# MOHD. HAN!]' QU ARES HI & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

- **Citation:** [1959] 1 S.C.R. 629
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959
- **Bench:** S. R. DAs C. J, Venkatarama Aiyar, S. K. DAs, Gajendragadkar, VIVIAN BosE
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohd-han-qu-ares-hi-others-v-the-state-of-bihar-1534
- **Pages:** 62

## Headnote

Cow slaughter-Legislation placing total ban-If Constitutional
•
-Directive Principles of State Policy, value of-Fundamental rights
~
-Reasonable restrictions--Test-Intervention in Supreme Court
proceedings, when permissible-Bihar Preservation and Improvement
of Animals Act, r955 (Bihar II of r956)-U. P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act, r955 (U. P. I of r956)-C. P. and Berar Animal
Preservation Act, r949 (C. P. and Berar Lll of r949)-Constitution
of India, Arts. r4, r9, 48-Supreme Court Rules, 0. XLI, r. 2.
•
•
·~
The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Ac':,
l95S, put a total ban on the slaughter of all categories of animals
of the species of bovine cattle. The U. P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955, put a total ban on the slaughter of cows
and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and
calves.
The C. P. and Berar
Animal Preservation Act,
1949, placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows, male
or female calves of cow,
bulls, bullocks, and heifers and
the sla1,1ghter of buff;lloes (male or female, adults or calves) was
permitted only under a certificate granted by the proper authorities.
No exception was made in any of these Acts permitting
slaughter of cattle even for bow1 fide religious purposes.
These
three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principles
of State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution.
The
petitioners, who were engaged in the butcher's trade and its
subsidiary undertakings, challenged the constitutional validity
of the three Acts on the grounds that they infringed their funda- ·
mental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, r9(r)(g) and 25 of the
Constitution. The respondents contended that the impugned
.Acts were constitutional and valid as they were made in consonance with the directive principles of Art. 48 ·which were
superior to the fundamental rights and that the impugned Acts
did not offend Art. 14, l9(1)(g) or 25 :
. Held, (i) that a total ban on the slaugh.ter of cows of all
ages and calves of cows and of she-buffaloes, male and 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 buffalo~).
as long as they were capable of being used as milch or draught
cattle, was also reasonable and valid; and
.
•
(iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls
April 23.
630
SUPR.EME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
, 95s
and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased to be capable
of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals
/lt!ohd. Hanif
was not in the interests of the general public and \vas invalid.
Quarcshi
The directive in Art. 48 for taking steps for preventing the
v.
.
slaughter of animals is quite explicit and positive and contemThe- State 0! Biha~-plates a ban on the slaughter of the several categories of animals
specified therein, namely, CO\VS •and calves and other cattle
which answer the description of milch or draught cattle. The
protection is confined only to cows and calves and to those animals which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk
or of doing work as draught cattle but does not extend to cattle
\Vhich at one ti1ne were milch or draught cattle but which have
ceased to be such. The directive principles of State policy set
out in Part IV of the Constitution have to conform to and run as
subsidiary to the fundamental rights in Part III.
State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam
Dorairajan, [1951]
S.C.R. · 525, followed.
The ban on the slaughter of cows even on the Yd ~irban
day did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners
under Art. 25 as it had not been established that the sacrifice of
a cow on that day was an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman
to exhibit his religious belief and idea.
f
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay, [1954]
S.C.R. 1055, applied.
The impugned Acts which affected only the butchers who
slaughtered cattle and not the butchers who slaughtered sheep
or goats, did not offend

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 140,858. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
MOHD. HAN!]' QU ARES HI & OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(and connected petition)
629.
(S. R. DAs C. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, S. K. DAs,
GAJENDRAGADKAR .and VIVIAN BosE JJ.)
Cow slaughter-Legislation placing total ban-If Constitutional
•
-Directive Principles of State Policy, value of-Fundamental rights
~
-Reasonable restrictions--Test-Intervention in Supreme Court
proceedings, when permissible-Bihar Preservation and Improvement
of Animals Act, r955 (Bihar II of r956)-U. P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act, r955 (U. P. I of r956)-C. P. and Berar Animal
Preservation Act, r949 (C. P. and Berar Lll of r949)-Constitution
of India, Arts. r4, r9, 48-Supreme Court Rules, 0. XLI, r. 2.
•
•
·~
The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Ac':,
l95S, put a total ban on the slaughter of all categories of animals
of the species of bovine cattle. The U. P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955, put a total ban on the slaughter of cows
and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and
calves.
The C. P. and Berar
Animal Preservation Act,
1949, placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows, male
or female calves of cow,
bulls, bullocks, and heifers and
the sla1,1ghter of buff;lloes (male or female, adults or calves) was
permitted only under a certificate granted by the proper authorities.
No exception was made in any of these Acts permitting
slaughter of cattle even for bow1 fide religious purposes.
