Supreme Court of India
HAZI USMANBHAI HASANBHAI QURESHI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 84
- Decided
- 17 April 1986
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
The age-based ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks is a reasonable restriction that does not infringe Art.19(1)(g) or Art.14, and is therefore upheld.
Summary
The appellants, dealers in beef, challenged the Gujarat amendment to the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 that prohibited the issuance of slaughter certificates for bulls and bullocks below sixteen years of age. They argued that the ban unreasonably restricted their right to carry on trade under Art.19(1)(g) and was discriminatory under Art.14, especially compared to buffaloes. The Supreme Court examined scientific evidence showing increased longevity and utility of cattle due to improved animal husbandry, concluding that bulls and bullocks up to sixteen years remain useful for breeding and draught purposes. Accordingly, the age restriction was held to be a reasonable balance between public interest in preserving useful animals and the appellants' trade rights. The Court also found no unreasonable classification, rejecting the discrimination claim, and dismissed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the prohibition on slaughter of bulls and bullocks below sixteen years under the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 violates the fundamental right to trade under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- Whether the same prohibition is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the classification based on age is reasonable in view of scientific advances and public interest.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954s. 5(1), s. 5(2), s. 5(3), s. 5(lA)
- Gujarat Act No. 16 of 1961s. s.5(lA)
- Gujarat Act No. 23 of 1979 (amendment)s. s.5(2), s. s.5(3), s. s.5(lA)
Subjects
animal preservationslaughter banfundamental rightsArticle 19Article 14discriminationlivestockGujaratBombay Animal Preservation Act
Judgment
719
A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
APRIL 17, 1986
[O.CHINNAPPA REDDY, E,S, VENKATARAMIAH, V. BALAKRISHNA
B
ERADI, R.B. MISRA AND V. KHALID, JJ.]
Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 - B. 5 - Sub-s.
(IA), els. (c) & (d)/sub-s. (2) - Ban on slaughter of bulls
, and bullocks below the age of sixteen years - Whether imposes
an unreasonable restriction on fundamental right to carry on
'\trade or profession - Whether discriminatory.
~ c
·-; Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 & 48 - Ban on
slaughter of bulls and bullocks below sixteen years - Whether
constitutional and valid.
Sub-section (l) of s. 5 of the Bombay Animal
D
Preservation Act, 1954 prohibits slaughter of animals except
on a certificate in writing issued by the competent authority
that the animal is fit for slaughter. Sub-section (lA) of s.5,
_..laubstituted by Gujarat Act No. 23 of 1979, prohibits grant of
such a certificate in respect of (a) a cow, (b) the calf of a
cow, whether male or female, (c) a bull below the age of
E
sixteen years, and (d) a bullock below the age of sixteen
years. It was brought into force retrospectively with effect
.. from November 28, 1978. Sub-section (2) of s. 5 prohibits
Yissue of certificate in respect of animals, to which sub-s •
. , (lA) does not apply, if in the opinion of the competent
authority (s) the animal is useful or likely to become useful
F
for the purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural
operations, (b) the animal, if male, is useful or likely to
become useful for the purpose of breeding, and (c) the animal,
if female, is useflll or likely to become useful for the
purpose of giving milk or bearing offspring. Sub-section (3)
of s, 5, also substituted by Gujarat Act No. 23 of 1979, G
exempts from the purview of s. 5 for bonafide religious
i>urposes, the slaughter of (i) animals above the age of
fifteen years other than a cow, bull or bullock, (ii) a bull
above the age of fifteen years, and (iii) a bullock above the
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A
age of fifteen years provided a certificate in writing has
been obtained from the competent authority. >--
The appellants, who are dealers in beef and other allied
trades, assailed the constitutional validity of the ban
imposed by els. (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA) and sub-s. (3) of
B
s, 5 of the Act, on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, on
various grounds, but the High Court repelled all of them.
