LexHAZI USMANBHAI HASANBHAI QURESHI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
APRIL 17, 1986
[O.CHINNAPPA REDDY, E,S, VENKATARAMIAH, V. BALAKRISHNA
ERADI, R.B. MISRA AND V. KHALID, JJ.]
719
A
B
Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 -
B. 5 - Sub-s.
(IA), els. (c) & (d)/sub-s. (2) - Ban on slaughter of bulls
,
and bullocks below the age of sixteen years - Whether imposes
an unreasonable restriction on fundamental right to carry on
'\trade or profession - Whether discriminatory.
~
c
·-;
Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 & 48 -
Ban on
slaughter of bulls and bullocks below sixteen years - Whether
constitutional and valid.
Sub-section
(l)
of
s. 5 of
the
Bombay
Animal
Preservation Act, 1954 prohibits slaughter of animals except
on a certificate in writing issued by the competent authority
that the animal is fit for slaughter. Sub-section (lA) of s.5,
_..laubstituted by Gujarat Act No. 23 of 1979, prohibits grant of
such a certificate in respect of (a) a cow, (b) the calf of a
cow, whether male or female, (c) a bull below the age of
sixteen years, and (d) a bullock below the age of sixteen
years. It was brought into force retrospectively with effect
.. from November
28, 1978. Sub-section (2) of s. 5 prohibits
Yissue of certificate in respect of animals, to which sub-s •
. , (lA) does not apply, if in the opinion of the competent
authority (s) the animal is useful or likely to become useful
for the purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural
operations, (b) the animal, if male, is useful or likely to
become useful for the purpose of breeding, and (c) the animal,
if female, is useflll or likely to become useful for the
purpose of giving milk or bearing offspring. Sub-section (3)
of s, 5, also substituted by Gujarat Act No. 23 of 1979,
exempts from the purview of s. 5 for bonafide
religious
i>urposes, the slaughter of (i) animals above the age of
fifteen years other than a cow, bull or bullock, (ii) a bull
above the age of fifteen years, and (iii) a bullock above the
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19861 2 s.c.R.
age of fifteen years provided a certificate in writing has
been obtained from the competent authority.
>--
The appellants, who are dealers in beef and other allied
trades, assailed the constitutional validity of the ban
imposed by els. (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA) and sub-s. (3) of
s, 5 of the Act, on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, on
various grounds, but the High Court repelled all of them.
~
In these appeals by certificate, it was contended for
the appellants that the ban on the slaughter of bulls and
bullocks below the age of sixteen years imposed by els. (c)
and (d) of sub-s. (lA) of s. 5 of the Act puts an unreasonable
restriction on their fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) Off'
the Constitution to carry on their trade and profession, and,
that the ban so imposed l.s violative of Art. 14 of
th~
Constitution as it discriminates between dealers who deal in
meat of cows, bulls and bullocks and those who deal in meat of
buffaloes and other animals,
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD : 1. The prescription of the age of sixteen years
in els. (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA) of s. 5 of the Bomb~,
Animal Preservation Act, 1954 cannot be said to be an un-
reasonable restriction looking to th&- balance which has to be
'
struck between public interest, that required useful ani•ls
to be preserved and permitting the appellants to carry on
their trade and profession as mentioned in Art. 19(1)(g) of ,
the Constitution. (729 C-D; H]
1
The longevity of cattle and their useful span of life it{.
the State of Gujarat has increased appreciably with the help
of the scientific advances which have taken place in recent
years, such as better cattle feeding, better medical health
and better animal husbandry services. There is no doubt t!hat
if the scientific tests were to be applied, bulls and bullocks
up to sixteen years of age would be found useful for the
purpose of breeding, draught and other agricultural purposes.
[729B~)
~·
2. Clauses (c) and (d) of sub-s. (lA) of s. 5 of the Act
are not hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is only if the
classification is unreasonable that the impugned provisions
can be struck down. (730 C]
;
HAJI USMANBHAI QURESHI v, STATE
[MISRA, J,]
721
In the instant caae, looking to the different purposes
~or which buff aloes and their progeny on the one hand and cows
and their progeny on the other are used in each State Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.