These
three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principles
of State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution.
The
petitioners, who were engaged in the butcher's trade and its
subsidiary undertakings, challenged the constitutional validity
of the three Acts on the grounds that they infringed their funda- ·
mental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, r9(r)(g) and 25 of the
Constitution. The respondents contended that the impugned
.Acts were constitutional and valid as they were made in consonance with the directive principles of Art. 48 ·which were
superior to the fundamental rights and that the impugned Acts
did not offend Art. 14, l9(1)(g) or 25 :
. Held, (i) that a total ban on the slaugh.ter of cows of all
ages and calves of cows and of she-buffaloes, male and 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 buffalo~).
as long as they were capable of being used as milch or draught
cattle, was also reasonable and valid; and
.
•
(iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls
April 23.
630
SUPR.EME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
, 95s
and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased to be capable
of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals
/lt!ohd. Hanif
was not in the interests of the general public and \vas invalid.
Quarcshi
The directive in Art. 48 for taking steps for preventing the
v.
.
slaughter of animals is quite explicit and positive and contemThe- State 0! Biha~-plates a ban on the slaughter of the several categories of animals
specified therein, namely, CO\VS •and calves and other cattle
which answer the description of milch or draught cattle. The
protection is confined only to cows and calves and to those animals which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk
or of doing work as draught cattle but does not extend to cattle
\Vhich at one ti1ne were milch or draught cattle but which have
ceased to be such. The directive principles of State policy set
out in Part IV of the Constitution have to conform to and run as
subsidiary to the fundamental rights in Part III.
State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam
Dorairajan, [1951]
S.C.R. · 525, followed.
The ban on the slaughter of cows even on the Yd ~irban
day did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners
under Art. 25 as it had not been established that the sacrifice of
a cow on that day was an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman
to exhibit his religious belief and idea.
f
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay, [1954]
S.C.R. 1055, applied.
The impugned Acts which affected only the butchers who
slaughtered cattle and not the butchers who slaughtered sheep
or goats, did not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The
different categories of animals being susceptible of classification
into separate groups on the basis'of their usefulness to society,
the bntchers who kill each category may also be placed in distinct classes according to the effect produced on society by the
carrying on of their respective occupations. This classification
is based on an intelligible differentia which places the petitioners in a well defined class and distinguishes them from those
who slaughter sheep or goat~ and this differentia has a close
connection with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned Acts, namely, the preservation, protection and improvement of livestock.
In determining the question of the: reasonableness of restrictions imposed •m the fundamental rights conferred by Art.
r9(r)(g) the Court cannot proceed on a general notion of what is
reasonable in the abstract or even on the consideration of what
is reasonable from the point of view of the person or persons on
whom the restrictions are imposed.
What the Court has to do
is to consider whether the restrictions imposed are reasoll'able in
the interests of the general public.
The test of reasonableness
lias been laid down in State of Madras v. V. G. Row, [1952] S.C.R.
597 at 602. It should also be remembered that the legislature
•
~.-.
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
631
is the best judge of what is good for the community.
Though a
r958
constitutional question cannot be decided on the grounds of the
sentiment of a section of the people, it has to be ta){en into
Mohd. Hanif
consideration, though only as one of the elements, in arriving at
Quareshi
a judicial verdict as to the reasonableness df the restrictions.
v
The effect ~f the impugned Acts on the fundamental rights The State of Ilihar
of the petitioners under Art. r9(r)(g) is direct and instantaneous
as soon as the Acts are brought into force, and it has to be
determined whether they can be justified under cl. (6) of Art. 19.
The country is in short supply of milch cattle, breeding bulls
•
and working bullocks, and a total ban on the slaughter of these
~
which are essential to the national economy for the supply of
milk, agricultural working power and manure is a reasonable
restriction in the interests of the general public. But a total
ban on the slaughter of useless cattle, which involves a wasteful
drain on the nation's cattle feed which is itself in short supply
and which would deprive the useful cattle of much needed
nourishment, cannot be justified as being in the interests of the
genend public.
·,.
Under 0. XLI, r. z, of the Supreme Court Rules intervention is permitted only to the Attorney-General of India or the
Advocates-General for the States.
There is no other provision
for permitting a third party to intervene in the proceedings
before the Supreme Court.
In practice, however, the Supreme
Court, in exercise of its·inherent powers, allows a third party to
intervene when such third party is a party to some proceedings
in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts where the same or
similar questions are in jssue, for the decision of the Supreme
Court will conclude the case of that party.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Petitions Nos. 58, 83, 84,
103, 117, 126, 127, 128, 248, 144 & 145 of 1956 & 129
of 1957.
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of ]'undamental Rights.
