# ABDUL HAKIM QURAISHI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

- **Citation:** [1961] 2 S.C.R. 610
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Bench:** Jafer Imam, s. K. DAS, J. L. Kapur, A. K. Sarkar, JC SuBBA RAo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/abdul-hakim-quraishi-and-others-v-the-state-of-bihar-2000
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Cattle Preservation-Ban on slaguhter of cattle below 20 or a5
years of age-Whether reasonable-Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, x959 (Bihar I of x959), s. 3Bihar Preservation and Improvemrnt of Animals Rules, x960, r. 3....:.
Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, x958
(U. P. 33 of x958), s. 3-M adhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, x959 (M. P. x8 of x959), ss. 4(2)(a) and 5.
In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar the Supreme
Court held that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks
and she-buffaloes after they had ceased to be useful was not in
the interests of the general public and was invalid. Thereafter,
the Bihar Legislature passed the Bibar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, r958, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter
(Amendment) Act, r958 and the Madhya Pradesh Legislature
passed a new Act, the M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation
Act, r959.
Section 3 of the Bihar Act prohibited the slaughter of a
bull, bullock or she-buffalo except when it was over 25 years of
age and had become useless. Rule 3 of the Bihar Preservation
and Improvement of Animals Rules; r960 prescribed that the
certificate for slaughtering an animal could be granted only
with the concurrence of the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer of a District Board, Municipality etc., and
if the two differed, then according to the decision of the SubDh!isional Animal Husbandary Officer.
Section 3 of the U. P. Act permitted the slaughter of a bull
or bullock only if it was over 20 years of age and was permanently unfit. It further provided that the animal could not be
slaughtered within 20 days of the grant of a certificate that it
was fit to be slaughtered and gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order granting the certificate.
Section 4(r)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Act provided that
no bull, bullock or buffallo could be slaughtered except upon a
certificate issued by the competent authority and s. 4(2){a) provided that no certificate could be issued unless the animal was
over 20 years of age and was unfit for work or breeding. Section
4(3) gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order
of the competent authority. Section S provided that no animal
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
611
shall be slaughtered within 10 days of the date of the issue of
.r960
the certificate and where an appeal was preferred against the
grant of the certificate, till the time such appeal was disposed
Abdul Hakim
of.
Quraishi & Others
The petitioners, who carried on the profession and trade
v.
.
of butchers, contended that the various provisions of the three The State 01 Bihar
Acts set out above infringed their fundamental rights by
practically putting a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes even after the animal had ceased to be
useful and thus virtually put an end to their profession and
trade.
Held, (i) that the ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks
and she-buffaloes below the age 'of 20 or 25 years was not a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public and was
void. A bull, bullock or buffalo did not remain useful after 15
years, and whatever little use it may have then was greatly
offset by the economic disadvantages of feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle. The additional condition that the
animal must, apart from being above 20 or 25 years of age, also
be unfit was a further unreasonable restriction. Section 3 of
the Bihar Act, s. 3 of the U. P. Act and s. 4(2)(a) of the M. P.
Act were invalid.
(ii) Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules was bad as it imposed disproportionate restrictions on the rights of the petitioners. The
procedure involved such expenditure of money and time as
made the obtaining of the certificate riot w.xthwhile.
(iii) The provisions in the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh Acts providing that the anitnal shall not be slaughtered
within 20 an

## Text

_Characters 0–39,630 of 53,127. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39630 for what follows._

1960
November a3.
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
ABDUL HAKIM QURAISHI AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(AND CONNECTED PETITIONS)
(JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR
and JC SuBBA RAo, JJ.)
Cattle Preservation-Ban on slaguhter of cattle below 20 or a5
years of age-Whether reasonable-Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, x959 (Bihar I of x959), s. 3Bihar Preservation and Improvemrnt of Animals Rules, x960, r. 3....:.
Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, x958
(U. P. 33 of x958), s. 3-M adhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, x959 (M. P. x8 of x959), ss. 4(2)(a) and 5.
In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar the Supreme
Court held that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks
and she-buffaloes after they had ceased to be useful was not in
the interests of the general public and was invalid. Thereafter,
the Bihar Legislature passed the Bibar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, r958, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter
(Amendment) Act, r958 and the Madhya Pradesh Legislature
passed a new Act, the M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation
Act, r959.
