STATE OF GUJARAT versus MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 26-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
MJRZAPUR MOTi KURESHI KASSAB JAMA T AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 26, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., B.N. AGRA WAL, ARUN KUMAR, G.P. MATHUR, 
A.K. MATHUR, C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
C 
Articles 19(/)(g), (6), 48, 48-A and 51-A--Constitutional validity of 
the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994-Putting 
a total ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks irrespective of any age-Held, 
per majorjty (A.K. Mathur, J. dissenting), the Act is intra vires the 
Constitution-The ban on slaughter of cow progeny as imposed by the Act 
D is in the interest of general public within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 
19-Protection conferred by the Act on cow progeny is needed in the interest 
of Nation's economy--The Act enables the State in its endeavour to protect 
and improve the environment within the meaning of Article 48-A-Qureshi-
l partly overruled-Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 
1994. 
E 
Article 19(6)-'Restrictions' as employed in the Article-Held, includes 
prohibition. 
Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994-Putting 
a total ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks irrespective of any age-Held, 
F is intra vires the Constitution. 
Doctrine-Principle of stare decisis-Discussed 
Words and Phrases: 
G 
'Restriction '-As occurring in Article 19(6) of the Constitution of 
H 
India-Connotation of 
With the formation of the State of Gujarat in the year 1960, the Bombay 
Animal Preservation Act, 1954 was extended to the State by the Bo.mbay 
582 
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MIRZAPUR MOT! KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT 
583 
Animal Preservation (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 putting A 
a total ban on cow slaughter in the State of Gujarat. By the Bombay Animal 
Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1979 the ban was further extended 
to 'calf of a cow, whether female or male, whether castrated or not and to bull 
and bullock 'below the age of sixteen years'. Validity of the said amendment 
Act was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in Hazi Usmanbhai Qureshi 
and Ors. v. State a/Gujarat, [1986) 3SCC12. The Gujarat Legislature further B 
amended the Bombay Act of 1954 by the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat 
Amendment) Act, 1994 prohibiting also slaughter of bulls and bullocks 
irrespective of any age. The amendment was challenged by butchers known 
as Kureshis and by their representative bodies. The High Court struck down 
the amendment as ultra vires the Constitution holding that the Amendment C 
Act imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights. 
Aggrieved, the State of Gujarat and a few other organizations (NGOs) filed 
the present appeals. 
In view of the earlier decisions of this Court, particularly the 
Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Ors. v. State of D 
Bihar and Ors., 119591 SCR 629, holding that a total ban on slaughter of the 
buffaloes, bulls and bullocks after they ceased to be capable of yielding milk 
or breeding or working as draught animals could not be supported as 
reasonable in the interest of general public and was invalid, and thereafter 
insertion of Articles 48-A and 51-A in the Constitution, the appeals were E 
referred to the present seven Judge Bench. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Per Lahoti CJ (for himself and for Agrawal, Arun Kumar, G.P. 
Mathur, Thakker and Balasubnimanyan, JJ.) 
I.I. The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 
(Gujarat Act No. 4of1994) is intra vires the Constitution of India. The ban 
on slaughter of cow progeny as imposed by the Act is in the interests of the 
general public within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 of the 
F 
Constitution. 1653-C; 642-DI 
G 
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Ors. v. Slate of Bihar and Ors., [19591 SCR 
629, partly overruled. 
Abdul Hakim Quraishi and Ors. v. State of Bihar, [19611 2 SCR 610; 
Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 1196911 SCC 853 H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A and Hashmattullah v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 391, disapproved. 
Haji Usmanbhai Hassanbhai Qureshi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (1986) 
3 sec 12, affirmed. 
State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashutosh Lahiri and Ors., (1995) l SCC 
B 189, referred to. 
1.2. While interpreting the interplay of rights and restrictions, Part-
111 (Fundamental Rights) and Part-IV (Directive Principles) of the Constitution 
have to be read together. The restriction which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.