

The question is whether when Article 48 precludes 

slaughter of cows and calves by description, the words 'milch 

and draught cattle' are described as a like species which should 

not be slaughtered or whether such species are protected only 

till they are 'milch or draught ' and the protection ceases 

whenever, they cease to be 'milch or draught' , either temporarily 

or permanently? 

According to their inherent genetic qualities, cattle breeds 

are broadly divided into 3 categories (i) Milch breed (ii) Draught 

breed, and (Hi) Dual purpose breed. Milch breeds include all 

cattle breeds which have an inherent potential for milk 

production whereas draught breeds have an inherent potential 

for draught purposes like pulling, traction of loads etc. The dual 

purpose breeds have the potential to perform both the above 

functions . 

The term draught cattle indicates "the act of moving loads 

by drawing or pulling i.e. pull and traction etc. Chambers 20th 

Century Dictionary defines 'draught animal' as 'one used for 

drawing heavy loads ' . 

Cows are milch cattle. Calves become draught or milch 

cattle on attaining a particular age. Having specifically spoken of 

cows and calves, the latter being a cow progeny, the framers of 

the Constitution chose not to catalogue the list of other milch and 

draught cattle and felt satisfied by employing a general 

expression "other milch and draught cattle" which in their opinion 

any reader of the Constitution would understand in the context of 

the previous words "cows and calves " . 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 51 

"Milch and draught ", the two words have been used as 

adjectives describing and determining the quality of the noun 

'cattle' . The function of a descriptive or qualitative adjective is to 

describe the shape, colour, size, nature or merits or demerits of 

the noun which they precede and qualify. In a document like 

the Constitution, such an adjective cannot be said to have been 

employed by the framers of the Constitution for the purpose of 

describing only a passing feature, characteristic or quality of the 

cattle. The object of using these two adjectives is to enable 

classification of the noun \026 'cattle' which follows. Had it been 

intended otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have 

chosen a different expression or setting of words. 

No doubt, cow ceases to be 'milch' after attaining a 

particular age. Yet, cow has been held to be entitled to 

protection against slaughter without regard to the fact that it has 

ceased to be 'milch' . This constitutional position is well settled. 

So is the case with calves. Calves have been held entitled to 

protection against slaughter without regard to their age and 

though they are not yet fit to be employed as 'draught cattle' . 

Following the same construction of the expression, it can be said 

that the words "calves and other milch and draught cattle" have 

also been used as a matter of description of a species and not 

with regard to age. Thus, 'milch and draught' used as adjectives 

simply enable the classification or description of cattle by their 

quality, whether they belong to that species. This classification is 

with respect to the inherent qualities of the cattle to perform a 

particular type of function and is not dependant on their 

remaining functional for those purposes by virtue of the age of 

the animal. "Milch and draught cattle" is an expression employed 

in Article 48 of the Constitution so as to distinguish such cattle 

from other cattle which are neither milch nor draught. 

Any other meaning assigned to this expression is likely to 

result in absurdity. A milch cattle goes through a life cycle during 

which it is sometimes milch and sometimes it becomes dry. This 

does not mean that as soon as a milch cattle ceases to produce 

milk, for a short period as a part of its life cycle, it goes out of the 

purview of Article 48, and can be slaughtered. A draught cattle 

may lose its utility on account of injury or sickness and may be 

rendered useless as a draught cattle during that period. This 

would not mean that if a draught cattle ceases to be of utility for 

a short period on account of sickness or injury, it is excluded 

from the definition of 'draught cattle' and deprived of the benefit 

of Article 48. 

This reasoning is further strengthened by Article 51A(g) of 

the Constitution. The State and every citizen of India must have 

compassion for living creatures. Compassion, according to 

Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary means "a strong feeling of 

sympathy for those who are suffering and a desire to help them". 

According to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, compassion is 

"fellow \026 feeling, or sorrow for the sufferings of another : pity" 

Compassion is suggestive of sentiments, a soft feeling, emotions 

arising out of sympathy, pity and kindness. The concept of 

compassion for living creatures enshrined in Article 51A (g) is 

based on the background of the rich cultural heritage of India \026 

the land of Mahatama Gandhi, Vinobha, Mahaveer, Budha, Nanak 

and others . No religion or holy book in any part of the world 

teaches or encourages cruelty. Indian society is a pluralistic 

society. It has unity in diversity. The religions, cultures and 

people may be diverse, yet all speak in one voice that cruelty to 

any living creature must be curbed and ceased. A cattle which 

has served human beings is entitled to compassion in its old age 

when it has ceased to be milch or draught and becomes so-called 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 51 

'useless' . It will be an act of reprehensible ingratitude to 

condemn a cattle in its old age as useless and send it to a 

slaughter house taking away the little time from its natural life 

that it would have lived, forgetting its service for the major part 

of its life, for which it had remained milch or draught . We have 

to remember : the weak and meek need more of protection and 

compassion . 

In our opinion, the expression 'milch or draught cattle' as 

employed in Article 48 of the Constitution is a description of a 

classification or species of cattle as distinct from cattle which by 

their nature are not milch or draught and the said words do not 

include milch or draught cattle, which on account of age or 

disability, cease to be functional for those purposes either 

temporarily or permanently . The said words take colour from the 

preceding words "cows or calves". A specie of cattle which is 

milch or draught for a number of years during its span of life is to 

be included within the said expression. On ceasing to be milch or 

draught it cannot be pulled out from the category of "other milch 

and draught cattle. " 

Question - 4 : Statement of Objects and Reasons - 

Significance and Role thereof 

/ X <\ 

Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is 

permissible for understanding the background, antecedent state 

of affairs in relation to the statute, and the evil which the 

statute was sought to remedy. (See Principles of Statutory 

Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th Edition, 2004, at 

p. 218) . In State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose 

and Ors . , 1954 SCR 587, the Constitution Bench was testing 

the constitutional validity of the legislation impugned therein. 

The Statement of Objects and Reasons was used by S.R. 

Das, J. for ascertaining the conditions prevalent at that time 

which led to the introduction of the Bill and the extent and 

urgency of the evil which was sought to be remedied, in 

addition to testing the reasonableness of the restrictions 

imposed by the impugned provision. In his opinion, it was 

indeed very unfortunate that the Statement of Objects and 

Reasons was not placed before the High Court which would 

have assisted the High Court in arriving at the right conclusion 

as to the reasonableness of the restriction imposed. State of 

West Bengal v. Union of India, (1964) 1 SCR 371, 431-32 

approved the use of Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 

purpose of understanding the background and the antecedent 

state of affairs leading upto the legislation. 

In Quareshi-I itself, which has been very strongly relied 

upon by the learned counsel for the respondents before us, 

Chief Justice S.R. Das has held:- 

" 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 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 51 

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. (Para 15). 

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. " (Para 21, 

also see the several decisions referred to 

therein) . 

(underlining by us) 

\ \^s \ 

The facts stated in the Preamble and the Statement of 

Objects and Reasons appended to any legislation are evidence of 

legislative judgment . They indicate the thought process of the 

elected representatives of the people and their cognizance of the 

prevalent state of affairs, impelling them to enact the law. 

These, therefore, constitute important factors which amongst 

others will be taken into consideration by the court in judging 

the reasonableness of any restriction imposed on the 

Fundamental Rights of the individuals. The Court would begin 

with a presumption of reasonability of the restriction, more so 

when the facts stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons 

and the Preamble are taken to be correct and they justify the 

enactment of law for the purpose sought to be achieved. 

In Sardar Inder Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 

1957 SCR 605, a Constitution Bench was testing the validity of 

certain provisions of the Ordinance impugned before and it found 

it to be repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution and hence 

void. At page 620, Venkatarama Aiyar, J. speaking for the 

Constitution Bench referred to the recitals contained in the 

Preamble to the Ordinance and the object sought to be achieved 

by the Ordinance as flowing therefrom and held "that is a matter 

exclusively for the legislature to determine, and the propriety of 

that determination is not open to question in courts. We should 

add that the petitioners sought to dispute the correctness of the 

recitals in the Preamble. This they cannot clearly do". 

Question - 5 : Article 19(1) (g) : 'Regulation' or 

'Restriction' includes Total Prohibition; Partial Restraint it 

not Total Prohibition 

Respondents rely on Article 19(1) (g) which deals with the 

fundamental right to 'practise any profession or to carry on any 

occupation, trade or business' . This right is subject to Article 

19(6) which permits reasonable restrictions to be imposed on it 

in the interests of the general public. 

This raises the question of what is the meaning of the 

word 'restriction' . 

Three propositions are well settled:- (i) 'restriction' 

includes cases of 'prohibition' ; (ii) the standard for judging 

reasonability of restriction or restriction amounting to 

prohibition remains the same, excepting that a total prohibition 

must also satisfy the test that a lesser alternative would be 

inadequate; and (Hi) whether a restriction in effect amounts to 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 51 

a total prohibition is a question of fact which shall have to be 

determined with regard to the facts and circumstances of each 

case, the ambit of the right and the effect of the restriction 

upon the exercise of that right . Reference may be made to 

Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India 

(UOI) and Anr., AIR 1954 SC 634, Krishna Kumar v. 