Section 3 of the Bihar Act prohibited the slaughter of a
bull, bullock or she-buffalo except when it was over 25 years of
age and had become useless. Rule 3 of the Bihar Preservation
and Improvement of Animals Rules; r960 prescribed that the
certificate for slaughtering an animal could be granted only
with the concurrence of the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer of a District Board, Municipality etc., and
if the two differed, then according to the decision of the SubDh!isional Animal Husbandary Officer.
Section 3 of the U. P. Act permitted the slaughter of a bull
or bullock only if it was over 20 years of age and was permanently unfit. It further provided that the animal could not be
slaughtered within 20 days of the grant of a certificate that it
was fit to be slaughtered and gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order granting the certificate.
Section 4(r)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Act provided that
no bull, bullock or buffallo could be slaughtered except upon a
certificate issued by the competent authority and s. 4(2){a) provided that no certificate could be issued unless the animal was
over 20 years of age and was unfit for work or breeding. Section
4(3) gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order
of the competent authority. Section S provided that no animal
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
611
shall be slaughtered within 10 days of the date of the issue of
.r960
the certificate and where an appeal was preferred against the
grant of the certificate, till the time such appeal was disposed
Abdul Hakim
of.
Quraishi & Others
The petitioners, who carried on the profession and trade
v.
.
of butchers, contended that the various provisions of the three The State 01 Bihar
Acts set out above infringed their fundamental rights by
practically putting a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes even after the animal had ceased to be
useful and thus virtually put an end to their profession and
trade.
Held, (i) that the ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks
and she-buffaloes below the age 'of 20 or 25 years was not a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public and was
void. A bull, bullock or buffalo did not remain useful after 15
years, and whatever little use it may have then was greatly
offset by the economic disadvantages of feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle. The additional condition that the
animal must, apart from being above 20 or 25 years of age, also
be unfit was a further unreasonable restriction. Section 3 of
the Bihar Act, s. 3 of the U. P. Act and s. 4(2)(a) of the M. P.
Act were invalid.
(ii) Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules was bad as it imposed disproportionate restrictions on the rights of the petitioners. The
procedure involved such expenditure of money and time as
made the obtaining of the certificate riot w.xthwhile.
(iii) The provisions in the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh Acts providing that the anitnal shall not be slaughtered
within 20 and xo days respectively of the issue of the certificate
and that any person aggrieved by the order of the competent
authority, may appeal against it, were likely to hold up the
slaughter of the animal for a long time and practically put a
total ban on slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes even after
they had ceased to be useful. . These provisions imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioners
and were void.
Mohd. Ha11if Quareshi v. The State of Bihar, (1959] S.C.R.
629, State of Madras v. V. G. Ro111, [1952] S.C.R. 597 and The
State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, [1952] S.C.R. 889, referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 15 of 1959,
14 of 1960 and 21 of 1959.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Frank Antlwny and J. B. Dadaehanji, for the petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 15 and 21 of 1959).
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1961]
z96o
H. J. Umrigar, 0. P. Rana and A. G .. Ratnaparkhi,
Abdul Hakim for the petitioners (In Petn. No. 14 of 1960).
Qwraishi & Olhm
L. K. Jha and S. P. Varma, for the respondent (In
v.
Petn. No. 15 of 1959).
The Slale of Bihar
C K D h
S l' ·
G
l ,f I
·
·
.
. ap tary, o icitor- enera oJ ndia, M. Adhikari, Advocate-General for the State of Madhya Pradesh
and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent (In Petn. No. 14
of 1960).
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India
and C. P. Lal, for the respondent (In Petn. No. 21
of 1959).
1960. November 23. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
s. K. Das J.
S. K. DAS, J.-These three writ petitions have been
heard together, as they raise common questions of law
and fact. They relate, however, to three different
enactments made by the Legislatures of three different States-Bihar in writ petition No. 15, Uttar
Pradesh in writ petition No. 21, and Madhya Pradesh
in writ petition No. 14. The petitioners in the several
petitions have challenged the validity of a number of
provisions of the enactments in question and, in some
cases, also of the rules inade thereunder. The impugned provisions are similar in nature, but are not exactly
the same. Therefore, we shall first state in genera.I
terms the case of the petitioners and then consider in
detail and separately the impugned provisions in each
case. But before we do so, it is necessary to refer to
some background history of the legislation under consideration in these cases.
In the year 1958 this Court had to consider the
validity of certain provisions of three Acts :
(1) The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of
Animals Act, (Bihar Act II of 1956);
(2) the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U. P. Act I of 1956); and
(3) the Central Provinces and Bera.r Animal
Preservation Act, 1949 (C. P. and Bera.r Act LII of
1949).