H.J. Umrigar, N. H. Hingorani and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the petitioners in all the petitions except
Petition No. 103 of 1956. The impugned Acts infringe
the fundamental rights under Art. 19(l)(g;J of the petitioners who are butchers, tanners, gut merchants,
curers and cattle dealers to carry on their respective
tr!i.des.
Where, as in the present case, the enactment
on th~ . face of it violates a fundamental right the
burden lies on those who support it to show that
it falls within the purview of cl. (6) of Art. rn.
Saghi1~
Ahmed v. The State of U.P., ([1955] 1 S90.R. 707 at 726);
•
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
x958
Chiranjitlal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, ([1950]
Mohd. Hanif
S.C.R. 869 at 891-892).
The impugned Acts put a
Quareshi
total ban on the trade and business of the petitioners
v.
who kill only cattle. Total prohibition of a trade
The State of Bihar which is not immoral or obnoxious can never be
reasonable restriction within the meaning of cl. (6) of
Art. 19.
Chintaman Rao v. The State of
JJ1~adhya
Pradesh, ( [1950] S.C.R. 759 at 765); R. M. Sheshadri
v. The District Magistrate ( [1955] 1 S.C.lt. 686 at 689,
690); Coovei:jee B. Bhar-ucha v. The Exc·ise Commissioner, ( [1954] S.C. R. 873); Rashid Ahmed v. The
llfunicipal Board,
Kairana, ( [1950]
S.C.R. 566).
Total ban on the slaughter of cattle is not in the
interests of the general public.
Animal husbandry
will suffer by a totc;l ban. There is shortage of fodder
and pasture in the country and the useless anp uneconomic cattle will depri vc the useful cattle of these
things.
Setting up of Gosadans for the uneconomiu
cattle will be a tremendous waste of public money.
[Counsel referred to Yarious official reports in t.his ·
connection.]
The impugned Acts create an odious discrimination
between butchers and persons dealing solely in cows,
bulls, etc., and those dealing in sheep and goats, and
offend Art. 14.
Those Acts which single out the petitioners' community which kills only cows, bulls, etc.,
are hostile and discriminatory legislation.
Ye Cong
Eng v. Trinidad, (70 L. Ed. 1059 at 1071); Fowler v.
Rhode Island, (97 L. Ed. 828); Lane v. Wilson, (83
L. Ed. 1281 at 1287); Ligget Go. v. Baldrige, (73 L. Ed.
204).
The impugned Acts '1lso contravene Art. 25 as they
prohibit the M ussalmans from performing the religious
practice of the community to sacrifice the cow on the
· occasion of. Bakr Id. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v.
The State of Bomba.y, ([19,'54] S.C.R. 1055 at 1063).
The directive principles of State policy set out in
Art. 48 can never override fundament'11 rights. 1
1he
State of JJ!ladras v. Sm. Chainpakani Dorairajan,.([1951.J
.S.C.R. 525 at 530); Saghir Ahmed's Case, ( [1955] l
S.C.R. '/07 at 727).
The impugned Acts traverse
beyond th? diructi ve principles in Art. 48.
&
..
-··
("
r
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
633
The Bihar and the Madhya Pradesh Acts which
z958
affect inter-State trade in cattle and beef offend Art.
Mohd. Hanif
301 and are void as the assent of the President was
Quareshi
not taken before enacting them.
v.
Frank Anthony and ](. L. Mehta, for the petitioners The State 0! l'ihar
in Petition No. 103 of 1956.
Section 9 of the U. P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act makes the slaughtering of cattle a cognisable and non-bailable offence.
This and other provisions of the Act are ex facie restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on
their trade. The onus is on the respondents to show
that the restrictions are reasonable restrictions in the
interests of the general public. Chintaman Rao v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, ( [1950] S. C. R. 759 at
763); Saghir Ahmed v. The State of U. P., ( [1955] 1
S. C, R. 707 at 726).
The legislation is colourable and
mala fide and is inspired by religious motives. State of
Madras v. 'V. G. Rao; ( [1952] S. C. R. 59.7).
Article 48
in so far as its imposes blanket ban on cow would have
to yield to Art 19 (1) (g).
The restrictions in the Act
amount to total prohibition and extinction of the trade
of beef butchers. Saghir
Ahmed's case; Dwarka
Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of U. P., ( [1954]
S.C.R. 803), Fairmout Creamery Co. v.111innesota, (71 L.
Ed. 893 at 897).
The impugned Act offends Art. 14
as it discriminates against the beef butchers. These
butchers have a legal right to slaughter cow for food
or sacrifice. Naubahar Singh v. Qadir Bux, (A. I. R.
1930 All. 753); Shahbazkhan v. Umrao Pilri, (I. L. R,.
30 All. 181); Emperor v. Mirhammad Yakub, (I. L. R.
32 All. 571).
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, with
Mahabir Prasad, Advocate-General of Bihar and S. P.