Municipal Committee of Bhatapara, (Petition No. 660 of 

1954 decided on 21st February 1957 by Constitution Bench) 

(See Compilation of Supreme Court Judgments, 1957 Jan- 

May page 33, available in Supreme Court Judges Library) , 

Narendra Kumar and Ors . v. Union of India (UOI) and 

Ors., (1960) 2 SCR 375, The State of Maharashtra v. 

Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao and Ors., (1969) 2 SCR 392, 

Sushila Saw Mill v. State of Orissa & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 

615, Pratap Pharma (Pvt . ) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & 

Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 87 and Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, 

(2004) 1 SCC 712. 

In Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. (supra) a 

large section of traders were completely prohibited from 

carrying on their normal trade in forward contacts . The 

restriction was held to be reasonable as cotton, being a 

commodity essential to the life of the community, and therefore 

such a total prohibition was held to be permissible . In 

Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao and Ors . (supra) trade in hides 

was completely prohibited and the owners of dead animals 

were required to compulsorily deposit carcasses in an appointed 

place without selling it . The constitutionality of such prohibition, 

though depriving the owner of his property, was upheld. The 

court also held that while striking a balance between rights of 

individuals and rights of citizenry as a whole the financial loss 

caused to individuals becomes insignificant if it serves the 

larger public interest . In Sushila Saw Mill (supra) , the 

impugned enactment imposed a total ban on saw mill business 

or sawing operations within reserved or protected forests. The 

ban was held to be justified as it was in public interest to which 

the individual interest must yield. Similar view is taken in the 

other cases referred to hereinabove. 

In Krishna Kumar (supra) , the Constitution Bench held 

that when the prohibition is only with respect to the exercise of 

the right referable only in a particular area of activity or relating 

to a particular matter, there was no total prohibition. In that 

case, the Constitution Bench was dealing with the case of 

Adatiyas operating in a market area. A certain field of activity 

was taken away from them, but they were yet allowed to 

function as Adatiyas . It was held that this amounts to a 

restriction on the exercise of writ petitioners' occupation as an 

Adatiya or a seller of grain but does not amount to a total ban. 

In the present case, we find the issue relates to a total 

prohibition imposed on the slaughter of cow and her progeny. 

The ban is total with regard to the slaughter of one particular 

class of cattle. The ban is not on the total activity of butchers 

(kasais) ; they are left free to slaughter cattle other than those 

specified in the Act . It is not that the writ petitioner-respondents 

survive only by slaughtering cow progeny. They can slaughter 

animals other than cow progeny and carry on their business 

activity. In so far as trade in hides, skins and other allied things 

(which are derived from the body of dead animal) are concerned, 

it is not necessary that the animal must be slaughtered to avail 

these things. The animal, whose slaughter has been prohibited, 

would die a natural death even otherwise and in that case their 

hides, skins and other parts of body would be available for trade 

and industrial activity based thereon. 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 51 

We hold that though it is permissible to place a total ban 

amounting to prohibition on any profession, occupation, trade or 

business subject to satisfying the test of being reasonable in the 

interest of the general public, yet, in the present case banning 

slaughter of cow progeny is not a prohibition but only a 

restriction. 

Question - 6 : Slaughter of cow progeny, if in public 

interest 

As we have already indicated, the opinion formed by the 

Constitution Bench of this Court in Quareshi-I is that the 

restriction amounting to total prohibition on slaughter of bulls and 

bullocks was unreasonable and was not in public interest . We, 

therefore, proceed to examine the evidence available on record 

which would enable us to answer questions with regard to the 

' reasonability' of the imposed restriction qua 'public interest' . 

The facts contained in the Preamble and the Statement of 

Objects and Reasons in the impugned enactment highlight the 

following facts :- 

(i) it is established that cow and her progeny sustain 

the health of the nation; 

(ii) the working bullocks are indispensable for our 

agriculture for they supply power more than any 

other animal (the activities for which the bullocks 

are usefully employed are also set out) ; 

(Hi) the dung of the animal is cheaper than the 

artificial manures and extremely useful of 

production of biogas; 

(iv) it is established that the backbone of Indian 

agriculture is the cow and her progeny and they 

have on their back the whole structure of the 

Indian agriculture and its economic system; 

(v) the economy of the State of Gujarat is still 

predominantly agricultural. In the agricultural 

sector use of animals for milch, draught, breeding 

or agricultural purposes has great importance. 

Preservation and protection of agricultural animals 

like bulls and bullocks needs emphasis . With the 

growing adoption of non-conventional energy 

sources like biogas plants, even waste material 

have come to assume considerable value. After 

the cattle cease to breed or are too old to work, 

they still continue to give dung for fuel, manure 

and biogas and, therefore, they cannot be said to 

be useless. 

Apart from the fact that we have to assume the above- 

stated facts as to be correct, there is also voluminous evidence 

available on record to support the above said facts. We proceed 

to notice few such documents. 

Affidavits 

Shri J.S. Parikh, Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Cooperative 

and Rural Development, Department, State of Gujarat, filed three 

affidavits in the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application 

No. 9991 of 1993. The first affidavit was filed on 20th October, 

1993, wherein the following facts are discernible and mentioned 

as under : 

(i) With the improved scientific animal 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 51 

husbandry services in the State, the 

average longivity of animals has 

considerably increased. In the year 

1960, there were only 456 veterinary 

dispensaries and first aid veterinary 

centers etc, whereas in the year 1993, 

there are 946 veterinary dispensaries 

and first aid veterinary centers etc. 

There were no mobile veterinary 

dispensaries in 1960 while there are 31 

mobile veterinary dispensaries in the 

State in 1993. In addition, there are 

around 467 centres for intensive cattle 

development where besides first aid 

veterinary treatment, other animal 

husbandry inputs of breeding, food or 

development etc. are also provided. In 

the year 1960, five lakh catties were 

vaccinated whereas in the year 1992-93 

around 200 lakh animals are vaccinated 

to provide life saving protection against 

various fatal diseases . There were no 

cattle food compounding units preparing 

cattle food in the year 1960, while in the 

year 1993 there are ten cattle food 

factory producing 1545 MT of cattle food 

per day. As a result of improved animal 

husbandry services, highly contagious 

and fatal disease of Rinder Pest is 

controlled in the state and that the 

deadly disease has not appeared in the 

last three years. 

(ii) Because of various scientific technologies 

namely, proper cattle feeding, better 

medical and animal husbandry services, 

the longevity of the cattle in the State 

has considerably increased. 

(Hi) The population of bullock is 27.59 lakhs 

Over and above agricultural work, 

bullocks are useful for other purposes 

also. They produce dung which is the 

best organic measure and is cheaper 

than chemical manure. It is also useful 

for production of bio-gas. 

(iv) It is estimated that daily production of 

manure by bullocks is about 27,300 

tonnes and bio-gas production daily is 

about 13.60 cubic metres. It is also 

estimated that the production of bio-gas 

from bullock dung fulfil the daily 

requirement of 54 . 78 lakh persons of the 

State if whole dung production is utilized. 

At present, 1,91,467 bio-gas plants are 

in function in the State and about 3-4 

lakhs persons are using bio-gas in the 

State produced by these plants. 

(v) The population of farmers in the State is 

31.45 lakhs. Out of which 7.37 lakhs are 

small farmers, 8 lakhs are marginal 

farmers, 3.05 lakhs are agricultural 

labourers and 13.03 lakhs are other 

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 29 of 51 

farmers. The total land of Gujarat State 

is 196 lakh hectares and land under 

cultivation is 104.5 lakh hectares. There 

are 47,800 tractors by which 19.12 lakh 

hectares land is cultivated and the 

remaining 85 . 38 lakh hectares land is 

cultivated by using bullocks. It may be 

mentioned here that all the agricultural 

operations are not done using tractors. 

The bullocks are required for some of 

agricultural operations along with 

tractors. There are about 7,28,300 

bullock carts and there are about 

18,35, 000 ploughs run by bullocks in the 

State. 

(vi) The figure of slaughter of animals done 

in 38 recognised slaughter houses are as 

under: 

Year 

Bullock/Bull 

Buffalo 

Sheep 

Goat 

1990-91 

9,558 

41,088 

1,82,269 

2,22,507 

1991-92 

9, 751 

41,882 

2,11,245 

2,20,518 

1992-93 

8,324 

40, 034 

1,13,868 

1, 72, 791 

The above figures show that the 

slaughter of bullocks above the age of 16 

years is done in the State in very small 

number. The animals other than 

bullocks are slaughtered in large 

number. Hence, the ban on the 

slaughter of cow and cow progeny will 

not affect the business of meat 

production significantly . Therefore, the 

persons engaged in this profession will 

not be affected adversely . 

Thereafter two further affidavits were filed by Shri J.S. 

Parikh, abovesaid, on 17th March, 1998, wherein the following 

facts are mentioned : 

(i) there are about 31 . 45 lakhs land holders in 

Gujarat . The detailed classifications of the 

land holders are as under :- 

SI. 

No. 

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 30 of 51 

Details of land 

holders 

No. of land 

holders 

1. 