~
In these appeals by certificate, it was contended for
the appellants that the ban on the slaughter of bulls and
bullocks below the age of sixteen years imposed by els. (c)
c and (d) of sub-s. (lA) of s. 5 of the Act puts an unreasonable
restriction on their fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) Off'
the Constitution to carry on their trade and profession, and,
that the ban so imposed l.s violative of Art. 14 of th~
Constitution as it discriminates between dealers who deal in
meat of cows, bulls and bullocks and those who deal in meat of
D buffaloes and other animals,
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD : 1. The prescription of the age of sixteen years
in els. (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA) of s. 5 of the Bomb~,
E Animal Preservation Act, 1954 cannot be said to be an un-
reasonable restriction looking to th&- balance which has to be
struck between public interest, that required useful ani•ls'
to be preserved and permitting the appellants to carry on
their trade and profession as mentioned in Art. 19(1)(g) of ,
the Constitution. (729 C-D; H] 1
F
The longevity of cattle and their useful span of life it{.
the State of Gujarat has increased appreciably with the help
of the scientific advances which have taken place in recent
years, such as better cattle feeding, better medical health
and better animal husbandry services. There is no doubt t!hat
G
if the scientific tests were to be applied, bulls and bullocks
up to sixteen years of age would be found useful for the
purpose of breeding, draught and other agricultural purposes.
[729B~) ~·
2. Clauses (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA) of s. 5 of the Act
H
are not hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is only if the
classification is unreasonable that the impugned provisions
can be struck down. (730 C]
HAJI USMANBHAI QURESHI v, STATE [MISRA, J,] 721
A
In the instant caae, looking to the different purposes
~or which buff aloes and their progeny on the one hand and cows
and their progeny on the other are used in each State it
cannot be said that there is any hostile discrimination
against those who deal in meet of bulls and bullocks. The
dealers in different types of meat are not in the same claas. B
A clear distinction is maintained on scientific grounds
between animals which are 11»eful and which have not yet
cieached the age of sixteen years so far aa bulls and bullocks
are concerned. As regards buffaloes, there is no restriction
aa to the age, the only bar being sub-s. (2) of s. 5, based on
;
their usefulness for purposes of draught, agdcultural
operations, breeding, giving milk or bearing offsprings. Bulls c
- -~ bullocks are useful for agricultural purposes but male
_ faloes are seldom used for any purpose other than breeding
-fr rearing progeny. (730 E-G]
Abdul Balda Qureshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1961] 2
S.C.R. 610, referred to. D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos,
1734-39 of 1980.
~ From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.1980 of the
Gujarat High Court in S.C,A. Nos. 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 and E
190 of 1980,
M.C. Bhandare, M. Quamaruddin, Mrs. M. Qumaruddin, M.V,
, Katarki and Salmon Khurshid for the Appellants,
)--
G.A. Shah, Girish Chandra, C, V. Subba Rao and R,N, F
"\Poddar for the Respondent.
T.U. Mehta, H.J. Zaveri, S.S. Khanduja and Yashpal
Dhingra for the Intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
LB. MISRA, J. In the wake of Art. 48 of the
fonstitution the State of Bombay also passed an enactment, the
Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 for the preservation of
animals suitable for milch, breeding or for agricultural
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A purposes. 'Under sub-s. (1) of s. 2 the Act was to apply in the
first instance to the animals specified in the schedule an&--
the schedule mentioned bovines (bulls, bullocks, cows,
calves, male and female buffaloes and buffalo-calves). Under
sub-s. (2) of s.2 the State Government may, by notification in
the official gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any
other animal, which in its opinion, it is desirable to
B preserve. It does not appear that the provisions of the Act
were ever made applicable to any other animals after th~
initial enactment of the Act and the schedule by the Bombay
legislature. Section 5 of the Act, so far it is material,
runs :
c "5. (1) Notwithstanding any law for the time being -
in force or any usage to the contrary, no person/
shall slaughter any animal unless he has obtainec\
in respect of such animal a certificate in writing,
from the Competent Authority appointed for the area
that the animal is fit for slaughter."
D
In 1961 by the Gujarat Act 16 of 1961, sub-s. (lA) was
inserted in s. 5 of the principal Act which read :
"(lA) No certificate under sub-s. (1) shall bi;t
granted in respect of a cow".
E
Thereupon a consequential change was effected in sub-s.
(2) of s.5, after the insertion of sub-s. (lA). It read : '
"(2) In respect of an animal to which sub-s. (lA}f
does not apply, no certificate shall be granted
F under sub-s. (1), if in the opinion of the('
competent authority :
(a) the animal, whether male or female, is useful
or likely to become useful for the purpose of
draught or any kind of agricultural operations;
G
(b) the animal, if male, is useful or likely to
become useful for the purpose of breeding; +
(c) the animal, if female, is useful or likely to
become useful for the purpose of giving or bearing
H offspring."