Varma (respondent in Petitions Nos. 58, 83 and 84 of
1956), and with R. H. Dhebar, for the State of Bombay
(respondent in Petition No. 117 of 1956). The legislature has thought fit that slaughter of cattle should
be stopped in the interests of animal husbandry and
publiC"policy. It is not for the Court to say that such
a policy should not have been adopted.
Bot.h on th~
·~
question of policy and the ex1ent of the restrictions
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959)
the Uourt should interfere only if it is convinced that
in n'o view of the matter could the restrictions be
iitohd. Eanif
Quareshi
reasonable. There are two conflicting opinions on
v.
this controversial matter, i. e., whether there should be
The State of Bika•·total ban or only partial ban. In such a case the
opinion of the legislators must prevail and the Court
should not interfere where there is controversy as to
facts.
State of 1l1adras v. V. G. Rao, ( [1952] S. C. R.
597 at 606); The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja
Sir Kameshwar Singh, ( [1952] S. C. R. 889 at 941);
Arumughwn v. State of Madras, (I. L. R. [1953] Mad.
937).
Unless it can be said that the restrictions have
no bearing on the object sought to be achieved the
legislation must be upheld. Article 37 enjoins the
State to apply the directive principles of State policy
in Part IV. of the Constitution in making laws. , The
legislation is in accordance with the direction givei1 in
Art. 48 .•
.
The objeut of the legislation is not to c()ntrol any
trade or industry but to improve the breed of cattle
and to· organise animal husbandry and agriculture.
Unless the legislation directly hits trade or business it
does not infringe Art. 19 (1) (g).
A. K. Gopalan v. The
State, ( [1950] S. C. R. 88 at 101); Ram Singh v. The
State of Delhi, ( [1951] S. C. R. 451 at 455-457); R. S.
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab, ( [1955] 2
S. C.R. 225); State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala, (A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 699 at 721).
B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the State of Bombay
(respondent in Petitions Nos. 126 to 128 and 248 of
1956), and for the State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent in Petition No. 144 of 1956).
JJ1. Adhicai·y, Advocate-General .for the State of
Madhya Pradesh and I. N. Shroff, for the State of
Madhya Pradesh (respondent in Petition. No. 145 of
1956), adopted the arguments of C. K. Daphtary.
H. N. San1Ja.l, Additional Solicitor-General of India,
G. C.
Ma.th·~r and G. P. Lal, for the State of U. P.
(respondent in Petitions Nos. 103 of 1956 and '129 of
l957).
T.he provisions of the U. P. Act have a reasonable relation to the purpose in view i.e. the directive
S;C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
635
in Art. 48 and consequently the Act .cannot be said to
r958
offend Art.19 (1) (g).
Chintaman Rao v. The State of
Madhya, Pradesh, ( [Hl50] S. C. R. 759 at 763). AccordMohd. Hanif
ing to t.he facts and figures given in the Gosamvardhan
Quamhi
Enquiry Committee's Report the cattle population The stat:· of Rihar
was actually decreasing and total ban on slaughter
was necessary to protect and preserve the cattle. The
State of U. P. had made ample provisivns for looking
after the decrepit cattle, and such cattle also was not
une9onomic as it yielded hides and manure.
The U. P. Act which prohibits the slaughter of
cattle but not that of buffaloes does not offend Art. 14
as the discrimination is based upon proper classification. The buffalo does not require any protection.
The female buffalo is in no danger as its yield of milk
is very high. The he-buffalo is not very useful for
draug"ht purposes and there is no, need to protect it.
Besides, the buffalo population is steadily increasing.
The u: P. Act does not violate Art. 25.
Article 25
of our Constitution is similar to Art. 8 of the Irish
Constitution. There is no religious compulsion on the
Mussalmans to sacrifice a cow on Bakr Id Day.
Thakurdas Bhargava, as amicus curiae. The directive principles of State policy in Part IV of the Constitution are superior to fundamental rights and the
enactments which are in pursuance of the directions
given by Art. 48 are va.lid and constitutional even
though they may infringe the fundamental rights of
the petitioners. The total ban on cow slaughter in
the impugned Acts is justified and is in the interest:>
of the general public.
The facts and figures given in
the official reports are inaccurate, and there is no
real shortage of fodder or pasture land. There is
shortage of milk in the country and it is essential to
protect the cow.
The bullock takes the 11J.rgest share
in meeting the power requirement for our agricultural
production.
Cow dung manure contributes about
rupees 63 crores per year to our national income.
H.J .. Umrigar, in reply.
Frank Anthony, also replied.
Bi
•
.......
!t!ohd. Hanif
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
1958. April 23.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Quareshi
DAS C. J.-These 12 petitions under Art. 32 of our
h
v.