01 hectare 

8.00 lakhs 

2. 

1-2 hectares 

7.37 lakhs 

3. 

2 and above 

16.08 lakhs 

(ii) almost 50 per cent of the land holdings are 

less than 2 hectares; tractor keeping is not 

affordable to small farmers. For economic 

maintenance of tractors, one should have 

large holding of land. Such land holders 

are only around 10 per cent of the total 

land holders. Hence the farmers with 

small land holdings require bullocks as 

motive power for their agricultural 

operations and transport; 

(Hi) the total cultivable land area of Gujarat 

State is about 124 lakh hectares. 

Considering that a pair of bullocks is 

required for ploughing 10 acres of land the 

bullock requirement for ploughing purpose 

alone is 5.481 million and approximately 

equal number is required for carting. 

According to the livestock census 1988 of 

Gujarat State, the availability of 

indigenous bullocks is around 2.84 

millions. Thus the availability of bullocks 

as a whole on percentage of requirement 

works out to be about 25 per cent. In this 

situation, the State has to preserve each 

single bull and bullock that is available to 

it; 

(iv) it is estimated that bull or bullock at every 

stage of life supplies 3, 500 kgs of dung 

and 2, 000 litres of urine and whereas this 

quantity of dung can supply 5, 000 cubic 

feet of biogas, 80 M. T. of organic fertilizer, 

the urine can supply 2, 000 litres of 

pesticides and the use of these products in 

farming increases the yield very 

substantially . The value of above 

contribution can be placed at Rs .20, 000/- 

per year to the owner; 

(v) since production of various agricultural 

crops removes plant nutrients from the 

soil, they must be replenished with 

manures to maintain and improve fertility 

of soil . There are two types of manures 

which are (i) Organic manures, i.e. natural 

manures and (ii) Artificial or chemical 

fertilizer. Amongst the organic manures, 

farm yard manures is the most valuable 

organic manure applied to soil . It is the 

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 31 of 51 

most commonly used organic manure in 

India. It consists of a mixture of cattle 

dung, the bedding used in the stable. Its 

crop increasing value has been recognized 

from time immemorial (Ref. Hand Book of 

Agriculture, 1987 by ICAR page 214); 

animals are the source of free availability 

(vi) the importance of organic manure as a 

source of humus and plant nutrients to 

increase the fertility level of soils has been 

well recognised. The organic matter 

content of cultivated soils of the tropics 

and sub-tropics is comparatively low due 

to high temperature and intense microbial 

activity. The crops remove annually large 

quantity of plant nutrients from soil . 

Moreover, Indian soils are poor in organic 

matter and in major plant nutrients . 

Therefore, soil humus has to be 

replenished through periodic addition of 

organic manure for maintaining soil 

productivity; 

(vii) 

of farmyard manure, which has all the 

three elements, i.e. Nitrogen, Phosphoric 

acid and Potash, needed in fertilizer and at 

the same time which preserve and enrich 

the fertility of the soil . In paucity of dung 

availability, the farmers have to depend 

upon chemical fertilizers . Investment in 

chemical fertilizers imposes heavy burden 

upon the economy. If there is availability 

of alternate source of organic manure from 

animals, it is required to be promoted; 

(viii) the recent scenario of ultramodern 

technology of super ovulation, embryo 

transfer and cloning technique will be of 

very much use to propagate further even 

from the incapable or even old animals 

which are not capable of working or 

reproducing. These animals on a large 

scale can be used for research 

programmes as well as for production of 

non-conventional energy sources such as 

biogas and natural fertilizers . At present, 

there are 19,362 biogas plants installed in 

the State during 1995-97. On an average, 

each adult cattle produces 4.00 kg. of 

dung per day. Out of the total cattle 

strength of (1992 Census) 67,85, 865, the 

estimated dung produced is 99, 07,363 

tonnes; 

(ix) India has 74% of rural population, and in 

Gujarat out of 4.13 crores of human 

population, there are 1 . 40 crores of 

workers which comprises of 47 , 04, 000 

farmers and 32, 31, 000 workers are 

workers related to livestock and forestry . 

In Gujarat, there are 9.24 lakhs marginal 

farmers and 9.15 lakhs of small farmers, 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 51 

according to the 1991-92 census. Animals 

are reared in few numbers per family and 

the feed is obtained from the 

supplementary crop on fodder/agricultural 

by-products or from grazing in the gaucher 

land. In Gujarat 8.48 lakh hectares of land 

is available as permanent pasture and 

grazing land. An individual cattle-owner 

does not consider one or two bullocks as 

an extra burden for his family, even when 

it is incapable of work or production. 

Sometimes the unproductive animals are 

sent to Panjarapoles and Gosadans . In 

Gujarat, there are 335 Gaushalas and 174 

Panjarapoles which are run by non- 

governmental oranizations and trusts. 

Formerly farmers mostly kept few animals 

and, in fact, they are treated as part of 

their family and maintained till death. It 

cannot be treated to be a liability upon 

them or burden on the economy; 

(x) butchers are doing their business since 

generations, but they are not doing only 

the slaughter of cow class of animals. 

They slaughter and trade the meat of other 

animals like buffaloes, sheep, goats, pig 

and even poultry. In Gujarat there are 

only 38 registered slaughter houses 

functioning under various 

Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats . Beef 

(meat of cattle) contributes only 1.3% of 

the total meat groups. Proportion of 

demand for beef is less in the context of 

demand for pig, mutton and poultry meat. 

Slaughtering of bulls and bullocks for the 

period between 1990-91 and 1993-94 was 

on an average 9, 000; 

(xi) number of bullocks have decreased in 

decade from 30,70,339 to 28,93,227 as in 

1992. A statement showing the amount of 

dung production for the year 1983-84 to 

1996-97 and a statement showing the 

nature of economy of the State of Gujarat 

is annexed. The number of bullocks 

slaughtered per day is negligible compared 

to other animals, and the business and/or 

trade of slaughtering bullocks would not 

affect the business of butchers. By 

prohibiting slaughter of bullocks the 

economy is likely to be benefited. 

The three affidavits are supported by documents, 

statements or tables setting out statistics which we have no 

reason to disbelieve. Neither the High Court has expressed any 

doubt on the contents of the affidavit nor has the veracity of the 

affidavits and correctness of the facts stated therein been 

challenged by the learned counsel for the respondents before us. 

In this Court Shri D.P. Amin, Joint Director of Animal 

Husbandry, Gujarat State, has filed an affidavit . The salient facts 

stated therein are set out hereunder: 

(i) The details of various categories of animals 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 51 

slaughtered since 1997-1998 shows that 

slaughter of various categories of animals in 

regulated slaughter houses of Gujarat State 

has shown a tremendous decline. During the 

year way back in 1982-83 to 1996-97 the 

average number of animals slaughtered in 

regulated slaughter houses was 4,39,141 . As 

against that (previous figure) average number 

of slaughter of animals in recent 8 years i.e. 

from 1997-98 to 2004-05 has come down to 

only 2, 88, 084 . This clearly indicates that there 

has been a vast change in the meat eating 

style of people of Gujarat State. It is because 

of the awareness created among the public due 

to the threats of dangerous diseases like 

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy commonly 

known as "Mad Cow disease" B.S.E. which is a 

fatal disease of cattle meat origin not reported 

in India . Even at global level people have 

stopped eating the beef which is known as 

meat of cattle class animals. This has even 

affected the trade of meat particularly beef in 

the America & European countries since last 15 

years. Therefore, there is international ban on 

export-import of beef from England, America & 

European countries; 

(ii) there is reduction in slaughter of bulls S 

bullocks above the age of 16 years reported in 

the regulated slaughter houses of Gujarat 

State. As reported in the years from 1982- 

to 1996-97, the slaughter of bulls & bullocks 

above the age of 16 years was only 2.48% of 

the total animals of different categories 

slaughtered in the State. This percentage has 

gone down to the level of only 1.10% during 

last 8 years i.e. 1997-98 to 2004-05 which 

very less significant to cause or affect the 

business of butcher communities ; 

(Hi) India is predominantly agrarian society with 

nearly >th of her population living in seven lakh 

rural hamlets and villages, possesses small 

fragmentary holding (54.6% below 1 hectare 

18% with 1-2 hectares) . Draft/pack animal 

contributes more than 5 crores horse power 

(H.P.) or 33,000 megawatt electric power and 

shares for/in 68% of agricultural operations, 

transport & other draft operations . In addition 

to draft power, 100 million tonnes dung per 

year improves the soil health and also used as 

raw material for biogas plant; 

(iv) the cattle population in Gujarat in relation to 

human population has declined from 315 per 

1000 humans in 1961 to 146 per 1,000 

humans in 2001 indicating decline in real 

terms; 

(v) in Gujarat 3 . 28 million draft animal (bullocks 

85%) have multi faceted utilities viz. 

agricultural operations like ploughing, sowing, 

hoeing, planking, carting, hauling, water lifting, 

grinding, etc. ; 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 51 

Gujarat State has a very rich cattle 

population of Kankrej & Gir breed, of which 

Kankrej bullocks are very well known for its 

draft power called "Savai Chal "; 