The Biha.r Act put a total ban on the slaughter of a.II
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
613
categories of animals of the species of bovine cattle.
r96o
The U. P. Act put a total ban on the slaughter of cows
Abd 1 H k.
and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers Qurai;;,i .s.
0
0 ;;:;,5
and calves. The C. P. and Berar Act placed a total
v.
ban on the slaughter of cows, male or female calves of Tl1c s1a1e of Bihar
cows, bulls, bullocks, and heifers, and the slaughter of
buffaloes (male or female, adults or calves) was per5· K. Das J.
mitted only under a certificate granted by the proper
authorities. These three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principle of State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution. The petitioners
who challenged the various provisions of the aforesaid Acts in 1958 were engaged in the butcher's trade
and its subsidiary tlndertakings ; they challenged
the constitutional validity of the. Acts on the ground
that they infringed their fundamental rights under
Arts. 14, 19(l)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. In the
decision which this Court gave . in Mohd. Hanif
Quareski v. The State of Bikar (1), it held-
(i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of
all ages and ca.Ives of cows and of she~buffaloes, male
or female, was quite reasonable and valid;
(ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls, or working bullocks (cattle as
well as buffaloes) so long as they were capable of
being used as milch or draught cattle was also reason•
able and valid; and
(iii) that a total ban on slaughter of she-buffaloes,
bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased
to be capable of yielding milk or of bre~ding or working as draught animals was not in the .interests of the
general public and was invalid.
In the result this Court directed the respondent States
not to enforce their respective Acts in so far as they
were declared void by it. This led to some a.mending
or new legislation, and we a.re concerned in these three
cases with the provisions of these amending or new
· Acts and the rules made thereunder. In Biha.r (Writ
Petition No. 15of1959) the impugned Act is. called
the Biha.r Preservation and Improvement of Animals
(1) [1959] S.C.R. 6a9.
78
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
r96o
(Amendment) Act, 1959 which received the assent of
Abd 1 H k.
the Governor on January 13, 1959. In Uttar Pradesh
Qu••i;~; .s-"0;;:" (Writ Petition No. 21 of 1959) the impugned Act is
v.
called the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter
The State of Biha• (Amendment) Act, 1958 and in Madhya Pradesh
(Writ Petition No. 14 of 1960) a new Act was passed
s. IC. Das J.
called the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 (Act 18 of 1959) which received the
assent of the President on July 24, 1959 and came
into force on January 15, 1960. The rules made thereunder are called the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural
Cattle Preservation Rules, 1959.
The general case of the petitioners, who are several
in number in each of the three cases, is that they are
citizens of India and carry on their profession and
trade of butchers; they allege that the various provisions of the impugned legislation infringe their fundamental rights in that they, for all practical purposes,
have put a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes,
bulls or bullocks, even after such animals have ceased
to be useful, and have virtually put an end to their
profession and trade. It is pointed out that the age
up to which the animals referred to- above cannot be
slaughtered (20 or 25 years) has been put so high that
the practical effect is that no animals can be slaugh-.
tered, and the amending or new legislation has put in
other restrictions so arbitrary and unreasonable in
nature that in effect they amount to a prohibition or
destruction of the petitioner's right to carry on their
trade and profession.
The following allegations
quoted from one of the petitions (Writ Petition No. 15
of 1959) give a general idea of the nature of the case
which the petitioners have put forward:
"That there is good professional authority for the
view that even in countries where animal husbandry
is organised on a highly progressive and scientific
basis, cattle seldom live beyond 15 or 16 yea.rs.
That there is also good authority to the effect that
even pedigree breeding bulls are usually discarded at
the age of 12 or 14 years.
·
That in India bulls and bullocks and she-buffaloes
rarely live even up to the age of 15 years; draught
bullocks begin to age after eight years.
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
615
That the raising of the age limit from 15 to 20 years
z96o
is arbitrary, unreasonable and agai_nst the general
Abd 1 H k.
public interests and is repugnant to and infringes the Qurai~i & ~1';;;,s
fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19
v.
(l)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
The Stale of Bihar
That section 3 of the amending Act is a mala fide,
colourable exercise of power, repugnant to the funda5· K. Das J.
mental rights of the petitioners under Article 19 (l)(f)
and (g).