HA.JI USMANBHAI QURESHI v. STATE [MISRA, J,] 723
A
-..(Under sub-s. (3) of s.5 it was provided :
"(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the
slaughter of any animal above the age of fifteen
years for bonafide religious purposes, if such
animal is not a cow. B
Provided that a certificate in writing for such
slaughter- has been obtained from the competent
authority."
In 1978 the Governor of C'.uj arat issued an ordinance
being Gujarat Ordinance No. 10 of 1978 to amend the Bombay c
-, Animal Preservation Act, 1954. During the period of operation
of th@ ordinance the Bombay Animal Preservation Act 1954 was
i to have effect subject to the amendments specifed in s.3 of
' the ordinance and thus the Bombay Act was temporarily amended.
By this Amending Ordinance of 1978 under s.5 of the principal
Act for sub-s. (lA) of new sub-s. (lA) was substituted, which D
read :
"(lA) No certificate under sub-s. (1) shall be
granted in respect of :-
(a) a cow ; E
(b) the calf of a cow, whether male or female and
• if male, whether castrated or not ;
(c) a bull below the age of eighteen years
F
(d) a bullock below the age of eighteen years."
For sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the principal Act a new sub-s. was
substituted, which read
"(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the G
slaughter of any of the following animals for
bonafide religious purposes, namely :-
(a) Any animal above the age of fifteen years other
than a cow, bull or bullock.
H
724 . SUPREm COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A
(b) A bull above the age of eighteen years.
(c) A bullock above the age of eighteen years."
After the above ordinance was promulgated the legislative
assembly of the State met and in view of that session of the
B legislative assembly the provisions of the ordinance were
required to be enacted by the legislature otherwise the
ordinance was to lapse. As th" legislature did not pass the4,-
requisite legislation in time the ordinance lapsed on March 5,
1979.
c Thereafter Qijarat Act No. 23 viz, the Bombay Animal
Preservation (Qijarat Amendment) Act, 1979, was enacted and by r:-
virtue of sub-s. ( 2) of s. 1 the provisions of the Act were
deemed to have come into force on 28th November, 1978, that ~
is, from the date on which the Qijarat Ordinance No. 10 of
1978 was brought into force. This amendment Act also inserted
D a new sub-s. (lA) in s. 5 of the Principal Act. It read :
"(lA) No certificate under sub-s. (1) shall be
.granted in respect of:-
(a) a cow;
E
(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;
F (d) a bullock below the age of sixteen years."
r
It is apparent that in els. (c) and (d) changes were
affected inasmuch as instead of cl. (c) providing,for a bull
below the age of 18 years, as in the ordinance, the Act
providAd in the new cl. ( c) for a bull below the age of 16
G years, and similarly in cl.(d) it provided for a bullock below
the age of 16 years instead of 18 years provided in the ordi-
nance. The impugned enactment also inserted a new sub-s. (3)
which read -t
"(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to :-
H
HAJI USMANBHAI QURESHI v. STATE [MISRA, J.] 725
(a) the slaughter of any of the following' animals A
for such bona fide religious purposes, as may be
prescribed namely :
(i) any animal above the age of fifteen years other
than a cow, bull or bullock;
B
(ii) a bull above the age of fifteen years ;
-,l
(iii) a bullock above the age of fifteen years
(b) the slaughter of any animal not being a cow or
a calf of a cow, on such religious days as may be
prescribed : c
Provided that a certificate in writing for the
slaughter referred to in clauses (a) or (b) has
been obtained from the competent authority."
The appellants who are dealers in beef and other allied D
trades connected with the slaughter of bulls and bullocks seek
to challenge the ban of 16 yrs. put by els. (c) and (d) of
sub-s. (lA) of sec. 5 of the Act as it adversely affects their
,... trades.
·According to the appellants a large number of people in E
Ahmedabad city and in the State of Gujarat are engaged in the
beef trade, both wholesale and retail and the allied trades.
