1986 (4) TMI 330 - SC - Indian Laws

Upheld closure of slaughterhouses on specified days, respecting cultural sentiments and ensuring municipal staff holidays. (1)(g)

Municipal Corporation of The city of Ahmedabad & Ors. Versus Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai & Anr.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of standing orders closing slaughterhouses on specified days, emphasizing respect for cultural and ... Whether the closure of the slaughter house on seven days specified in the two standing orders puts a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? Held that:- Appeal allowed. The closure of slaughter house on seven days specified in the two standing orders in any way put an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner-respondent under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - judgment and order of the High Court dated 3rd March, 1970 are set aside. Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of standing orders closing slaughterhouses on specified days.2. Alleged violation of Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business).3. Alleged violation of Article 14 (right to equality).Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Standing Orders Closing Slaughterhouses on Specified Days:The Supreme Court examined the legality of two standing orders issued by the Municipal Commissioner of Ahmedabad under Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. These orders mandated the closure of municipal slaughterhouses on seven specified days, including significant religious and national days. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind such closures was to respect the sentiments of a large section of the population and to ensure holidays for the municipal staff. The Court noted that the days chosen were significant due to their association with figures and events promoting non-violence, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Mahavir, and were thus not arbitrary.2. Alleged Violation of Article 19(1)(g):The respondents argued that the standing orders imposed unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on their trade as beef dealers. The Court reiterated that while Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practice any profession, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The Court held that the closure of slaughterhouses on specific days was a reasonable restriction. It emphasized the need to balance individual rights with community interests, noting that the closures were intended to honor significant cultural and religious sentiments and were thus in the public interest.3. Alleged Violation of Article 14:The respondents claimed that the standing orders discriminated against butchers who slaughter cattle, as opposed to those who slaughter other animals like goats and sheep. The Court dismissed this contention, stating that Article 14 permits reasonable classification for legislative purposes. The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia and have a rational relation to the objective sought. The Court found that the classification between butchers of cattle and those of other animals was reasonable and related to the goal of preserving livestock, which is crucial for the agricultural economy. Thus, the standing orders did not violate Article 14.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the standing orders, ruling that they did not impose unreasonable restrictions on the respondents' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and were not discriminatory under Article 14. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents. The Court underscored the importance of balancing individual rights with societal interests and the legislative intent behind such regulations.