HINSA VIRODHAK SANGH versus MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESH JAMAT & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 1020 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 4 S.C.R. 1020 
A 
HINSA VIRODHAK SANGH 
{ 
II. 
MIRZAPUR MOTi KURESH JAMAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5469 of 2005) 
B 
MARCH 14, 2008 
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU., JJ.) 
...l_ 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21: 
• 
c 
. Right to practice trade/business - Closure of slaughter 
house during festival - Reasonable restriction . vis-a-vis 
religious tolerance - Held: Resolution passed by Municipal 
Corporation closing municipal slaughter house during 
PARYUSHAN festival observed by Jain community not in 
D 
violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of Constitution as there 
is no clear violation of any constitl!tional provision by such 
-j.. 
resolutions - Since closure of the slaughter house was for a 
., 
short period of nine days, resolutions not putting excessive 
restriction· on the right of butcher community to practice their 
profession - Restriction for a limited period cannot be termed 
E as unreasonable restriction -
During restriction, non-
vegetarian could become vegetarian out of respect for religious 
feeling of other community - The policy of tolerance alone 
could keep the co.untry together despite so much diversity -
Hence nothing unreasonable found in the impugned 
F resolutions as violative of fundamental rights of respondent 
)' 
as granted u!Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 21 - Bombay Provincial 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Resolutions dated 14181 
1999 and 291811999 issued thereunder. 
G 
Delegated legislation - Nature of - Held: Statutory in 
character provided it does not violate provisions of parent 
statutes. 
Delegated legislation - Constitutional validity of - Held : 
A-
Presumption is in favour of Constitutionality thereof - It is only 
H 
1020 
• 
HINSAVIRODHAK SANGH v. MIRZAPUR MOTi 
1021 
KURESH JAMAT & ORS. 
in the limited case of clear violation of provision: beyond a A 
reasonable doubt that the Court should declar:e it to be 
unconstitutional - Judicial restraint - Exercise of 
Respondent No. 1, a registered public charitable trust 
safeguarding the interests of the persons engaged in the 
business of slaughter and sale of livestock; Respondent. 8 
No. 2, an association of persons, engaged in the sale of 
mutton in the city of Ahmedabad; and Respondent No.3, 
an individual, who was doing the business of selling . 
mutton in the city of Ahmedabad filed Writ Petitions before 
the High Court alleging that with a view to appease the C 
Jain community the State Government and th·e. 
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation have passed 
resolutions dated 14-8-1998 and 29-81999 for closure of 
the municipal slaughter houses in the city of Ahmedab~d 
during the period of the Paryushan festival, an important D 
Jain festival. It is alleged that the closure of the municipal 
slaughter houses directly results in violation of their . 
fundamental rights to do trade and business as 
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and 
closure of the slaughter house cannot be said to be a E 
reasonable restriction merely because a particular 
community or a section of the society feels that there 
should be closure of the municipal slaughter houses for 
a particular period will be in consonance with the Jain 
ideology of Ahinsa (non-violence). The Division Bench of F 
the High Court held that the impugned resolutions of the 
Municipal Corporation were constitutionally invalid; that 
the people eat vegetarian food or non-vegetarian food is 
their private affair and the Court cannot make any 
pronouncement about it; that people living in different G 
parts of the country have different eating habits. Even in 
a particular locality, village or town, there are some 
persons who are vegetarian and others who are non-
vegetarian and that no restriction can be placed on the 
slaughtering or eating of meat merely because it may hurt 
H 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 4 S.C.R. 
A the sentiments or the religious feelings of a particular 
\ 
community or a society. Hence, the present appeal. 
~ 
~ · Allowing the appeals, the Court 
•. ... 
·· · ~ELD: 1.1 The impugned resolutions passed by 
B Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad are valid, as there 
is 110 violation of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) or 21 of the 
Constitution. ·(Para - 25) [1036-F] 
~ 
_. 
State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat 
& Ors. 2005(8) SCC 534; Mohd. Faruk vs. State of Madhya 
c Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 93; Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs. State of 
Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731 and Abdul Hakim Quarishi vs. State 
of 

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