(vi) considering the utility of aged bullocks above 

16 years as draft power a detailed combined 

study was carried out by Department of Animal 

Husbandry and Gujarat Agricultural University 

(Veterinary Colleges S.K. Nagar & Anand) . The 

experiments were carried out within the age 

group of 16 to 25 years. The study covered 

different age groups of 156 (78 pairs) bullocks 

above the age of 16 years. The aged bullocks 

i.e. above 16 years age generated 0.68 horse 

power draft output per bullock while the prime 

bullock generated 0.83 horse power per 

bullock during carting/hauling draft work in a 

summer with about more than 42 ?C temp. The 

study proves that 93% of aged bullock above 

16 years of age are still useful to farmers to 

perform light & medium draft works. The 

detailed report is on record; 

(vii) by the end of year 2004-05 under the Dept . of 

Animal Husbandry, there are 14 Veterinary 

Polyclinics, 515 Vety. Dispensaries, 552 First 

Aid Vety. Centres and 795 Intensive Cattle 

Development Project Sub Centers. In all, 1876 

institutions were made functional to cater 

various health care activities to livestock 

population of State of Gujarat . About two 

crores of livestock and poultry were vaccinated 

against various diseases. As a result, the total 

reported out break of infectious diseases was 

brought down to around 106 as against 222 in 

1992-1993. This shows that State has created 

a healthy livestock and specifically the 

longevity of animals has been increased. This 

has also resulted into the increased milk 

production of the state, draft power and source 

of non-conventional energy in terms of 

increased quantity of dung and urine; 

(viii) the value of dung is much more than even the 

famous "Kohinoor" diamond. An old bullock 

gives 5 tonnes of dung and 343 pounds of 

urine in a year which can help in the 

manufacture of 20 carts load of composed 

manure. This would be sufficient for manure 

need of 4 acres of land for crop production. 

The right to life is a fundamental right and it 

can be basically protected only with proper 

food and feeding and cheap and nutritious food 

grains required for feeding can be grown with 

the help of dung. Thus the most fundamental 

thing to the fundamental right of living for the 

human being is bovine dung. (Ref. Report of 

National Commission on Cattle, Vol. Ill, Page 

1063-1064); 

(ix) the dung cake as well as meat of bullock are 

both commercial commodities . If one bullock 

is slaughtered for its meat (Slaughtering 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 51 

activity) can sustain the butchers trade for only 

a day. For the next day's trade another 

bullock is to be slaughtered. But if the bullock 

is not slaughtered, about 5000-6000 dung 

cakes can be made out of its dung per year, 

and by the sale of such dung cake one person 

can be sustained for the whole year. If a 

bullock survives even for five years after 

becoming otherwise useless it can provide 

employment to a person for five years whereas 

to a butcher, bullock can provide employment 

only for a day or two. 

(x) Even utility of urine has a great role in the field 

of pharmaceuticals as well as in the 

manufacturing of pesticides . The Goseva Ayog, 

Govt, of Gujarat had commissioned study for 

"Testing insecticides properties of cow urine 

against various insect pests". The study was 

carried out by Dr. G.M. Patel, Principal 

Investigator, Department of Entomology, C.P. 

College of Agriculture, S.D. Agricultural 

University, Sardar Krishi Nagar, Gujarat . The 

study has established that insecticides 

formulations prepared using cow urine 

emerged as the most reliable treatment for 

their effectiveness against sucking pest of 

cotton. The conclusion of study is dung S 

urine of even aged bullocks are also useful and 

have proved major effect of role in the Indian 

economy; 

(xi) it is stated that availability of fodder is not a 

problem in the State or anywhere. During 

drought period deficit is compensated by 

grass-bank, silo and purchase of fodder from 

other States as last resources. The sugarcane 

tops, leaves of banana, baggase, wheat bhoosa 

and industrial byproducts etc. are available in 

plenty. A copy of the letter dated 8.3.2004 

indicting sufficient fodder for the year 2004, 

addressed to Deputy Commissioner , Animal 

Husbandry Government of India is annexed. 

Report on draughtability of bullocks above 16 years of age 

On 20th June, 2001 the State of Gujarat filed I. A. No. 

2/2001 in Civil Appeal Nos . 4937-4940 of 1998, duly supported 

by an affidavit sworn by Shri D.U. Parmar, Deputy Secretary 

(Animal Husbandry) Agriculture and Cooperation Department, 

Government of Gujarat, annexing therewith a report on 

draughtability of aged bullocks above 16 years of age under field 

conditions . The study was conducted by the Gujarat Agricultural 

University Veterinary College, Anand and the Department of 

Animal Husbandry, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. The study was 

planned with two objectives: 

(i) To study the draughtability and utility of aged 

bullocks above 16 years of age; and 

(ii) To compare the draughtability of aged bullocks with 

bullocks of prime age. 

Empirical research was carried out under field conditions in 

North Gujarat Region (described as Zone-I) and Saurashtra 

region (described as Zone-II) . The average age of aged bullocks 

under the study was 18.75 years. The number of bullocks/pair 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 51 

used under the study were sufficient to draw sound conclusions 

from the study. The gist of the findings arrived at, is summed up 

as under : 

1. Farmer' s persuasion 

The aged bullocks were utilized for different purposes like 

agricultural operations (ploughing, planking, harrowing, hoeing, 

threshing) and transport-hauling of agricultural produce, feeds 

and fodders of animals, drinking water, construction materials 

(bricks, stones, sand grits etc.) and for sugarcane crushing/ 

khandsari making. On an average the bullocks were yoked for 3 

to 6 hours per working day and 100 to 150 working days per 

year. Under Indian conditions the reported values for working 

days per year ranges from 50 to 100 bullock paired days by 

small, medium and large farmers. Thus, the agricultural 

operations-draft output are still being taken up from the aged 

bullocks by the farmers. The farmers feed concentrates, green 

fodders and dry fodders to these aged bullocks and maintain the 

health of these animals considering them an important segment 

of their families . Farmers love their bullocks . 

2. Age, body measurement and body weight 

The biometric and body weight of aged bullocks were 

within the normal range. 

3. Horsepower generation/Work output 

\ \ // \\ 

The aged bullocks on an average generated 0.68 

hp/bullock, i.e. 18 . 1% less than the prime/young bullocks (0.83 

hp/bullock) . The aged bullocks walked comfortably with an 

average stride length of 1 .43 meter and at the average speed of 

4.49 km/hr . showing little less than young bullocks. However, 

these values were normal for the aged bullocks performing 

light/medium work of carting. These values were slightly lower 

than those observed in case of prime or young bullocks . This 

clearly indicates that the aged bullocks above 16 years of age 

proved their work efficiency for both light as well as medium 

work in spite of the age bar. In addition to this, the experiment 

was conducted during the months of May- June, 2000 \026 a 

stressful summer season . Therefore, these bullocks could 

definitely generate more work output during winter, being a 

comfortable season. The aged bullock above 16 years of age 

performed satisfactorily and disproved that they are unfit for any 

type of draft output i.e. either agricultural operations, carting or 

other works . 

4. Physiological responses and haemoglobin 

concentration 

These aged bullocks are fit to work for 6 hours (morning 3 

hours + afternoon 3 hrs . ) per day. Average Hb content (g%) at 

the start of work was observed to be 10.72 g% and after 3 hours 

of work 11.14g%, indicating the healthy state of bullocks. The 

increment in the haemoglobin content after 3 to 4 hours of work 

was also within the normal range and in accordance with prime 

bullocks under study as well as the reported values for working 

bullocks . 

5. Distress symptoms 

In the initial one hour of work, 6 bullocks (3.8%) showed 

panting, while 32.7% after one hour of work. After 2 hour of 

work, 28.2% of bullocks exhibited salivation. Only 6.4% of the 

bullocks sat down/lied down and were reluctant to work after 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 51 

completing 2 hours of the work. The results are indicative of the 

fact that majority of the aged bullocks (93%) worked normally . 

Summer being a stressful season, the aged bullocks exhibited 

distress symptoms earlier than the prime/young bullocks . 

However, they maintained their physiological responses within 

normal range and generated satisfactory draft power. 

The study report submitted its conclusions as under: 

"1. The aged bullocks above 16 years of age generated 

. 68 horse power draft output per bullock while the 

prime bullocks generated 0.83 horsepower per bullock 

during carting-hauling draft work. 

2. The aged bullocks worked satisfactorily for the light 

work for continuous 4 hours during morning session 

and total 6 hours per day (morning 3 hours and 

afternoon 3 hours) for medium work. 

3. The physiological responses (Rectal temperature, 

Respiration rate and Pulse rate) and haemoglobin of 

aged bullocks were within the normal range and also 

maintained the incremental range during work. 

However, they exhibited the distress symptoms earlier 

as compared to prime bullocks. 

4. Seven percent aged bullocks under study were 

reluctant to work and/or lied down after 2 hours of 

work. 

\ 

5. The aged bullocks were utilized by the farmers to 

perform agricultural operations (ploughing, sowing, 

harrowing, planking, threshing) , transport-hauling of 

agricultural product, feeds and fodders, construction 

materials and drinking water. 