.1 Constitution raise the question of the constitutional
T e State of Bi •ar
l 'd 't
f th
1 1 · 1 t ·
t
b
_
va 1 1 y o
ree severa eg1s a ive enac ments
ann-
. Das c. J.
ing the slaughter of certain animals passed by the
States of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh
respectively. The controversy concerning the slaughter of cows has been raging in this country for a
number of years and in the past it generated considerable illwill amongst the two major communities resulting even in riots and civil commotion in some places.
We are, however, happy to note that the rival
•
contentions of the parties to these proceedings have
been urged before us without importing into them the
heat of communal passion and in a rational and
objective way, as· a matter involving constitutional
issues should be. Some of these petitions come from
Bihar, some from U. P. and the rest from Madhya.
Pradesh, but as they raise common questions of law,
it will be convenient to deal with and dispose of them
together by one common judgment.
Petitions Nos. 58 of 1956, 83 of 1956 and 84 of 1956
challenge the validity of the Bihar. Preservation and
Improvement of Animals Act,. 1955 (Bihar II of 1956),
hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act. In Petition
No. 58 of 1956 there are 5 petitioners, all of whom are
Muslims belonging to the Quraishi community which
is said to be numerous and an important section of
Muslims of this country. · The members of the community are said to be mainly engaged in the butchers'
trade and its subsidiary undertakings such as the sale
of hides, tannery, glue making, gut making and blooddehydrating, while some of them are also engaged in
the sale and .purchase of cattle and in their distribution over the various areas in the State of Bihar as
· well as in the other States of the Union of India.
Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are butchers and meat vendors who, according to the petition, only sl~ghter
cattle and not sheep or goats and are called " Kasais"
in contradistinction to the "Chicks" who slaughter
S.CJ.R.
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS
637,
only sheep and. goats. After slaughtering the cattle
r958
these petitioners sell the hides to tanners or hide
Mohd .. Hanif
merchants who are also members of their community
Qttareshi
and the intestines are sold to gut merchants. It is
v.
said that there are approximately 500 other Kasais in The State of Bihar.
Patna alone apart from 2 lacs of other Kasais all over
the State of Bihar. The correctness of these figures is
Das c. J.
not admitted by the respondent State but we do not'
doubt that the number of Kasais is considerable.
Petitioner No. 3 is the owner of a tanning factory and
Petitioner No. 4 is a gut merchant, while Petitioner
No. 5 is the General Secretary of Bihar State Jamiatul
Quraish.. In petition No. 83 there are 180 petitioners
residing at different places in the State of Bihar who
are all Muslims whose occupation is that of Kasais or
cattle dealers or exporters of hides .. In Petition No. 84
there are 170 petitioners all residents of Patna District
who are also Muslims belonging to the Quraishi community and who carry on business as Kasais or dealers
of cattle.. All the petitioners · in these three petitions
are citizens of India.
The Bill, which was eventually passed as the Bihar
Act, was published in the Bihar Gazette on April 20,
1953. The scheme of the Bill, as originally drafted,
was, it is said, to put a total ban only on the slaughter
of cows and calves of cows below three years of age.
The Bill was sent to a Select .Committee and it!? scope
appears to have been considerably enlarged, as will be
seen presently. The Bill, as eventually passed by the
Bihar Legislature, received the assent of the Governor
on December 8, 1955, and was published in the Official
Gazette on January 11, 1956, Section 1 of the Act
came into force immediately upon such publication,
but before any notification was issued under sub-s. (3)
of s. 1 bringing the rest of the Act or any part of it
into force in the State'or any part of it, •the present
petitions were filed in this Court challenging the consti- ·
tutional validity of the Act.
On ap:elications for an
~nterim order restraining the State of Bihar from issu"
ing a ntitification under s. 1(3) of the Act bringing the
Act into operation having been made in these petitions, .
• the respondent State1 . by and through the learned
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
r958
Solicitor General of India, gave an undertaking not to
issue such notification until the disposal of these petillfohd. Hanif
Quam/,,
tions and, in the premises, no order was considered
v,
necessary to be made on those applications.
The Slate of Bihar
Petition N 0. 103 of 1956 has been filed by two
petitioners, who are both Muslims residing in Uttar
Da' c. J.
Pradesh and carrying on business in that State, the
first one as a hide merchant and the second as a
butcher.
Petitioners in Petition No. 129 are eight in
number all of whom are Muslims residing and carrying
on business in Uttar Prad.esh either as gut inerchants
or cattle dealers, or Kasais or beef vendors or bone
dealers or hide merchants or cultivators. All the
petitioners in these two applications are citizens of
India. By these two petitions the petitioners challenge
the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955 (U. P. I of 1956), hereiirnfter
referred to as the U. P. Act and pray for a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent State of
Uttar Pradesh not to take any steps in pursuance of
the U. P. Act or to interfere with the fundamental
rights of the petitioners.