/
That this arbitrary raising of the age limit will be
against the public interests for the following among
other reasons:
(i) That there will, in fact, be no bulls or bullocks or she-buffaloes available for slaughter as few,
if any, of such animals survive in India up to the age
of 15 years;
(ii) that the profession, trade and occupation of
millions of Muslims will be permanently and irreparably injured;
(iii) that millions of members of the minority
communities such as Christians, Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Muslims, for whom cattle-beef
is a staple item of their diet, will be deprived of this
diet;
(iv) that the menace o,f the rapidly increasing
uneconomic cattle population in such m'atters as the
destruction of crops, being a public nuisance, will be
accentuated by this arbitrary age limit, and in effect
will ensure that bulls and bullocks cannot be slaughtered;
(v) that the menace of the rapidly increasing
population of uneconomic cattle to the fodder- and
other animal food resources of the country will be
accentuated.
(vi) that the competition between the rapidly
increasing cattle population, a large percentage of
:which is uneconomic and useless, and the human
population for available land will be accentuated;
(vii) that this piece oflegislaition will ensure· the
steady increase of useless bulls and bullocks and must
react disastrously against any attempt to improve
milk production, bullock power or animal husbandry
generally."
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
r96o
Similar allegations have been made jn the other two
Abdul Hakim petitions also.
.
Quraishi o,. Others
The correctness of these allegations has been con-
•·
tested on behalf of the respondent States, which
The state of Biharthrough some of their officers have filed affidavits in
reply. We shall presently examine at greater length
s. K. Das J.
the averments made in these affidavits, but we may
indicate here in broad outline what their general effect
is. In Bihar the age I below which the slaughter of
she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks is prohibited is 25
years. The respondent State has taken the plea that
the usefulness or longevity of Ii ve-stock for breeding
and other purposes depends to a very great extent on
(a) better animal husbandry facilities like feeding and
management and (b) control of animal diseases, and
as these facilities are now available in a greater
measure, the legislature came to the conclusion that a
bull or bullock or a she-buffalo below 25 years of age
continues to remain useful; if a bull, bullock or shebuffalo is permanently incapacitated below that age
the impugned provision permits its slaughter and
therefore the legislation which is challenged conforms
to the decision of this Court and does not violate any
fundamental right. In Uttar Pradesh the age is 20
years as respects bulls or bullocks, with a further restriction to be referred to later. The reply of the respondent State is that bulls or bullocks do not become
unfit at the age of 12 or 14 yearrs as alleged by the
petitioners; on the contrary, they continue to be useful and at no time they become entirely useless. It is
then stated in the affidavit:
"As a matter of fact, the age up to which the
animals can live and are serviceable depends upon the
care and attention they receive and the quality of the
grass on which they are grazed. . ....................... .
. . .. . . . ... . ...... ... . ... .......... .. . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... According
to a high authority the average age of an ox under
favourable conditions would be between 15 to 20
years.
Even under conditions prevailin~ in Uttar
Pradesh, bulls can live upto 20 years or more as would
appear from an analysis of a survey report of the
animal husbandry department."
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
617
On these averments the respondent State contends
1960
that the l~gi2slo. ation is vaTlihd. uln dMadshya Pradesh alhso
Abdul Hakim
the age is
year~.
e
~ er- ecretary to t e Quraishi a;. Others
State Government m the Agricultu:val Department
v.
has made the reply affidavit in which it has been sta- The State of Bihar
ted inter alia that conditions in Madhya Pradesh are
different from conditions in other States. The affidas. K. Das J.
vit then states:
"The State of Madhya Pradesh has a total area
of 107,589,000 acres, out of which total cropped area
is 43,572,000 acres. :Forest area is 33,443,000 acres,
area not available for cultivation is 11,555,000 acres,
uncultivated land is 18,405,000 acres and fallow land
is 5,834,000 acres. It will thus be seen that this State
has a large forest area and plenty of grass land for
pasturage. As the fore1>ts supply the gre11ter part of
the fuel needs of the human population, the dung of
animals is largely available as manure. The legislature considered that bulls, bullocks and buffaloes are
useful in this State till they are well past twenty years
of age and that they should not be slaughtered till
they are past that age and are also unfit for work or
breeding. The problem of animals dying of slow starvation or of worthless animals depriving useful animals of fodder needs no consideration in this State.
The agricultural community in the State benefits by
the existence of ahimals as long as they are useful."
There are also further averments as'to the· shortage of
breeding balls, working bullocks and she-buffaloes in
Madhya Pradesh. On these averments the contention
of the respondent State is that the cattle in that State
are useful up to the age of 20 years.
We have indicated above in general terms the case
of the petitioners and the reply which the respondent
States have given. We proceed now to a detailed
consideration of the impugned legislation in each case.