Finally, it proves that majority (93%) of the aged bullocks 

above 16 years of age are still useful to farmers to perform light 

and medium draft works. " 

With the report, the study group annexed 

album/photographs and cassettes prepared while carrying out the 

study. Several tables and statements setting out relevant 

statistics formed part of the report. A list of 16 authentic 

references originating from eminent authors on the subject under 

study which were referred to by the study group was appended to 

the report. 

This application (I. A. No. 2/2001) was allowed and the 

affidavit taken on record vide order dated 20 . 8 .2001 passed by 

this Court . No response has been filed by any of the respondents 

controverting the facts stated in the affidavit and the 

accompanying report . We have no reason to doubt the 

correctness of the facts stated therein; more so, when it is 

supported by the affidavit of a responsible officer of the State 

Government . 

Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007) Documents 

In the report of the Working Group on Animal Husbandry 

and Dairy Farming, the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007) dealing 

with 'the draught breed relevance and improvement' , published 

by the Government of India, Planning Commission in January, 

2001, facts are stated in great detail pointing out the relevance 

of draught breeds and setting out options for improvement from 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 51 

the point of view of the Indian Economy. We extract and 

reproduce a few of the facts therefrom: 

"3.6.12 Relevance of draught breeds 

and options for improvement 

3 . 6. 12 . 1 In India 83.4 million holdings 

(78%) are less than 2 ha. where tractors and 

tillers are uneconomical and the use of animal 

power becomes inevitable since tractors and 

tillers are viable only for holdings above 5 ha. . 

In slushy and water logged fields tractor tiller 

is not suitable. In narrow terraced fields and 

hilly regions tractors cannot function. Animal 

drawn vehicle are suitable for rural areas under 

certain circumstances/conditions viz., uneven 

terrain, small loads (less than 3 tons) , short 

distances and where time of loading and 

unloading is more than travel time or time is 

not a critical factor and number of collection 

points/distribution points are large as in case 

of milk, vegetable, water, oil, etc. In India the 

energy for ploughing two-thirds of the 

cultivated area comes from animal power and 

animal drawn vehicles haul two-thirds of rural 

transport . 

3.6.12.2 The role of cattle as the main 

source of motive power for agriculture and 

certain allied operations would continue to 

remain as important as meeting the 

requirement of milk in the country. It has been 

estimated that about 80 million bullocks will 

needed. There is, therefore, a need for 

improving the working efficiency of the 

bullocks through improved breeding and 

feeding practices . 

3.6.13 Development of Draught 

Breeds 

Focused attention to draft breed will not 

be possible unless a new scheme is formulated 

for this purpose. 

3 . 6. 13 .2 In tracts where there are 

specialized draught breeds of cattle like Nagori 

in Rajasthan, Amritmahal and Hallikar in 

Karnataka, Khillar in Maharashtra etc., 

selection for improvement in draughtability 

should be undertaken on a large scale as the 

cattle breeders in these areas derive a large 

income by sale of good quality bullocks. 

Planned efforts should be made for improving 

the draught capacity and promoting greater 

uniformity in the type of the cattle population 

in the breeding tracts. There is need to 

intensify investigations to develop yardsticks 

for objective assessment of draught capacity of 

bullocks . 

3.6.14 Supplementation of fund- flow 

for cattle and Buffalo development. 

3 . 6 .14 .2 A number of organizations like 

NABARD, NDDB, NCDC etc. are also likely to 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 51 

be interested in funding activities relating to 

cattle and buffalo development in the form of 

term as loan provided timely return is ensured. 

Time has now come for exploring such avenues 

seriously at least on pilot basis in selected 

areas, where better prospects of recovery of 

cost of breeding inputs and services exists. " 

Recognising the fact that the cow and its progeny has a 

significant role to play in the agricultural and rural economy of 

the country, the Government felt that it was necessary to 

formulate measures for their development in all possible ways. 

In view of the persistent demands for action to be taken to 

prevent their slaughter, the Government also felt and expressed 

the need to review the relevant laws of the land relating to 

protection, preservation, development and well-being of cattle 

and to take measures to secure the cattle wealth of India. 

Yet another document to which we are inclined to make a 

reference is Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five Year Plan (2002- 

2007) released in June, 2005 by the Government of India 

(Planning Commission) . Vide para 5 . 80 the report recommends 

that efforts should be made to increase the growth of bio- 

pesticides production from 2.5 to 5 per cent over the next five 

years . 

According to the report, Organic farming is a way of farming 

which excludes the use of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, etc. 

and is primarily based on the principles of use of natural organic 

inputs and biological plant protection measures. 

Properly managed organic farming reduces or eliminates 

water pollution and helps conserve water and soil on the farm 

and thereby enhances sustainability and agro-biodiversity . 

Organic farming has become popular in many western 

countries. There are two major driving forces behind this 

phenomenon; growing global market for organic agricultural 

produce due to increased health consciousness ; and the 

premium price of organic produce fetched by the prodv 

India has a comparative advantage over many other 

countries . 

The Appraisal Report acknowledged the commencement of 

the biogas programme in India since 1981-82. Some 35,24,000 

household plants have been installed against an assessed 

potential of 120,00,000 units. 

Biogas has traditionally been produced in India from cow 

dung (gobar gas) . However, dung is not adequately and 

equitably available in villages. Technologies have now been 

developed for using tree-based organic substrates such as leaf 

litter, seed starch, seed cakes, vegetable wastes, kitchen wastes 

etc. for production of biogas. Besides cooking, biogas can also 

be used to produce electricity in dual fired diesel engines or in 

hundred per cent gas engines. Ministry of Non-conventional 

Energy Sources (MNES) is taking initiatives to integrate biogas 

programme in its Village Energy Security Program (VESP) . 

Production of pesticides and biogas depend on the 

availability of cow-dung. 

National Commission on Cattle 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 40 of 51 

Vide its Resolution dated 2nd August, 2001, the 

Government of India established a National Commission on 

Cattle, comprising of 17 members. 

The Commission was given the follow terms of reference :— 

a . To review the relevant laws of the land (Centre 

as well as States) which relate to protection, 

preservation, development and well being of 

cow and its progeny and suggest measures for 

their effective implementation, 

<\ 

b. To study the existing provisions for the 

maintenance of Goshalas, Gosadans, 

Pinjarapoles and other organisations working 

for protection and development of cattle and 

suggest measures for making them 

economically viable, 

/ 

c. To study the contribution of cattle towards the 

Indian economy and to suggest ways and 

means of organising scientific research for 

maximum utilisation of cattle products and 

draught animal power in the field of nutrition 

and health, agriculture and energy, and to 

submit a comprehensive scheme in this regard 

to the Central Government, 

d. To review and suggest measures to improve 

the availability of feed and fodder to support 

the cattle population. 

The Committee after extensive research has given a list of 

recommendations . A few of them relevant in the present case 

are:- X 

" 1 . The Prohibition for slaughter of cow and 

its progeny, which would include bull, 

bullocks, etc., should be included in 

Fundamental Rights or as a Constitutional 

Mandate anywhere else, as an Article of 

Constitution. It should not be kept only in the 

Directive Principles or/Fundamental duties as 

neither of these are enforceable by the 

courts. 

2. The amendment of the Constitution should 

also be made for empowering the Parliament 

to make a Central Law for the prohibition of 

slaughter of cow and its progeny and further 

for prohibition of their transport from one 

State to another. 

3. The Parliament should then make a Central 

law, applicable to all States, prohibiting 

slaughter of cow and its progeny. Violation of 

the Law should be made a non-bailable and 

cognizable offence. 

XXX XXX XXX 

14. The use and production of chemical 

fertilizers and chemical pesticides should be 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 41 of 51 

discouraged, subsidies on these items should 

be reduced or abolished altogether . The use 

of organic manure should be subsidized and 

promoted. " 

Thus the Commission is of the view that there should be a 

complete prohibition on slaughter of cow progeny. 

Importance of Bovine Dung 

The Report of the National Commission on Cattle, ibid, 

refers to an authority namely, Shri Vasu in several sub- 

paragraphs of para 12. Shri Vasu has highlighted the unique 

and essential role of bovine and bovine dung in our economy and 

has pleaded that slaughter of our precious animals should be 

stopped. He has in extenso dealt with several uses of dung and 

its significance from the point of view of Indian society. Dung is 

a cheap and harmless fertilizer in absence whereof the farmers 

are forced to use costly and harmful chemical fertilizers . Dung 

also has medicinal value in Ayurved, the Indian system of 

medicines . 

/ <\ 

Continuing Utility of Cattle : Even if the utility argument of 

the Quareshi' s judgment is accepted, it cannot be accepted that 

bulls and bullocks become useless after the age of 16. It has to 

be said that bulls and bullocks are not useless to the society 

because till the end of their lives they yield excreta in the form 

of urine and dung which are both extremely useful for production 

of bio-gas and manure. Even after their death, they supply hide 

and other accessories. Therefore, to call them 'useless' is totally 

devoid of reality. If the expenditure on their maintenance is 

compared to the return which they give, at the most, it can be 

said that they become 'less useful' . (Report of the National 

Commission on Cattle, July 2002, Volume I, p. 279.) 