Petitions Nos. 117 of 1956, 126 of 1956, 127 of 1956,
128 of 1956, 248 of 1956, 144 of 1956 and 145 of 1956
have been filed by 6, 95, 541, 58, 37, 976 and 395 petitioners respectivly,allof whom are Muslims belonging
to the Quraishi Community and are mainly engaged in
the butchers' trade and its subsidiary undertaking
such as the supply of hides, tannery, glue making, gutmaking and blood-dehydrating. Most of them reside at
different places which, at the dates of the filing of these
petitions were parts of the State of Madhya Pradesh,
but which or parts of which have, in the course of the
recent re-organisation of the States, been transferred
to and amalgamated with the State of Bombay. In
consequence of such re-organisation of the States the
State of Bombay has had to be substituted for the
respondent State of Madhya Pradesh in the first five
petitions and to be added in the sixth petition, for ·a
part of the district in which the petitioners resill.ed had
. been su transferred, while the ·State of Madhya
Pradesh continues to be the respondent in the seventh
.
•.
·,,
S.U.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
639
petition. By these petitions the petit.ioners all of
:r:95a
whom are citizens of India, challenge the va.lidity of
Mnhd. Hanif
the G. P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949
Quare.lti
(C. P. and Berar LII of 1949), as subsequently
v.
amended.
The State of Bihar
In order to appreciate the arguments advanced for
ana." against the constitutional validity of the three
Das c. J.
impugned Acts ~t will be necessary to refer to the
relevant provisions of the · Constitution under or
pursuant to which they have been made. Reference
must first be made to Art. 48 which will be found in
Chapter IV of the Qonstitution which enshrines what
are called the directive principles of State policy.
Under Art. 37 these directive principles are not enforceaJ;>le by any court of law but are nevertheless fundame:qtal in the governance of the country and are to
be applied by the State in making laws. Article 48
runs thus:-
" Organisation
of agriculture · and
animal husbandry.
48.
The State shall endeavour
to organise
agriculture
and
animal husbandry on mbdern and
scientific lines and shall, in particular, take step§ for preserving
and improving the breeds, and
prohibiting the slaughter, of cows
and calves and bther milch and
draught cattle."
The principal purpose of this articlt>, according to
learned counsel for the petitioners, is to direct the
State to endeavour to organise agriculture and animal
husbandry on mod~rn and scientific lines, and the rest
of t~e provisions of that article are ancillary to this
principal purpose. They contend that the States are
required t.o take steps for preserving and improving
the breeds and for prohibiting the sl~ughter of the
animals specified therein ~nlly with a view to implement that principal purpose, that is to say, only as
parts of the general scheme for organising our agriculture and animal husbandry oh modern and scientific
lines.• Learned· counsel for the petitioners refer to the
marginal nofo to Art. 48 in support of their contention
on this part of the case. · They also rfly on entry 15
,
•
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
,958
in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
That entry reads: "Preservation, protection and im~·
l\<Johd. Iianif
Qnare,J,i
provement of stock arid prevention of animal diseases;
v.
veterinary training and practice." There is no
The ·''"'' 0! B;~., separate legislative head for prohibition of slaughter
D -.
of animals and that fact, they claim, lends support to
"' c. J.
their conclusion that the prohibition of the slaughter
of animals specified in the last part of Art. 48 is only
ancillary to the principal directions for p1'eserv:i,tion,
protection and improvement of stock, which is what
is meant by organising· agriculture and
animal
husbandry.
Learned counsel for., the respondents :i,nd
Pandit Thakurdas Bh:i,rgava, who appears as amicus
cnriae, on the other hand, m:i,intain that the article
contains three distinct and separate directions, each
of which should, they urge, be implemented indel'eiidently and as a separate charge. It is not necessary
for us, on this occasion, to express a final opinion on
this question. Suffice it to say that there is no conflict
between the different parts of this article and indeed
the. two last directives for preserving and improving
the breeds and for the prohibition of slaughter of
certain specified_ animals represent, as is indicated by
the words "in particular", two special aspects of the
preceding general directive for organising agriculture
and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.
\Vhether the last two directives· are ancillary to the
first as contended for by learned counsel for the petitioners or are separate and independent items of directives as cbimcd by counsel on the other side, the
directive for taking steps for preventing the slaughter
of the anim11ls is quite explicit and positive 11nd conte111,pl11tes a ban on the slaughter of t,he several ca.tegories of a.nimals specified therein, namely, cows and
rnilves and otper cattle which answer the description
of milch or draught cattle. The protection recommended by this part of the directive is, in our opinion,
confined only to cows and calves and to those :i,nimals
which are presently or potentially capable of yielding
milk or of doing work as draught cattle but doe's not,
from the' very nature of the purpose for which it is
obviously recommended, extend to cattle which at
.
,
...
• ..