(1) We take. up first the Bihar Preservation and
Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959 and
the rules made under the main Act of 1955. Section 3
of the Act as amended reads:
"S. 3. Prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull,
bullock or she-buffalo:
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
'960
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
Abdul Hakim the time being in force or in any usage or custom to
Quraishi .s. Others the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be
v.
slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughTh• State of Biha• ter a cow, calf, bull, bullock or she-buffalo:
Provided that the prescribed authority may, subject
s. J(. Das J.
to such conditions as may be prescribed, allow the
slaughter of-
(i) a bull or bullock which is over twenty-fiveyears of age or which has become permanently incapable of breeding or of being used as a draught animal,
as the case may be, and
(ii) a she-buffalo which is over twenty-five years
of age or which has become permanently incapable of
breeding or yielding milk, if the permanent incapability has not been caused deliberately;
Provided further that the State Government may,
by general or special order, and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, allow the slaughter
of any such animal for any medicinal or research
purposes."
The scheme of the section is that its substantive provision imposes a total ban on the slaughter of a cow,
calf, bull, bullock or she-buffalo; the proviso then engrafts an exception as to bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes and lays down the circumstances in which the
slaughter of the aforesaid animals may be allowed.
No question arises here as to cows and calves; a total
ban on their slaughter has been held to be valid by
this Court. The question before us is whether the section in s~ far as it relates to bulls, bullocks and shebuffaloes, is constitutionally valid. It is worthy of
note that<.the Bill, as originally drafted, put the age
at fifteen years only; but the Select Committee on the
Bill said, "The Committee feels that the words 'fifteen
years' will not be sufficient for the preservation of
animals. They feel that it would be better if those
words are substituted by the words 'twenty-five years'
....... "
No other reason was given for increasing the
age.
After the filing of Writ Petition no. 15 of 1959
the Governor of Bihar made certain rules under s. 38
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
619
of the Act. These rules are called the Bihar Preserr960
vation and Improvement of Animals Rules, 1960. The
Abd 1 H k"
provisions of r. 3 have also been impugned by the Qurais~i ;. di~ers
petitioners by an amendment petition filed by them.
v.
Rule 3 so far as it is material for OU'l" purpose is. in The State of Bihar
these terms:
"3(1). For the purpose of section 3 of the Act,
5· K. Das J.
the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer, as the case may be, shall be the prescribed authority:
Provided that where there is no Chairman or
Chief Officer in respect of any area, the Veterinary
Officer shall be the sole prescribed authority.
(2) Where the authority prescribed under subrule (1) or sub-rule (5) refuses to issue a certificate
under the proviso to section 3, it shall record the reasons for the refusal and no such refusal shall be ma.de
unless the person applying for the certificate has been
given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(3) ............................................................. .
(4) A bull, bullock or ·she-buffalo in respect of
which a certificate has been issued under section 3
shall not be slaughtered at any place other than the
place indicated in the certificate and it shall be slaughtered within 20 days of the date of the receipt of the
certificate by the person in whose favour it is issued.
(5) In case of difference of op:\nion between the
Veterinary Officer and · the Chairman or Chief Officer,
the matter shall be referred to the Sub-divisional
Animal Husbandry Officer or the District Animal Husbandry Officer, as the case may be, and the certificate
shall be issued or refused according to the decision of
the Sub-divisional Animal Husbandry Officer or the .
District Animal Husbandry Officer, as the case may be.
(6) (a) Any person aggrieved by an order refusing.
to grant a certificate under the proviso to section 3
may, within 15 days of the communication of the
order to him, prefer an appeal-
(i) where the order is passed by the District
Animal Husbandry Officer under sub-rule (5) ·to the
Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry;
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
x96o
(ii) where the order is passed by the Sub-divisioAbd 1 H k.
nal Animal Husbandry Officer, under sub-rule (5), to
Qurai;,i ©-•0 ;;::,,s the District Animal Husbandry Officer and
v.