The Report of the National Commission on Cattle has 

analyzed the economic viability of cows after they stopped 

yielding milk and it also came to the conclusion that it shall not 

be correct to call such cows 'useless cattle' as they still continue 

to have a great deal of utility. Similar is the case with other cattle 

as well . 

"37. Economic aspects: 

37.1 The cows are slaughtered in India 

because the owner of the cow finds it difficult 

to maintain her after she stops yielding milk. 

This is because it is generally believed that 

milk is the only commodity obtained from 

cows, which is useful and can be sold in 

exchange of cash. This notion is totally 

wrong. Cow yields products other than milk, 

which are valuable and saleable. Thus the 

dung as well as the urine of cow can be put to 

use by owner himself or sold to persons or 

organizations to process them. The 

Commission noticed that there are a good 

number of organizations (goshalas) which 

keep the cows rescued while being carried to 

slaughter houses. Very few of such cows are 

milk yielding. Such organizations use the 

urine and dung produced by these cows to 

prepare Vermi-compost or any other form of 

bio manure and urine for preparing pest 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 42 of 51 

repellents. The money collected by the sale of 

such products is normally sufficient to allow 

maintenance of the cows. In some cases, the 

urine and dung is used to prepare the medical 

formulations also. The organizations, which 

are engaged in such activities, are making 

profits also. 

37.2 Commission examined the balance sheet 

of some such organizations . The expenditure 

and income of one such organization is 

displayed here. In order to make accounts 

simple the amounts are calculated as average 

per cow per day. 

It is obvious that expenditure per cow is 

Rs . 15-25 cow/day. 

( 

While the income from sale is Rs . 25-35 

cow-day . 

37.3 These averages make it clear that the 

belief that cows which do not yield milk are 

unprofitable and burden for the owner is 

totally false. In fact it can be said that 

products of cow are sufficient to maintain 

them even without milk. The milk in such 

cases is only a by\026product . 

37.4 It is obvious that all cow owners do not 

engage in productions of fertilizers or insect 

repellents . It can also be understood that 

such activity may not be feasible for owners 

of a single or a few cows. In such cases, the 

cow's urine and dung may be supplied to such 

organizations , which utilize these materials 

for producing finished products required for 

agricultural or medicinal purpose. Commission 

has noticed that some organizations which 

are engaged in production of agricultural and 

medical products from cow dung and urine do 

purchase raw materials from nearby cow 

owner at a price which is sufficient to 

maintain the cow. " (Report of National 

Commission on Cattle, July 2002, Vol. II, 

pp. 68-69) 

A host of other documents have been filed originating from 

different sources such as Governmental or Semi-governmental, 

NGOs, individuals or group of individuals, who have carried out 

researches and concluded that world-over there is an awareness 

in favour of organic farming for which cattle are indispensable. 

However, we do not propose to refer to these documents as it 

would only add to the length of the judgment . We have, apart 

from the affidavits, mainly referred to the reports published by 

the Government of India, whose veracity cannot be doubted. 

We do not find any material brought on record on behalf 

of the respondents which could rebut, much less successfully, 

the correctness of the deductions flowing from the documented 

facts and statistics stated hereinabove. 

The utility of cow cannot be doubted at all . A total ban on 

cow slaughter has been upheld even in Quareshi-I . The 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 43 of 51 

controversy in the present case is confined to cow progeny. The 

important role that cow and her progeny play in the Indian 

Economy was acknowledged in Quareshi-I in the following 

words : 

"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 back bone of Indian 

agriculture is in a manner of speaking the cow 

and her progeny. Indeed Lord Linlithgow has 

truly said \027 "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. " 

On the basis of the available material, we are fully satisfied 

to hold that the ban on slaughter of cow progeny as imposed by 

the impugned enactment is in the interests of the general public 

within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution . 

Part - III 

Stare Decisis 

We have dealt with all the submissions and counter 

submissions made on behalf of the parties . What remains to be 

dealt with is the plea, forcefully urged, on behalf of the 

respondents that this Court should have regard to the principle 

of stare decisis and should not upturn the view taken in 

Quareshi-I which has held field ever since 1958 and has been 

followed in subsequent decisions , which we have already dealt 

with hereinabove. 

Stare decisis is a Latin phrase which means "to stand by 

decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former 

adjudication" . This principle is expressed in the maxim "stare 

decisis et non quieta movere" which means to stand by decisions 

and not to disturb what is settled. This was aptly put by Lord 

Coke in his classic English version as "Those things which have 

been so often adjudged ought to rest in peace". However, 

according to Justice Frankfurter, the doctrine of stare decisis is 

not "an imprisonment of reason" (Advanced Law Lexicon, P. 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 44 of 51 

Ramanatha Aiyer, 3rd Edition 2005, Volume 4, p. 4456) . The 

underlying logic of the doctrine is to maintain consistency and 

avoid uncertainty . The guiding philosophy is that a view which 

has held the field for a long time should not be disturbed only 

because another view is possible . 

The trend of judicial opinion, in our view, is that stare 

decisis is not a dogmatic rule allergic to logic and reason; it is a 

flexible principle of law operating in the province of precedents 

providing room to collaborate with the demands of changing 

times dictated by social needs, State policy and judicial 

conscience . 

According to Professor Lloyd concepts are good servants 

but bad masters. Rules, which are originally designed to fit 

social needs, develop into concepts, which then proceed to take 

on a life of their own to the detriment of legal development . The 

resulting "jurisprudence of concepts" produces a slot-machine 

approach to law whereby new points posing questions of social 

policy are decided, not by reference to the underlying social 

situation, but by reference to the meaning and definition of the 

legal concepts involved. This formalistic a priori approach 

confines the law in a strait- jacket instead of permitting it to 

expand to meet the new needs and requirements of changing 

society (Salmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition, at p. 187). 

In such cases Courts should examine not only the existing laws 

and legal concepts, but also the broader underlying issues of 

policy. In fact presently, judges are seen to be paying increasing 

attention to the possible effects of their decision one way or the 

other. Such an approach is to be welcomed, but it also warrants 

two comments . First, judicial inquiry into the general effects of a 

proposed decision tends itself to be of a fairly speculative nature. 

Secondly, too much regard for policy and too little for legal 

consistency may result in a confusing and illogical complex of 

contrary decisions . In such a situation it would be difficult to 

identify and respond to generalized and determinable social 

needs. While it is true that "the life of the law has not been 

logic, it has been experience" and that we should not wish it 

otherwise, nevertheless we should remember that "no system of 

law can be workable if it has not got logic at the root of it ' 

(Salmond, ibid, pp. 187-188) . 

Consequently, cases involving novel points of law, have to 

be decided by reference to several factors. The judge must look 

at existing laws, the practical social results of any decision he 

makes, and the requirements of fairness and justice. Sometimes 

these will all point to the same conclusion. At other times each 

will pull in a different direction; and here the judge is required to 

weigh one factor against another and decide between them. The 

rationality of the judicial process in such cases consists of 

explicitly and consciously weighing the pros and cons in order to 

arrive at a conclusion. (Salmond, ibid, pp. 188). 

In case of modern economic issues which are posed for 

resolution in advancing society or developing country, the court 

cannot afford to be static by simplistically taking shelter behind 

principles such as stare decisis, and refuse to examine the issues 

in the light of present facts and circumstances and thereby adopt 

the course of judicial "hands off". Novelty unsettles existing 

attitudes and arrangements leading to conflict situations which 

require judicial resolution. If necessary adjustments in social 

controls are not put in place then it could result in the collapse of 

social systems. Such novelty and consequent conflict resolution 

and "patterning" is necessary for full human development. (See - 

The Province and Function of Law, Julius Stone, at pp.588, 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 45 of 51 

761and 762) 

Stare decisis is not an inexorable command of the 

Constitution or jurisprudence. A careful study of our legal system 

will discern that any deviation from the straight path of stare 

decisis in our past history has occurred for articulable reasons, 

and only when the Supreme Court has felt obliged to bring its 

opinions in line with new ascertained fact, circumstances and 

experiences. (Precedent in Indian Law, A. Laxminath, Second 

Edition 2005, p. 8) . 

Given the progressive orientation of the Supreme Court, its 

creative role under Article 141 and the creative elements implicit 

in the very process of determining ratio decidendi, it is not 

surprising that judicial process has not been crippled in the 

discharge of its duty to keep the law abreast of the times, by the 

traditionalist theory of stare decisis (ibid, p. 32) . Times and 

conditions change with changing society, and, "every age should 

be mistress of its own law" \026 and era should not be hampered by 

outdated law. "It is revolting", wrote Mr. Justice Holmes in 

characteristically forthright language, "to have no better reason 

for a rule of law than it was so laid down in the time of Henry IV. 

