ABDUL HAKIM QURAISHI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS)

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 23-11-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 Improve-
ment of Animals (Amendment) Act, x959 (Bihar I of x959), s. 3-
Bihar 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 Pre-
servation 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 Im-
provement of Animals (Amendment) Act, r958, the Uttar Pra-
desh 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 Chair-
man or Chief Officer of a District Board, Municipality etc., and 
if the two differed, then according to the decision of the Sub-
Dh!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 perma-
nently 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 per-
son 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) pro-
vided 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, bul-
locks 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 rea-
sonable 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 maintain-
ing 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 dis-
proportionate 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 an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.