Directive Principles and animal welfare can justify trade restrictions, and changed circumstances defeated stare decisis challenge.

Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties may be considered when assessing the reasonableness of restrictions on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6), applying harmonious construction rather than mutual exclusion. The expression "milch and draught cattle" in Article 48 was treated as referring to a class of cattle, and the prohibition on slaughter of bulls and bullocks was upheld as a reasonable restriction advancing public interest and the constitutional goals of animal preservation and welfare. Stare decisis did not compel adherence to Quareshi-I because the factual and social context had materially changed, so the Gujarat amendment was sustained and the constitutional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties may be taken into account while judging the reasonableness of a restriction on the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6); (ii) whether the expression "milch and draught cattle" in Article 48 includes bulls and bullocks that have ceased to be useful for breeding or draught purposes, and whether the impugned total ban on their slaughter is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public; (iii) whether the earlier decisions in Quareshi-I and the connected line of cases required the Court to invalidate the Gujarat amendment on the principle of stare decisis.

Issue (i): Whether the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties may be taken into account while judging the reasonableness of a restriction on the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6).

Analysis: The constitutional scheme requires Articles 19 and 19(6) to be read with Part IV and, where relevant, Article 51A. The governing approach is harmonious construction, not mutual exclusion. The reasonableness of a restriction must be tested in the light of the object of the legislation, the social setting, the Directive Principles sought to be advanced, and the presumption of constitutionality attaching to legislative enactments. Post-Kesavananda jurisprudence recognises that laws promoting Directive Principles may support the validity of restrictions on trade or business, provided the restriction is not in clear conflict with the fundamental right and is within legislative competence.

Conclusion: The Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties are relevant in determining the reasonableness of the impugned restriction, and the challenge on this broad constitutional approach fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the expression "milch and draught cattle" in Article 48 includes bulls and bullocks that have ceased to be useful for breeding or draught purposes, and whether the impugned total ban on their slaughter is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public.

Analysis: The expression "milch and draught cattle" was construed as describing a class or species of cattle, not a transient functional condition dependent on age, illness, or temporary loss of utility. Cattle that are inherently milch or draught do not cease to belong to that class merely because they are no longer presently productive. The evidentiary material, including governmental affidavits, scientific reports, and planning documents, was accepted as showing that bulls and bullocks continue to have utility through draught power, dung, urine, manure, biogas, soil improvement, and allied agricultural benefits. The Court also held that the prohibition was not a total prohibition on the butcher's vocation, but only a restriction on slaughter of a specified class of cattle, leaving other slaughter activity open. On the material before it, the restriction was found to advance public interest and the objectives of Articles 48, 48A, and 51A(g).

Conclusion: The impugned ban on slaughter of bull and bullock progeny was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public, and the Gujarat amendment was held valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier decisions in Quareshi-I and the connected line of cases required the Court to invalidate the Gujarat amendment on the principle of stare decisis.

Analysis: Stare decisis was treated as a strong but flexible principle, not an inflexible command. The earlier cases were understood to have turned substantially on the factual and social conditions then prevailing, including scarcity of fodder, limitations in animal husbandry, and the perceived utility threshold of cattle. The Court held that the factual foundation had materially changed, and that contemporary evidence regarding agriculture, animal welfare, organic manure, biogas, and cattle utility justified a fresh constitutional assessment. Accordingly, the prior line of authority did not prevent reconsideration.

Conclusion: The doctrine of stare decisis did not preclude departure from Quareshi-I, and the earlier contrary view was not followed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Gujarat legislation was sustained, and the challenge to its constitutional validity failed. The dissenting opinion took the contrary view and would have dismissed the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: In judging the reasonableness of a restriction under Article 19(6), the Court may rely on the Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties, and a prohibition on slaughter of cattle inherently covered by Article 48 may be upheld when contemporary material shows a direct nexus with public interest and constitutional goals of preservation, improvement, and compassion for living creatures.

Concurring Opinion: None.

Dissenting Opinion: A.K. Mathur, J. held that the earlier Constitution Bench decisions had not been displaced by changed circumstances, that the utility evidence did not justify overruling them, and that the Gujarat High Court's view should be sustained. On that view, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

---