MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 23-04-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MOHD. HAN!]' QU ARES HI & OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
(and connected petition) 
629. 
(S. R. DAs C. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, S. K. DAs, 
GAJENDRAGADKAR .and VIVIAN BosE JJ.) 
Cow slaughter-Legislation placing total ban-If Constitutional 
• 
-Directive Principles of State Policy, value of-Fundamental rights 
~ 
-Reasonable restrictions--Test-Intervention in Supreme Court 
proceedings, when permissible-Bihar Preservation and Improvement 
of Animals Act, r955 (Bihar II of r956)-U. P. Prevention of 
Cow Slaughter Act, r955 (U. P. I of r956)-C. P. and Berar Animal 
Preservation Act, r949 (C. P. and Berar Lll of r949)-Constitution 
of India, Arts. r4, r9, 48-Supreme Court Rules, 0. XLI, r. 2. 
• 
• 
·~ 
The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Ac':, 
l95S, put a total ban on the slaughter of all categories of animals 
of the species of bovine cattle. The U. P. Prevention of Cow 
Slaughter Act, 1955, put a total ban on the slaughter of cows 
and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and 
calves. 
The C. P. and Berar 
Animal Preservation Act, 
1949, placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows, male 
or female calves of cow, 
bulls, bullocks, and heifers and 
the sla1,1ghter of buff;lloes (male or female, adults or calves) was 
permitted only under a certificate granted by the proper autho-
rities. 
No exception was made in any of these Acts permitting 
slaughter of cattle even for bow1 fide religious purposes. 
These 
three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principles 
of State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution. 
The 
petitioners, who were engaged in the butcher's trade and its 
subsidiary undertakings, challenged the constitutional validity 
of the three Acts on the grounds that they infringed their funda- · 
mental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, r9(r)(g) and 25 of the 
Constitution. The respondents contended that the impugned 
.Acts were constitutional and valid as they were made in con-
sonance with the directive principles of Art. 48 ·which were 
superior to the fundamental rights and that the impugned Acts 
did not offend Art. 14, l9(1)(g) or 25 : 
. Held, (i) that a total ban on the slaugh.ter of cows of all 
ages and calves of cows and of she-buffaloes, male and female, 
was quite reasonable and valid; 
(ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or 
breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffalo~). 
as long as they were capable of being used as milch or draught 
cattle, was also reasonable and valid; and 
. 
• 
(iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls 
April 23. 
630 
SUPR.EME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
, 95s 
and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased to be capable 
of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals 
/lt!ohd. Hanif 
was not in the interests of the general public and \vas invalid. 
Quarcshi 
The directive in Art. 48 for taking steps for preventing the 
v. 
. 
slaughter of animals is quite explicit and positive and contem-
The- State 0! Biha~-plates a ban on the slaughter of the several categories of animals 
specified therein, namely, CO\VS •and calves and other cattle 
which answer the description of milch or draught cattle. The 
protection is confined only to cows and calves and to those ani-
mals which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk 
or of doing work as draught cattle but does not extend to cattle 
\Vhich at one ti1ne were milch or draught cattle but which have 
ceased to be such. The directive principles of State policy set 
out in Part IV of the Constitution have to conform to and run as 
subsidiary to the fundamental rights in Part III. 
State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam 
Dorairajan, [1951] 
S.C.R. · 525, followed. 
The ban on the slaughter of cows even on the Yd ~irban 
day did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners 
under Art. 25 as it had not been established that the sacrifice of 
a cow on that day was an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman 
to exhibit his religious belief and idea. 
f 
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay, [1954] 
S.C.R. 1055, applied. 
The impugned Acts which affected only the butchers who 
slaughtered cattle and not the butchers who slaughtered sheep 
or goats, did not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
The 
different categories of animals being susceptible of classification 
into separate groups on the basis'of their usefulness to society, 
the bntchers who kill each ca

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