It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid 

down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists 

from blind imitation of the past". It is the readiness of the 

judges to discard that which does not serve the public, which has 

contributed to the growth and development of law. (ibid, p. 68) 

The doctrine of stare decisis is generally to be adhered to, 

because well settled principles of law founded on a series of 

authoritative pronouncements ought to be followed. Yet, the 

demands of the changed facts and circumstances dictated by 

forceful factors supported by logic, amply justify the need for a 

fresh look. 

\ 

Sir John Salmond, while dealing with precedents and 

illustrating instances of departure by the House of Lords from its 

own previous decisions, states it to be desirable as 'it would 

permit the House (of Lords) to abrogate previous decisions which 

were arrived at in different social conditions and which are no 

longer adequate in present circumstances. (See \026 Salmond, ibid, 

at p. 165). This view has been succinctly advocated by Dr. 

Goodhart who said: "There is an obvious antithesis between 

rigidity and growth, and if all the emphasis is placed on 

absolutely binding cases then the law looses the capacity to 

adapt itself to the changing spirit of the times which has been 

described as the life of the law", (ibid, p. 161) This very principle 

has been well stated by William O' Douglas in the context of 

constitutional jurisprudence. He says: "So far as constitutional 

law is concerned, stare decisis must give way before the 

dynamic component of history. Once it does, the cycle starts 

again". (See \026 Essays on Jurisprudence from the Columbia Law 

Review, 1964, at p. 20) 

We have already indicated that in Quareshi-I , the 

challenge to the constitutional validity of the legislation 

impugned therein, was turned down on several grounds though 

forcefully urged, excepting for one ground of 'reasonableness' ; 

which is no longer the position in the case before us in the 

altered factual situation and circumstances. In Quareshi-I the 

reasonableness of the restriction pitted against the fundamental 

right to carry on any occupation, trade or business determined 

the final decision, having been influenced mainly by 

considerations of weighing the comparative inconvenience to the 

butchers and the advancement of public interest. As the 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 46 of 51 

detailed discussion contained in the judgment reveals, this 

determination is not purely one of law, rather, it is a mixed 

finding of fact and law. Once the strength of the factual 

component is shaken, the legal component of the finding in 

Quareshi-I loses much of its significance . Subsequent decisions 

have merely followed Quareshi-I . In the case before us, we 

have material in abundance justifying the need to alter the flow 

of judicial opinion. 

Part - IV 

Quareshi-I, re-visited : 

Having dealt with each of the findings recorded in 

Quareshi-I , which formed the basis of the ultimate decision 

therein, we revert to examine whether the view taken by the 

Constitution Bench in Quareshi-I can be upheld. 

We have already pointed out that having tested the 

various submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners on 

the constitutional anvil, the Constitution Bench in Quareshi-I 

upheld the constitutional validity, as reasonable and valid, of a 

total ban on the slaughter of : (i) cows of all ages, (ii) calves of 

cows and she-buffaloes, male or female, and (Hi) she-buffaloes 

or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) 

as long as they are as milch or draught cattle. But the 

Constitution Bench found it difficult to uphold a total ban on the 

slaughter of she-buffaloes , bulls or bullocks (cattle or buffalo) 

after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or 

working as draught animals, on the material made available to 

them, the ban failed to satisfy the test of being reasonable and 

"in the interests of the general public" . It is clear that, in the 

opinion of the Constitution Bench, the test provided by clause 

(6) of Article 19 of the Constitution was not satisfied. The 

findings on which the above-said conclusion is based are to be 

found summarized on pp. 684-687 . Para-phrased, the findings 

are as follows: 

(1) The country is in short supply of milch cattle, 

breeding bulls and working bullocks , essential 

to maintain the health and nourishment of the 

nation. The cattle population fit for breeding 

and work must be properly fed by making 

available to the useful cattle in present! in 

future The maintenance of useless cattle 

involves a wasteful drain on the nation' s cattle 

feed. 

(2) Total ban on the slaughter of cattle would bring 

a serious dislocation, though not a complete 

stoppage, of the business of a considerable 

section of the people who are by occupation 

Butchers (Kasai) , hide merchant and so on. 

(3) Such a ban will deprive a large section of the 

people of what may be their staple food or 

protein diet . 

(4) Preservation of useful cattle by establishment 

of gosadan is not a practical proposition, as 

they are like concentration camps where cattle 

are left to die a slow death. 

(5) The breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle 

and buffaloes) do not require as much 

protection as cows and calves do. 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 47 of 51 

These findings were recorded in the judgment delivered on 

23rd April, 1958. Independent India, having got rid of the 

shackles of foreign rule, was not even 11 years old then. Since 

then, the Indian economy has made much headway and gained 

a foothold internationally . Constitutional jurisprudence has 

indeed changed from what it was in 1958, as pointed out earlier. 

Our socio-economic scenario has progressed from being gloomy 

to a shining one, full of hopes and expectations and 

determinations for present and future. Our economy is steadily 

moving towards prosperity in a planned way through five year 

plans, nine of which have been accomplished and tenth is under 

way. 

We deal with the findings in Quareshi-I seriatim. 

Finding 1 

We do not dispute that the country is in short supply of 

milch cattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks and that they 

are essential to maintain the health and nourishment of the 

nation as held in Quareshi-I. Rather we rely on the said finding 

which stands reinforced by the several documents which we 

have referred to hereinbefore. 

In the Quareshi-I era, there was a shortage of fodder in 

the country . Various plans were drawn up in the direction of 

exploring potential fodder areas for the future. Although, the 

planning was there; implementation was lacking. The Report of 

National Commission on Cattle, July 2002 (Vol. II) reveals that 

the existing fodder resources of the country can sustain and 

meet 51 . 92% of the total requirements to sustain its livestock 

population. But we have to take into consideration the fodder 

potential of the country. We have vast culturable waste land 

which with some efforts can be developed into good pasture 

land. Major part of the fallow land can be put under the plough 

for having fodder crops such as Jowar, Bajra and smaller millets . 

The combined area of several categories of land which can be 

developed as potential fodder area is 58.87 million hectares. If 

managed properly, there are areas in the country which can be 

developed into a "Grass Reservoir of India for use as pasture 

land". One very big potential area lies in Jaisaelmer District of 

Rajasthan (spread over 22,16,527 hectares) . The Commission 

has recommended 23 steps to be taken by the State 

Government and the Central Government for development and 

conservation of food and fodder (See paras 37-41 of the report 

at pages 130-135) . 

So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, we have 

already noticed, while dealing with the documentary evidence 

available on record, that fodder shortage is not a problem so far 

as this state is concerned and cow progeny, the slaughtering 

whereof has already shown a downward trend during the recent 

years, can very well be fed and maintained without causing any 

wasteful drain on the feed requisite for active milch, breeding 

and draught cattle. 

Finding 2 : 

The finding suffers from two infirmities . First, Quareshi-I 

has not felt the necessity of finding whether a 'total prohibition' 

is also included within 'restriction' as employed in Article 19(6). 

It is now well-settled that 'restriction' includes 'prohibition' . 

Second and the real fallacy in Quareshi-I is that the ban limited 

to slaughtering of cow progeny has been held at one place to be 

a 'total prohibition' , while in our opinion, is not so. At another 

place, the effect of ban has been described as causing 'a serious 

dislocation, though not a complete stoppage of the business of a 

considerable section of the people' . If that is so, it is not a 'total 

prohibition' . The documentary evidence available on record 

\ 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 48 of 51 

shows that beef contributes only 1.3% of the total meat 

consumption pattern of the Indian society. Butchers are not 

prohibited from slaughtering animals other than the cattle 

belonging to cow progeny. Consequently, only a part of their 

activity has been prohibited. They can continue with their 

activity of slaughtering other animals. Even if it results in slight 

inconvenience, it is liable to be ignored if the prohibition is found 

to be in the interest of economy and social needs of the country. 

Finding 3 : 

In the first and second Five Year Plans (Quareshi-I era) , 

there was scarcity of food which reflected India's panic. The 

concept of food security has since then undergone considerable 

change . 

47 years since, it is futile to think that meat originating 

from cow progeny can be the only staple food or protein diet for 

the poor population of the country . 'India Vision 2020' (ibid, 

Chapter 3) deals with 'Food Security and Nutrition : Vision 2020' . 

We cull out a few relevant findings and observations therefrom 

and set out in brief in the succeeding paragraphs . Food 

availability and stability were considered good measures of food 

security till the Seventies and the achievement of self-sufficiency 

was accorded high priority in the food policies . Though India 

was successful in achieving self-sufficiency by increasing its food 

production, it could not solve the problem of chronic household 

food insecurity. This necessitated a change in approach and as a 

result food energy intake at household level is now given 

prominence in assessing food security. India is one of the few 

countries which have experimented with a broad spectrum of 

programmes for improving food security. It has already made 

substantial progress in terms of overcoming transient food 

insecurity by giving priority to self-sufficiency in foodgrains, 

employment programmes, etc. The real problem, facing India, is 

not the availability of food, staple food and protein rich diet; the 

real problem is its unequal distribution. The real challenge 

comes from the slow growth of purchasing power of the people 

and lack of adequate employment opportunities . Another reason 

for lack of food and nutrient intake through cereal consumption 

is attributable to changes in consumer tastes and preferences 

towards superior food items as the incomes of the household 

increases. Empirical evidence tends to suggest a positive 

association between the calorie intake and nutritional status 

The responsiveness is likely to be affected by the factors relating 

to health and environment . It is unclear as to how much of the 

malnutrition is due to an inadequate diet and how much due to 

the environment . 