'
~·
.F
•
•
S;C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
641
one time were milch or draught cattle but which have
r958
ceased to be such. It is pursu1J.nt to these directive
-
principles and in exercise of the powers conferred by
M~d. a;~if
Arts. 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with entry
ua~~s"
15 in List .II of the Seventh Schedule thereto that the The State of Bihar
Legislatures of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh have respectively enacted the statute$ which
Das c. J.
are challenged as unconstitutional. In order properly
to appreciate the meaning and scope of the impugned
Acts it has to be borne in mind that each one of those
Acts is a law with respect to "preservation, protection
and improvement of stock '', and their constitutional
validity will have to be judged in that context and
against that background. Keeping this consideration
in view, we proceed now to examine the relevant
provisions of the three Acts.
Tlte title of the Bihar Act is "An Act to provide for
the preservation and improvement of certain animals
in the State of Bihar." Sub-section (3) of s. l provides
that that section shall come into force at once and the
remaining provisions of the Act or any of them shall
come into force on such date as the State Government
may, by notification, appoint and-that different dates
may be appointed for different provisions and for
different areas. Section 2 is the definition section and
the following definitions are to be noted:
"(a) "Animal" means-
(i) bull, bulloc1', cow, heifer, buffalo, calf,
sheep, goat and any other ruminating animal;
(ii) poultry ; and
·
(iii) elephant, horse, camel; ass, mule, dog,
swine and such other domesticated animals as may be
specified in this behalf by the State Government bv
notification in the Official Gazette;
"
. {b) ............................... ~················· .. •··••········•••
(c) "bull" means an uncastrated ma!e above the
age of three years belonging to the species of bovine
cattle;
•
.
(d) "bullock" means a castrated male above the
age of ~hree years belonging to the species specified in
clause (c);
{e) "calf" means a female or a ·Castrated or
•
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19591
·1958
uncastrated male, of the age of three years and below
belonging to the species specified in clause ( c) ;
!vlohd. lian1f
Quamhi
(f). · · · ·" ·''' """' "'""' · · ·' · · ·' · · ·' • ·" • • · ""'" • "' "" · • •
v.
(g) " cow " means a female above the age of three
The State of Biha. years belonging to the species specified in clause (c);
Das C. j.
...................................................................
Section 3, which is the principal section for the purposes of the Bihar Petitions, runs as follows :
"3. Prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull or
bullock.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law
for the time being in force or in any usage or custom
to the contrary, no person shall slaughter a cow, the
calf of a cow, a bull or a bullock ;
Provided that the State Government may, by
general or special order and subject to such conditions
as it may. think fit to impose, allow the slaughter of
any such animal for any medicinal or research purposes."
Section 4 provides for penalties for contravention or
attempted contravention or abetment of contravention of any of the provisions of s. 3.
The remaining ·
provisions in the following three chapters are not
material for our present purpose. It will be noticed
that the words" bull", "bullock"," calf" and" cow"
have been defined in els. (c), (d), (e) and (g) of s. 2 as
belonging to the species of bovine cattle. The expression "species of bovine cattle" is wide enough to include and does in ordinary parlance include buffaloes,
(male, or female adults or calves). Therefore, the
corresponding categories of buffaloes, namely' buffalo
bulls, buffalo bullocks, buffalo calves and she-buffaloes
must be taken as included in the four defined categories of the species of bovine cattle and as such within
the prohibitiDn embodied in s. 3 of the Act. It is to
be noted, however, that the allegations in the petitions
and the affi~avits in opposition proceed on the assumption that buffaloes (male or female adults or calves)
were not within the protection of the section and,
. indeed, when the attention of learned counsel for the
petitionel's was drawn to the reference to the " species
of bovine cattle '.' in each of the four definitions, they
r
,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
643
st.ill made an attempt to support the latter view by
Ig58
suggesting that if buffaloes wore to be included within
the words defined in els. (c), (d), (e) and (g), then there
M~:~,::;•if
v.ras no necessity for specifying it separately in the
v.
definition of" animal" in cl. (a).
This argument does The State of Bihar
not appear to us to be sound at all, for, then, on a
parity of reasoning it was wholly unnecessary to
Das c. J.
specify "heifer" in the definition of ",animal" .. If
" heifer " is not to be included in the definition of
"cow" because "heifer" is separately enumerated in
the definition of" animal " then an astounding result
will follow, namely, that the operative part of s. 3
will not prohibit the slaughter of " heifer " at all-a
result which obviously could not possibly have been
intended. The obvious reason for the enumeration of
the different categories of animals in the definition of
"animal" must have been to provide a word of wide
import so that all those sections where tho wider word
"animal" is used may apply to the different kinds of
animals included within that term. If the intention of
the Bihar legislature was to exclude buffaloes (male or
female adults or calves) from the protection of s. 3
then it must be said that it has failed to fulfil its
intention.
The U. P. Act is intituled "An Act to prohibit the
slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh."
