LAXMI NARAIN MODI versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 2 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 30-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 200 
LAXMI NARAIN MODI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003) 
JANUARY 30, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and 
C Registration of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animal) 
Rules, 2000; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter 
House) Rules, 2000; Solid Waste (Management and 
Handling) Rules, 2000; Environment Protection Act, 1986: 
0 
By Orders dated 23.8.2012 and 10.10.2012, Supreme 
Court directed constitution of State Committees for 
supervising and monitoring the implementation of the 
provisions of these statutes - By Order dated 27.8.2013 
directed State Committees to file Action Taken Report - Held 
: Action taken Reports indicated that in many States, 
E slaughter houses have been functioning without any licence 
and even the licenced slaughter houses are also not following 
the various provisions as well as the guidelines issued by the 
MoEF - There is no periodical supervision or inspection of 
the various slaughter houses functioning in various paits of 
F the country - The presence of an experienced Judicial Officer 
in the State Committees would give more life and light to the 
Committees, who can function as its Convener - The 
Convener, so appointed, would see that the Committees meet 
quite often and follow and implement the provisions of the Act 
G as well as the guidelines issued by the MoEF, which has been 
made a part of order dated 27. 8. 2013 - In such circumstances, 
request made to the Chief Justices of the various High Courts 
in the country to nominate the name of a retired District Judge 
H 
200 
LAXMI NARAIN MODI v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
201 
OTHERS 
for a period of two years as a Convener of the Committee so 
A 
as to enable him to send the quarterly reports to Supreme 
Court. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the 
Constitution of India. 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003. 
W.P. (C) No. 330 of 2001. 
W.P. (C) No. 688 of 2007. 
W.P. (C) No. 44 of 2004. 
WITH 
S.L.P. (C) No. 14121 of 2009. 
B 
c 
Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Manjit Singh, AAG, Pranab 
Kumar Mullick, Vijay Panjwani, Seema Rao, Priyanka Sinha, 
D 
M.R. Shamshad, Shashank Singh, Sapam Biswajit Meitei (for 
Ashok Kr. Singh), Upendra Mishra (for Samir Ali Khan), Tarjit 
Singh, lrshad Ahmad, M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumara, 
Pragati Neekhra, Vanshaja Shukla (for Mishra Saurabh), 
Jayesh Gaurav (for Gopal Prasad) for the appearing parties. 
E 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We, in our o.rder dated 
23.8.2012, had highlighted the extreme necessity of constituting 
State Committees for the purpose of supervising and 
F 
monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the 
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and 
Registration of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) 
Rules, 2000, the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Solid 
Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, the Prevention 
G 
of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000 etc. 
2. We passed another order on 10.10.2012 and, following 
that order, almost all the States and Union Territories h~ve 
constituted the State Committees. On 27.8.2013, we passed 
a detailed order directing those Committees to implement the 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
broad framework prepared by the MoEF, which we have 
incorporated in the said order. We also directed the various 
State Committees to file an Action Taken Report. Few 
Committees have filed their Action Taken Reports. 
3. We notice that there is no periodical supervision or 
B inspection of the various slaughter houses functioning in various 
parts of the country. Action Taken Reports would indicate that, 
in many States, slaughter houses are functioning without any 
licence and even the licenced slaughter houses are also not 
following the various provisions as well as the guidelines issued 
C by the MoEF, which we have already referred to in our earlier 
orders. We feel that the presence of an exP.erienced Judicial 
Officer in the State Committees would give more life and light 
to the Committees, who can function as its Convener. The 
Convener, so appointed, would see that the Committees meet 
D quite often and follow and implement the provisions of the Act 
as well as the guidelines issued by the MoEF, which has been 
made a part of our order dated 27.8.2013. 
4. In such circumstances, we 

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