Several hundred shops of beef dealers, both wholesalers and
retailers, are located in Ahemdabad city alone, and on an
average before the new legislation came into force about 100
bovine cattl~ were being slaughtered in the slaughter houses F
in Ahemdabad city. Out of these above seventy used to be bulls
and twentyfive to thirty buffaloes. Because of slaughter of
bovine cattle there are incidental trades which are dependent
upon slaughter of bovines, their hides and skins and carcases
of animals. Carcases are used for the purpose of food which is
cheaper food for a large number of people. Hides and skins G
after they are properly treated and processed serve the export
t market and thereby also serve the country by earning a good
deal of foreign exchange. It was further urged that the
different parts of cattle which are slaughtered, like hooves,
horns, guts, pancreas, bones, liver bile and even the blood
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A
of animals are all used for pharmaceutical purposes and >--
products. They are also used for manufacturing concentrates of
drugs and injections meant for supplying proteins to human
beings. Bones of animals which are slaughtered are utilised
for the purpose of manufacturing fertilisers. Hides and skins
of animals which have a natural death are of inferior quality
B as compared to the hides and skins of animals which are
slaughtered. Calcium is recovered from bons of slaughtered
animals. Glue is made from hooves etc. ,l-
Bulls and bullocks cease to be useful for an purpose
after the age of fifteen years and thus the ban on the
c slaughter of bull and bullocks below the age of 16 years is an
unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on their
trade or business and is not in the interest of general
r
public. t
On the one hand there are the directive principles of
D Art. 48 of the Constitution which require consideration of
usefulness of animals from the point of view of giving milk,
breeding, agricultural purpos<;!s and draught purposes; on the
other hand there is the requirement of those poor sections of
people who get their protein requirement from beef which is
available to them at cheap rates. Thus a balnace between the ~
E requirement contemplated by Art. 48 and the requirement of a
large section of people and traders and dealers has fo be
struck by the court. It was further pleaded that on certain
specified religious days animals are required to be
slaughtered, for example Qurbani at the time of Bakir Id or Id
festival, and there are also other religious ceremonies in
F connection with which animals and bovine cattle are required
to be slaughtered.
The impugned Act was, therefore, challenged in the High
Court on a number of grounds :
G 1. that the impugned amendment puts an unreasonable
restriction on the fundamental right of the
petitioners under Art. 19(l)(g) of the
Constitution -¥
2, that the State of Gojarat has acted mala fide in
H enacting this piece of legislation, being the
HAJI USMANBHAI v. STATE [MISRA, J. ] 727
A
Gujarat Act 23 of 1979;
3, that the State legislature has no legislative
competence to enact the impugned legislation
4. that the amended sub-s. (3) of s. 5 is an B
interference with their religious practices and
customs and hence violative of Arts. 25, 26 and 29
·-,1. of the Constitution ;
5. that the impugned provisions are discriminatory
and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution
inasmuch as the discrimination l.s made between c
those who deal in meat of bulls and bullocks on the
one hand and those who deal in meat of buffaloes on
the other.
All these contentions were repelled by the High Court.
D
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High
Court the appellants have now come to this Court by
certificate and only two contentions have ben raised on their
behalf:
.·~
1. The ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks E
below the age of sixteen years is hit by Art.
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution as it puts an un-
reasonable restriction on the fundamental right of
the appellants and is not in the interest of
general public.
\ F
2. The ban put by els. (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA)
of s. 5 of the Act is also violative of Art. 14 of
the Constitution.
In support of their contentions reliance was placed on
Abdul Balda <)Jraishi & Ors. v. State of Bi.bar, (1961] 2 s.c.R.
G
610. It was held in that case that the ban on the slaughter of
bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes below the age of 20 or 25
't- years was not a reasonable restriction in the interest of
general public and was void as a bull, bullock or buffalo did
not remain useful after the age of 15 years and whatever
little use it may have then was greatly offset by the economic
H
disadvantages of feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle.
728 SUPREME COURT REPOTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A
In the affidavit in reply filed in this case it has been
~
pointed out· on behalf of the Government that because of
improvement and more scientific methods of cattle breeding and
also advancement in the science of looking after the health of
cattle in the State of Gujarat today a situation has been
reached where the usefulness of cattle for breeding, draught
B and other agricultural purposes is above the age of sixteen
years.
--4;-
Mr. p,J, Bhatt, Under Secretary to the Government of
Gujarat, Agriculture, Forests and Co-operation Department, in
his affidavit dated March 14, 1980 has pointed out in
C paragraph 11 as follows:
''With the improved and scientific animal husbandry
services in the State, the average longevity of
llllimals in the State has considerably increased. In
1960, there were 456 Veterinary Dispensaries, First
D Aid Veterinary Centres, etc. whereas in the year
.1979, there were as many as 800 Veterinary Dispen-
saries, First Aid Veterinary Centres etc. There
were no mobile Veterinary Dispensaries in 1960,
while there were 20 such mobile dispensaries for
animals in 1979. In addition to this there are more ,J..