The preamble to the Act recites the expediency "to
prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh". Although the U. P. Act
has been made under entry 15 in List II and presumably pursuant to the directives contained in Art. 48
nowhere in the Act is there any express reference
whl).tever to the "preservation, protection or improvement of stock." Section 2 defines "beef" as meaning
the flesh of cow but does not include the flesh of cow
contained in sealed containers and imported as such in
Uttar Pradesh. Clause (b) is very important, for it
defines "cow " as including a bull, bullock, heifer, or
calf.
Section 3, which is the operative section runs
thus: •
.
" 3.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any .
82
•
-
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
other law for the time being in force or any usage or
custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or
Mohd. Hanif cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offerQttareshi
v.
ed for slaughter any cow in any place in Uttar
r958
The State of Bihar Pradesh."
Two exceptions are made by s. 4 in respect of cows
Das c. f.
suffering from contagious or infectious disease or
which is subjected to experimentation in the interest
of medical or public health research. Section 5 prohibits the sale or transport of beef or beef products in
any form except for medicinal purposes and subject to
the provisions of the exception therein mentioned.
Section 6, on which counsel for the State relies, provides for the establishment, by the State Government
or by any local authority wherever so directed by the
State Government, of institutions as may be nec~ssary
for taking care of uneconomic cows.
Under s. 7 the
State Government may levy such charges or fees, as
may be prescribed for keeping uneconomic cows in the
institutions. Section 8 provides for punishment for
contravention of the provisions of ss. 3, 4 and 5.
Section 9 makes the . offences created by the Act
cognisable and non-bailable. Section 10 gives power
to the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act.
It should be noted that the U. P. Act protects the
" cow", which, according to the definition, includes
only bulls, bullocks, heifer and calves. There is no
reference to the species of bovine cattle and, therefore,
the buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) are
completely outside the protection of this Act.
The C. P. and Berar Act of 1949 was originally
intituled " An Act to provide for preservation of
certain animals by controlling the slaughter thereof,"
and the pi;eamble recited that it was " expedient to
provide for the preservation of certain animals by
controlling the slaughter thereof."
" Animal" was
defined in s. 2 as meaning an animal specified in the
schedule. The schedule specified the following categories of animals, namely, (1) bulls, (2) bullocks, (3) cows,
(4) calves, (5) male and.female buffaloes and (6) buffalo
calves. Sectiqn 4 originally prohibited the slaughter
•
.
.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
645
of an " animal " without certificate. There was then
r958
no total ban on the slaughter of any animal as defined.
In 1951, the C. P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act,
M~~~.::;;nif
1949, was amended by the Madhya Pradesh Act
v.
XXIII of 1951. By this amending Act the words The State of Biliar
" by prohibiting or " were added to the long title and
the preamble before the word " controlling " and a
Das c. J.
new clause was added to s. 2 as cl. (i) (a) defining
"cow" as including a female calf of a cow and subs. I of s. 4 was amended so as to read as follows :
•
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force or in any usage
to the contrary, no person-
(a) shall slaughter a cow; or
(b) shall slaughter any other animal unless he
has obtained in respect of such other animal a certificate 1n writing signed by the executive authority and
the veterinary officer for the area in which the animal
is to be slaughtered that the animal is fit for
slaughter."
Thus a total ban was imposed on the slaughter of
cows and female calf of a cow and the male calf of a
cow, bull, bullock, buffalo (male or female adult or
calf) could be slaughtered on obtaining a certificate.
The Act was further amended in 1956 by Act X of
1956 substituting for the amended definition of" cow"
introduced by the amending Act of 1951 as cl. (l)(a) of
s. 2 of the C. P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act,
1949, a new definition of " cow " as including a male
or female calf of a cow, bull, bullock or heifer and a
new schedule specifying only (1) cows, (2) male and
female buffaloes and (3) buffalo calves was substituted
for the original schedule to the Act. Shortly put the
position in Madhya Pradesh has been this: while
·under the C. P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act,
1949, as it originally stood, the slaughter• of all categories of animals mentioned in the original schedule
were only controlled by the requirement of a certificate from the appropriate authority before the actual
slaughter, by the amending Act XXIII of 1951, a total
ban was imposed on the slaughter of "cows:' which·
was then defined as including only a ~emale calf of a
•
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959)
'958
cow and the slaughter of all other categories of
Mohd. Hanif
animals coming within the original schedule was conQuamhi
trolled and finally after the amending Act X of 1956,
v.
there is now a total ban on the slaughter of" cows"
The State of Bihar which by the new definition includes a male or female
calf of a cow, bull, bullock or heifer so that the male
Das c. J.
and female buffaloes .and buffalo calves (male and
female) can still be slaughtered but on certificate issued
by the proper authorities mentioned .in the Act. The
Madhya Pradesh Act X of 1956, amending the C. P.
-
and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, received
~
the assent of the Governor on · May 18, 1956. The
C. P.