(iii) where the order is passed by the authority
The State of Bihar prescribed under sub-rule (1) to the Sub-divisional
Animal Husbandry Officer, if there is one; if not, to
s. K. Das f.
the District Animal Husbandry Officer;
(b) The appeal shall not be decided against the
appellant unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that
they are "Kassa.is" by profession and they earn their
living by slaughtering cattle only (not goats or sheep
which are slaughtered by "Chiks"); that they have
the fundamental right to carry on their profession and
trade; and that s. 3 of the Act read with r. 3 imposes
unreasonable restrictions-restrictions not in the interests of the general publio-on their fundamental
right and therefore they are not saved by cl. (6) of
Art. 19 of the Constitution. Some of these arguments
were considered by this Court in Md. Hanif Quareshi
v. The State of Bihar (1) and it was pointed out that
the test of reasonableness should be applied to each
individual statute impugned and no abstract standard,
or general pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down
as applicable to all cases. It referred to the decision
in State of Madras v. V. G. Row(') and repeated what
was said therein that ':the nature of the right alleged
to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the
restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the
evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion
of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the
time, should all enter into the judicial verdict." Another consideration which has to be kept in mind is
that "the legislature is the best judge of what is good
for the community, by whose suffrage it comes into
existence ................... "
(See The State of Bihar v.
Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (')). But the ultimate responsibility for determining the validity of the law must rest with the
(1) [1959] S.C.R. 629.
(2) [1952] s.c.R. 597.
(3) [1952] S.C.R. 88?-
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
621
Court and the Court must not shirk that solemn duty
r96o
cast on it by the Constitution. We must, therefore,
Abd 1 H k.
approach the problem before us in the light of the Qurais~i ;
di~ers
principles laid down by this Court.
v.
The most pertinent question is-having regard to The state of Biliar
all the relevant circumstances, is the age of 25 years
laid down in s. 3 a reasonable restriction on the right
5 · K. Das J.
of the petitioners in the interests of the general public? We are unable to say that' it is. Apart from the
affidavits made on behalf of the petitioners and the
respondent State, a large volume of authoritative and
expert opinion has been placed before us which shows
beyond any doubt that a bull, bullock or she-buffalo
does not-rema"in useful after 14 or 15 years and only
a few of them live up to the age of 25. In the Report
of the Cattle Preservation and Development Committee, published by the Mjnistry of Agriculture, it is
recommended by the Committee that the slaughter of
animals over 14 years of age and unfit for work as
also animals of any age permanently unable to work
owing to injury or deformity, should be allowed. In
the Report on the Marketing of Meat in India (published by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture) there
is a reference to a draft Bill circulated by the Ministry of Agriculture (page 112 of the Report) which
contains a clause that animals over 14 years of age
and unfit for work may be slaughtered on a certificate
from a Veterinary Officer. In the Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India, again published by the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture, occurs the following passage as to the price of animals with reference
to their age :
· "Young· draught animals up to the age of 4
years-Peiug raw and untrained-fetch comparatively
low pr~bes. ~ Between 4 and 8 years of age, the animals are in the prime of their youth and render best
service, '°'and fetch maximum prices. From the 8th
year onwards old age sets in, and a graded decline is
observed in their capacity to work and consequently
prices depreciate considerably."
In a Food and Agricultural Organisation study of
cattle in India. and Pakistan (Zebu Cattle of India and
19
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
z96o
Pakistan, page 94) it is stated that the active breeding
Abd 1 8 k'
life of a bull is estimated to be about 10 years. In
Qurais~i &• dt~ers Black's Veterinary Dictionary (edited by W. C. Miller
v.
and G. P. West, fifth edition) it is stated that pedigree
The State of Biliar bulls may reach 12 or 14 years of age before being
discarded; and cattle seldom live longer than 15 or 16
s. K. D_as J.
years, and when they do, their age is usually of no
immediate importance. In another publication of the
Ministry of Agricultui;>e called 'Problems of Cattle
Insurance' under Indian conditions, it is stated that
the life of cattle is comparatively much shorter, the
maximum age being only about 15 years. There is an
interesting chart relating to the determination of age
in cattle in a publication called 'Cattle Development
in Uttar Pradesh' by R. L. Kaura, Director of Animal
Husbandry; that chart shows that at 11 years incisors
appear smaller due to wearing out; at 12 years space
appears between the teetlt: and after 12 teeth wear
out C<instantly and roots remain far apart from one
another. 1 As against all this expert opinion the respondent State has relied on the chart embodying some
useful data about domestic animals, prepared by
Major A. C. Aggarwala, Director of Veterinary Services, Punjab, and R. R. Gulati, Superintendent,
Veterinary Department, J ullandur, which shows the
sterility age of a buffalo at 15 and average age at 25,
and of a cow sterility at 15 and 16 years and average
life 22 years.
We are clearly of the view that the almost unanimous opinion of experts is that after the age of 15,
bulls, bullocks and buffaloes are no longer useful for
breeding; draught. and other purposes and whatever
little use they may have then is greatly offset by the
economic disadvantages of feeding and maintaining
unserviceable cattle-disadvantages to whi4 we had
referred in much greater detail in Md. Han if Quq.reshi' .s
case (' ).
