HASHMATTULLAH versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HASHMATTULLAH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1996 
(AM. AHMADI, C.J. N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
B 
M.P. I0ishik Pashu Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991: Sec-
tion 4(l)(a). 
Total ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks-Even if they became unfit C 
for breeding, draught, milch or other purposes-Held: violative of Articles 
19(1 )(g) and 48 of Constitu.tion of India. 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1tic/e 226. 
Question of fact-Books and mticles by differelll persons-Reliance D 
on-For deciding-Held : mere view of author not based on scientifically 
collected data from reliable source, could not Jami basis of decision of 
Court-Writ Court should be very careful in accepting data to be relied upon 
by it. 
The appellant was engaged in the bntcher's trade and he mainly E 
slaughtered bulls and bullocks which were unfit either for breeding, 
draught or milch purposes. These animals were slaughtered only after they 
were certified as fit for slaughter by the Municipal Corporation in the 
State which had a meat market where the meat was sold under a licence 
granted by the Corporation. 
The M.P. Krishik Pasho Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 
1991 amended Section 4(1) (a) of the M.P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation 
Act, 1959 by virtue of which a total ban had been imposed on the slaughter 
of the bulls and bullocks in the State. 
F 
The appellant challenged the Amending Act of 1991 by filing a writ G 
petition in the High Court. The contention of the appellant was that the 
Amending Act violated the appellant's fundamental right under Article 
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the restrictions now placed were 
unreasonable and not in public interest. It was also the case of· the 
appellant that the presence of a large number of old and useless animals H 
755 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
was bad for the economy and the banning of the slaughter of bulls and 
bullocks was actually in violation of the duty cast on the State by Article 
48 of the Constitution. It was also contended that there was shortage of 
fodder in the State and that preservation of bulls and bullocks above the 
age of 15 years, which had ceased to be useful for breeding, milching, 
B 
draught and other purposes, will have deleterious effect on the agricultural 
economy of the State. It was also submitted that not only will the preser-
vation of these useless animals put a pressure on the scant food and fodder 
available in the State but such animals will also become a menace to the 
standing crop as these useless animals are not cared for by the owners and 
allowed to stray. The High Court had referred to and relied upon a number 
C of articles and books written by different persons in coming to the con-
clusion that bulls and bulloks were useful animals, even if they became old, 
and their slaughter should be banned. The High Court accordingly upheld 
the validity of the Amending Act. 
In the appeal before this Court the respondents relied on some 
D articles and research papers. On the other hand the main thrust of the 
argument on behalf of the appellant was that the Amending Act was yet 
another attempt by the State to impose a total ban on the slaughter of bulls 
and bullocks notwithstanding the fact that similar attempts, made earlier, 
had failed. 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The right of butchers to practice their trade has been 
upheld in three previous decisions of this Court and because there is a 
short supply of milch cattle, total ban on their slaughter was upheld as 
being a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public. Bnt it was 
held in no uncertain terms that a total ban on the slaughter of useless 
cattle, which involves a wasteful drain on the nation's cattle fodder, which 
itself was in short supply and which would deprive the useful cattle of 
much needed nourishment, could not be justified as being in the interest 
G of general public. Absolute ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks is not 
necessary for complying with Article 48 of the Constitution. 
Mohd. Hanif Quraishi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, (1959] SCR 629; 
Abdul Hakim Quraishi and Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1961] 2 SCR 610 and 
Mohd. Fantk v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., [1970] l SCR 156, relied 
H on. 
HASHMATTULLAH v. STATE 
757 
2. Though some literature was placed on record and was sought to A 
be relied upon by the respondent in an effort to show that, with the passage 
o

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