E than 600 cent.res for intensive cattle development
programme, where, besides first aid to animals,
other animal husbandry inputs are also provided. In
1960, five lacs of cattle were vaccinated, whereas
in the year 1979, fiftyone lacs. cattle were vacci-
nated to provide immunization against various i
F diseases of animals. There were no cattle Feed
Compounding Units preparing cattle feed on F
scientific lines in the year 1960, while in the
year 1979, there were as many as 6 cattle feed
factories in the State of Gujarat. As a result of
improved Animal Husbandry services, the disease of
G Rinderpest which was widespread in the State and
which took a large toll of animal life has been
totally wiped out and eradicated since the year
1971-72, except for an isolated recurrence in the -ii
year 1978 in the cattle impooted in the State from
abroad. Similarly, in respect of Haemorrhagic
H Septicaemia, a disease which used to take a heavy
HAJI USMANBHAI v. STATE (MISRA, J.] 729
A
toll of animals, the total number of deaths on
account of the disease was 6689 in the year 1961-62
which has been brought down to about 2000 in the
year 1978-79 on account of intensive vaccination
programme undertaken by the Government."
B
It is thus clear that because of various scientific
factors, namely, better cattle feeding, better medical health
_..,. and better animal husbandry services, the longevity of cattle
in the State of Gujarat has increased and in this context it
is correct to say that if the scientific tests were to be
applied, bulls and bullocks upto sixteen year.s of age can be
said to be useful for the purpose of breeding, draught and c
·~ other agricultural purposes. In these circumstances the
( prescription of the age of sixteen years in clauses ( c) and
-i (d) of sub-s. (lA) of s.5 can be said to be reasonable,
looking to the balance which has to be struck between public
interest, which requires useful animals to be preserved and
permitting the different appellants before us to carry on 0
their trade and profession.
In a passage from the publication of the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research, New Delhi published in the year
> 1962, wich was reprinted in the year 1967, it has been
pointed out : E
"Indian cattle are found to do well in dry areas.
They are ·small and non-decrepit in area of heavy
rainfall, such as the coastal or the hilly areas of
the country. Cattle of good breeds are thus found
in Punjab, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. Varying F
types of cattle may be seen within the limits of
the same State. Thus in Bombay one finds excellent
cattle in Gujarat and similar dry parts of the
State, while in Madras, such cattle are observed in
Coimbatore."
G
The material before the court thus clearly goes to show
that with the help of the scientific advances which have taken
·l- place since 1962, the longevity of the cattle and their useful
span of life has increased and, therefore, the prescribed age
of sixteen years can be said to be a reasonable restriction on
the right of the appellants to carry on their trade ·and H
profession as mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitu-
tion.
730 SUl'Ril!E COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A This leads us to the second contention regarding the ~
impugned legislation being discriminatory between dealers who
deal in meat of cows, bulls and bullocks and those who deal in
meat of buffaloes and other animals and there is no uniform
law with respect to all cattle. As a second limb to this
agrument it was further contended that the cattle and beef
dealers in other States are not subjected to the similar
B restrictions, and thus there is a violation of Art. 14 of the
Constitution. .J.:-
This contention in our opinionhas no force. The dP.alers
in different tpes of meat are not in the same class. It i~
only if the classification is unreasonable that it can be
c struck down. But here a clear distinction is maintained on (
scientific grounds between animals which are useful and which
have not yet reached the age of 16 years so far as bulls and t
bullocks are concerned. As regards buffaloes there is no
restriction as to the age and the only restriction is sub-s.
(2) of s. 5 and that section has remained unamended, namely
) the test is whether the animal, male or female, is useful or
likely to become useful for the purposes of milch or draught
or any kind of agricultural operations; whether the animal, if
male is useful or likely t become useful for the purpose of
breeding, and whether the animal, if female, is useful or J.
likely to become useful for the purpose of giving milk or
bearing offspring. So looking to the different purposes for
which buff aloes and their progeny on the one hand and cows and
their progeny on the other hand are used in each State it
cannot be said that there is any hostile discrimination
against those who deal in meat of bulls and bullocks. Bulls 1
and bullocks, particularly bullocks, are useful for
agricultural purposes and male buffaloes are seldom used for
any purpose other than breeding or rearing progeny and under
these circumstances the impugned amendment is not hit by Art.
14 of the Constitution.
In the result the appeals must fail. Accordingly they are
dismissed with costs.
P. S, S. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "animal preservation"Sign in to search