Section 3 of the Bihar Act in so far as it has
increased the age limit to 25 in respect of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes, imposes an· unreasonable
restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners,
a restriction moreover which cannot be said to be in
(1) (1,959] S.C.R. 629.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
623
the interests of the general public, and to that extent
1960
it is void. We may here repeat what we said in
.
Ohintaman Rao v. The State of Ma<lhya Prq,desh (1):
Ab~uhl. ~ak0
•.mh
Th
. .
.
Qurais • ..,,.
, •rs
"
e phrase 'reasonable restriction' connotes that
v.
the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of The State of Bihar
the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive
nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the s. /{. Das J.
public. The word 'reasonable' implies intelligent care
and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which
reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or
excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain
the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a
proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in
Art. 19(l)(g) and the social control permitted by clause
(6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that
quality."
As to r. 3 the grievances of the petitioners are these.
Under the rule the prescribed authority for the purpose of s. 3 of the Act consists of the Veterinary
Officer aruZ the Chairman· or Chief Officer of a District
Board, Municipality etc. Unless both of them concur,
no certificate for slaughter can be granted. It is
pointed out that the Chairman or Chief Officer would
be a layman not in a position to judge the age or usefulness of cattle. The result would be that'the animal
in respect of which a certificate is required may have
to be shown to the Veterinary Officer ~s also the Chairman or Chief Officer, who may not be . staying at the
same place as the Veterinary Officer. If the two differ,
the matter has to be referred to the Sub-divisional
Animal Husbandry Officer. This procedure, it is contended, will involve the expenditure of so much money
and time that it will not be worthwhile for the petitioners to ask for a certificate, or having got a· certificate, to slaughter the animaL An animal which is
above 15 or which has become useless generally costs
much less than a young, serviceable animal. If the
petitioners have to incur all the expenditure which
the procedure laid down by r. 3 must necessarily cost
them, then they must close down their trade. As to
the right of appeal from an order refusing to grant a
(1) [1950] S.C.R. 759, 763.
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
. •960
certificate, it is contended that that right is also
Abd 1 H k.
illusory for all practical purposes. To take the animal
Qurais~i &a o~7ers to. tll:e De~uty Director of Animal Husbandry or ~11:e '-
v.
District Ammal Husbandry Officer or the Sub-d1v1Th• Stat• of Biharsional Animal Husbandry Officer, as the case may be,
and to keep and feed the animal for the period of the
s. K. Das J.
appeal and its hearing will cost more than the price of
the animal itself.
We consider that these grievances of the petitioners
have substance, and judged from the practical point of
view, the provisions of r. 3 impose disproportionate
restrictions on their right. It is difficult to understand
why the Veterinary Officer, who has the necessary
technical knowledge, cannot be trusted to give the
certificate and why it should be necessary to resort to
a complicated procedure to resolve a possible difference of opinion between two officers, later followed by
a still more expensive appeal.
We, therefore, hold r. 3 also to be bad in so far as
it imposes disproportionate restrictions indicated
above, on the right of the petitioners.
(2) We now proceed to consider the Uttar Pradesh
Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958.
After the decision of this Court in Md. Han if Quareshi
v. The State of Bihar (1) an Ordinance was passed called the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter
(Amendment) Ordinance, 1958. This Ordinance was
later repealed and replaced by the Act. The petitioners say that in the Bill as originally drafted the
age limit below which slaughter was not permissible
was put at 15 years; but the Select Committee increased it to 20 years. It will probably be best, for clearness sake, to set forth not the whole provisions of the
Act, for that would be too lengthy, but those which
form most directly the subject matter on which the
controversy turns. Section 3 of the Act reads (omitting portions not relevant for our purpose)-
"S. 3(1) Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer
or cause to be offered for slaughter-
(a) .............................................................. .
(1) [1959] S.C.R. 629.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
625
(b) a bull or bullock, unless he has obtained in
~~
respect thereof a certificate in writing, from the com~
Abdul Hakim
petent authority of the area in which the bull or Quraishi & Others
bullock is to be slaughtered, certifying that it is fit for
v.
slaughter .. ,
The State o/Bihar
(2) No bull or bullock, in respect of which a certificate has been issued under sub-section (l)(b) shall be
5· K. Das J.
slaughtered at any place other than the place indicated in the certificate or within twenty days of the date
of issue of the certificate.
