Temporary slaughter-house closure for Paryushan upheld as a reasonable, proportionate restriction to protect religious sentiments and communal harmony.

Municipal resolutions temporarily closing slaughter houses during Paryushan were upheld as valid delegated legislation under the parent municipal statute, because the power to the days and hours of operation included a limited closure. The Court held that the measure did not infringe equality, trade rights, or the asserted constitutional interests, given its short duration, public purpose, and object of respecting religious sentiments and communal harmony. It further held that the restriction on meat traders was reasonable and proportionate under Article 19(6), since business remained open for the rest of the year and the closure was not excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the municipal resolutions directing temporary closure of slaughter houses during the Paryushan festival were a valid exercise of power under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and whether they infringed Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6) and 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether a short and limited closure of slaughter houses to respect the sentiments of the Jain community amounted to an unreasonable or disproportionate restriction on the right to trade.

Issue (i): Whether the municipal resolutions directing temporary closure of slaughter houses during the Paryushan festival were a valid exercise of power under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and whether they infringed Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power to fix the days and hours during which a slaughter house may be kept open was conferred by the parent statute. The resolutions were therefore within the ambit of the statutory power and had the character of delegated legislation. Such delegated legislation is valid so long as it does not contravene the parent Act or the Constitution. The temporary closure was found not to violate equality, freedom of trade, or the asserted right relating to food choice, especially in view of the limited duration and the public purpose of maintaining communal harmony and respecting religious sentiments.

Conclusion: The resolutions were valid and were not unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether a short and limited closure of slaughter houses to respect the sentiments of the Jain community amounted to an unreasonable or disproportionate restriction on the right to trade.

Analysis: The restriction operated only for a few days in a year and left the business open for the remaining days. Applying the test of reasonableness, duration, extent, surrounding circumstances, and the need for judicial self-restraint, the Court held that a limited closure in a pluralistic society, undertaken out of respect for religious feelings and supported by long-standing practice, did not become excessive merely because it affected meat traders for a brief period. The restriction was treated as proportionate and saved by Article 19(6).

Conclusion: The restriction was reasonable and proportionate and did not violate Article 19(1)(g).

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was set aside and the municipal action was upheld, with the result that the temporary closure of the slaughter houses during Paryushan was sustained as constitutionally and statutorily valid.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary and limited closure of slaughter houses, imposed under valid statutory authority and adopted to respect religious sentiments and promote communal harmony, constitutes a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade and does not violate the Constitution when it is not disproportionate.

---