India achieved near self-sufficiency in the availability of 

foodgrains by the mid-Seventies . The trend rate of foodgrain 

production improved 2.3 per cent during the 1960s and 1970s to 

2.9 per cent in the Eighties. The recent economic survey of 

2005 has also pointed out that the per capita availability of the 

milk has doubled since independence from 124 gms/day in the 

year 1950-51 to 229 gms/day in the year 2001-02. (Report of 

National Commission on Cattle. Vol. II, p. 84.) 

A complete reading of the research paper on Food Security 

and Nutrition (Chapter 3 in India Vision 2020) is a clear pointer 

to the fact that desirable diet and nutrition are not necessarily 

associated with non-vegetarian diet and that too originating from 

slaughtering cow progeny. Beef contributes only 1.3% of the 

total meat consumption pattern of the Indian society. 

Consequently a prohibition on the slaughter of cattle would not 

substantially affect the food consumption of the people. To 

quote (ibid. p. 209) : "Even though the question of desirable diet 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 49 of 51 

from nutritional perspective is still controversial, we can make 

certain policy options to overcome the nutritional deficiencies. 

The most important problem to be attended is to increase the 

energy intake of the bottom 30 per cent of the expenditure 

class. The deficiency of energy intake of the bottom 30 per cent 

can be rectified by increasing agricultural productivity in rain fed 

areas, making available food at an affordable price through the 

Public distribution system (PDS) , and other poverty alleviation 

programmes. The micro-nutrient deficiency can be cost- 

effectively rectified by supplementary nutritional programmes to 

the children and the expectant and lactating mothers. " 

The main source of staple food which is consumed both by 

vegetarians and non-vegetarians is supplied by vegetables. 

Synthetic staple food has also been made available by scientific 

researches. It will, therefore, not be correct to say that poor will 

suffer in availing staple food and nutritional diet only because 

slaughter of cow progeny was prohibited. 

Finding 4 : 

Quareshi-I itself reveals a very general opinion formed by 

the Court as to the failure of gosadans and their inability to 

preserve cattle. The statistics made available before us are a 

positive indicator to the contrary that gosadans and goshalas are 

being maintained and encouraged so as to take up both useful 

and so-called useless cattle, if the owner is not willing to 

continue to maintain them. Quareshi-I relied on a Report of an 

Expert Committee, which has certainly become an outdated 

document by the lapse of 47 years since then. Moreover, 

independent of all the evidence, we have in this judgment 

already noticed that cattle belonging to the category of cow 

progeny would not be rendered without shelter and feed by the 

owner to whom it had served throughout its life. We find support 

from the affidavits and reports filed on behalf of the State of 

Gujarat which state inter alia "farmers love their cattle". 

National Commission on Cattle in its Report (ibid) has 

incorporated as many as 17 recommendations for strengthening 

of goshalas (para 20 at pages 120-122) 

We have already noticed in the affidavits filed on behalf of 

the State of Gujarat that, in the State of Gujarat adequate 

provisions have been made for the maintenance of gosadans and 

goshalas. Adequate fodder is available for the entire cattle 

population. The interest exhibited by the NGOs seeking 

intervention in the High Court and filing appeals in this Court 

also indicates that the NGOs will be willing to take up the task of 

caring for aged bulls and bullocks. 

Finding 5 

In Quareshi-I, vide para 42, the Constitution Bench chose 

to draw a distinction between breeding bulls and working 

bullocks, on the one hand and cows and calves, on the other 

hand, by holding that the farmers would not easily part with the 

breeding bulls and working bullocks to the butchers as they are 

useful to the farmers. It would suffice to observe that the 

protection is needed by the bulls and bullocks at a point of time 

when their utility has been reduced or has become nil as they 

near the end of their life. That is what Article 48, in fact, 

protects, as interpreted in this judgment. 

India, as a nation and its population, its economy and its 

prosperity as of today are not suffering the conditions as were 

prevalent in 50s and 60s . The country has achieved self- 

sufficiency in food production. Some of the states such as State 

of Gujarat have achieved self-sufficiency in cattle-feed and 

fodder as well . Amongst the people there is an increasing 

awareness of the need for protein rich food and nutrient diet . 

Plenty of such food is available from sources other than cow/cow 

progeny meat . Advancements in the field of Science, including 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 50 of 51 

Veterinary Science, have strengthened the health and longetivity 

of cattle (including cow progeny) . But the country' s economy 

continues to be based on agriculture. The majority of the 

agricultural holdings are small units. The country needs bulls 

and bullocks . 

For multiple reasons which we have stated in very many 

details while dealing with Quest ion-6 in Part II of the judgment, 

we have found that bulls and bullocks do not become useless 

merely by crossing a particular age. The Statement of Objects 

and Reasons, apart from other evidence available, clearly 

conveys that cow and her progeny constitute the backbone of 

Indian agriculture and economy. The increasing adoption of 

non-conventional energy sources like Bio-gas plants justify the 

need for bulls and bullocks to live their full life in spite of their 

having ceased to be useful for the purpose of breeding and 

draught . This Statement of Objects and Reasons tilts the 

balance in favour of the constitutional validity of the impugned 

enactment. In Quareshi-I the Constitution Bench chose to bear 

it in mind, while upholding the constitutionality of the legislations 

impugned therein, insofar as the challenge by reference to 

Article 14 was concerned, that "the legislature correctly 

appreciates the needs of its own people". Times have changed; 

so have changed the social and economic needs. The Legislature 

has correctly appreciated the needs of its own people and 

recorded the same in the Preamble of the impugned enactment 

and the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to it . In 

the light of the material available in abundance before us, there 

is no escape from the conclusion that the protection conferred by 

impugned enactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest of 

Nation' s economy. Merely because it may cause 'inconvenience' 

or some 'dislocation' to the butchers, restriction imposed by the 

impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the 

general public. The former must yield to the latter. 

According to Shri M.S. Swaminathan, the eminent Farm 

Scientist, neglect of the farm sector would hit our economy hard. 

According to him "Today, global agriculture is witnessing two 

opposite trends. In many South Asian countries, farm size is 

becoming smaller and smaller and farmers suffer serious 

handicaps with reference to the cost-risk-return structure of 

agriculture. In contrast, the average farm size in most 

industrialized countries is over several hundred hectares and 

farmers are supported by heavy inputs of technology, capital and 

subsidy. The on-going Doha round of negotiations of the World 

Trade Organisation in the field of agriculture reflects the 

polarization that has taken place in the basic agrarian structure 

of industrialized and developing countries. Farming as a way of 

life is disappearing and is giving way to agribusiness . " (K.R. 

Narayanan Oration delivered by Dr. Swaminathan at the 

Australian National University, Canberra, published in 'The 

Hindu', October 17, 2005, p. 10) 

"In India, nearly 600 million individuals are engaged in 

farming and over 80 per cent of them belong to the small and 

marginal farmer categories. Due to imperfect adaptation to local 

environments , insufficient provision of nutrients and water, and 

incomplete control of pests, diseases and weeds, the present 

average yields of major farming systems in India is just 40 per 

cent of what can be achieved even with the technologies 

currently on the shelf. There is considerable scope for further 

investment in land improvement through drainage, terracing, 

and control of acidification, in areas where these have not 

already been introduced. " (ibid) 

Thus, the eminent scientist is very clear that excepting the 

advanced countries which have resorted to large scale 

mechanized farming, most of the countries (India included) have 

\ 

http: //JUDIS . NIC . IN 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Page 51 of 51 

average farms of small size. Majority of the population is 

engaged in farming within which a substantial proportion belong 

to small and marginal farmers category. Protection of cow 

progeny will help them in carrying out their several agricultural 

operations and related activities smoothly and conveniently . 

Organic manure would help in controlling pests and acidification 

of land apart from resuscitating and stimulating the environment 

as a whole. 

Having subjected the restrictions imposed by the 

impugned Gujarat enactment to the test laid down in the case of 

N.M. Thomas (supra) we are unhesitatingly of the opinion that 

there is no apparent inconsistency between the Directive 

Principles which persuaded the State to pass the law and the 

Fundamental Rights canvassed before the High Court by the writ 

petitioners . 

Before we part, let it be placed on record that Dr. L.M. 

Singhvi, the learned senior counsel for one of the appellants, 

initially tried to build an argument by placing reliance on Article 

31C of the Constitution. But at the end he did not press this 

submission. Similarly, on behalf of the respondents, the 

Judgment of the High Court has been supported only by placing 

reliance on Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The legislative 

competence of the State Legislature to enact the law was not 

disputed either in the High Court or before us. 

Result 

For the foregoing reasons, we cannot accept the view 

taken by the High Court. All the appeals are allowed. The 

impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Bombay 

Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat 

Act No. 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vires the Constitution. All 

the writ petitions filed in the High Court are directed to be 

dismissed.