(3) A certificate under sub.section (l)(b) shall be
issued by the competent authority, only after it has,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, certified that-
(a) the bull or bullock is over the age of twenty
years; and
- (b) in the case of a bull, it has beco,me permanently unfit and unserviceable for the purpose of
breeding and, in the case of a bullock, it has become
permanently unfit and unserviceable for the purposes
of draught and any kind of agricultural operation:
Provided that the permanent unfitness or unserviceability has not been caused deliberately.
(4) The competent authority shall, before issuing
the certificate under sub-section (3) or refusing to
issue the same, record its order in writing. Any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority,
under this section, may, within twenty days of the
date of the order, appeal . against' it to the State
Government, which may pass such orders thereon as
it may deem fit.
(5) The State Government may, at any time, for
the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or
propriety of the action taken under this section, call
for and examine the record of any case and may pass
such orders thereon as it may deem fit.
(6) Subject to the provisions herein contained any
action taken under this section, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question."
On behalf of the petitioners it has been argued that
s. 3 imposes a number of unreasonable restrictions.
Firstly, it is urged that the age-limit with regar4 to bulls
or bullocks is put too high, viz. at 20 years. This is an
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
'960
aspect which we have already considered in relation
Abdul Haki
to the Bihar Act. What we have said about the ageQuraishi .., o1;.., limit in that connexion applies equally to the Uttar
v.
Pradesh Act. The 8th Live-stock Census, 1956 shows
The State of Bihar that in Uttar Pradesh bulls and bullocks over 3 years
5 Kof age, not in use for breeding or work, numbered as
•
·Das J.
many as 126,201 in 1956 as compared to 162,746 in
1951. The Municipal Manual, Uttar Pradesh, Vol. l,
contains a direction that for slaughter of animals,
bullocks and male buffaloes in good state of health
below ten years of age should be included. Secondly,
it is pointed out that not being content with fixing an
unreasonably high age-limit, the impugned provision
imposes a double restriction. It says that the animal
must be over twenty years in age and must also be
permanently unfit and unserviceable; and in the case
of a bullock, the unfitness must be for "any kind of
agricultural operation" and not merely for draught
purposes. The result of this double restriction, it is
stated, is that even if the animal is permanently unserviceable and unfit at an earlier age, it cannot be
slaughtered unless it is over twenty years in age.
Before a certificate can be given, the animal must fulfil two conditions as to ( l) age and (2) permanent unfitness.
We consider this to be a demonstrably unreasonable restriction.
In Md. Hanif Quareshi's
case (1) this Court had said that a total ban on the
slaughter of bulls and bullocks after they had ceased
to be capable of breeding or working as draught animals was not in the interests of the general public.
Yet this is exactly what the impugned provision does by
imposing a double restriction. It lays down that even
if the animal is permanently unserviceable, no certificate can be given unless it is more than 20 yea.rs in
age. The restriction will in effect put an end to the
trade of the petitioners.
Thirdly, the impugned provision ~ro~ides (1) that
the animal shall not be slaughtered w1thm 20 days of
the date of the issue of the certificate and (2) that any
person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority may appeal to the State Goyernment wit~in 20
days. It is to be noted that the right of appeal is not
(I) (1959) S.C.R. 629.
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
627
confined to a refusal to grant a certificate as in the
r96o
Bihar Act, but the right is given to any per~on / Abdul Hakim
aggrieved by the order of the competent authonty.:Quraishi c!>- Others
In other words, even when a certificate is given, any
v.
·
person, even a member of the public, who feels aggrie- The Stat• of Bihar
ved by it may prefer an appeal and hold up the slau-
-
ghter of the animal for a long time. From the prac5· K. Das f.
tical point of view these restrictions really put a total
ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks even after
i;het have ceased to be useful, and we must hold,
following our decision in Md. Hanif Quareshi's case (1)
that s. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Act in so far as it imposes unreasonable restrictions on the right of the
petitioners as to slaughter of bulls a.nd bullocks
infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners and
is to that extent void.
(3) Now, we come to the Madhya Pradesh Act.
Several provisions of this Act have been challenged
before us as imposing unreasonable restrictions on the
fundamental right of the petitioners. Section 4 deals
with prohibition of slaughter of agricuHmral cattle.
The expression 'agricultural cattle' means an animal
specified in the schedule: it means cows of all ages;
calves of cows and of she-buffaloes; bulls; bullocks;
and male and female buffaloes. As we have stated
earlier, we are concerned in these oases with the
validity of the restrictions placed on the slaughter of
bulls, bullocks and buffaloes. Now, s. 4 is in these
terms:
"S.