Disproportionate trade restrictions on slaughter and a limited burden-of-proof rule were separately tested under constitutional reasonableness.
Restrictions on slaughter that fixed high age limits and imposed certificate, appeal and waiting-period requirements were found, in practical operation, to be excessive and disproportionate under Article 19(6) because they made lawful slaughter illusory and effectively destroyed the trade. The burden-of-proof provision was treated differently: it was upheld because it was confined to matters within the accused's own knowledge and conduct in relation to slaughter, transport or sale, and was treated as a permissible evidentiary rule rather than an infringement of fundamental rights.
Issues: (i) Whether the provisions fixing a high age limit for slaughter and imposing certificate, appeal and waiting-period requirements under the cow-slaughter enactments imposed unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on the petitioners' right to carry on their trade. (ii) Whether the provision placing the burden of proof on the accused in prosecutions for contravention of the Act was valid.
Issue (i): Whether the provisions fixing a high age limit for slaughter and imposing certificate, appeal and waiting-period requirements under the cow-slaughter enactments imposed unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on the petitioners' right to carry on their trade.
Analysis: The restrictions were tested against the requirement of reasonableness under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The age limits for bulls, bullocks and buffaloes were found to be excessive in light of the accepted evidence that such animals cease to be useful after a much lower age. The certification schemes were also held to be impracticable because they required multi-tier scrutiny and an appeal structure that made lawful slaughter expensive and illusory. The waiting periods and broad appellate rights were found to operate, in practical effect, as a total prohibition on slaughter even after the animals had become unserviceable, thereby destroying the petitioners' occupation.
Conclusion: The impugned age-limit and procedural restrictions were held unconstitutional to the extent that they imposed unreasonable and disproportionate restraints on the petitioners' right to trade.
Issue (ii): Whether the provision placing the burden of proof on the accused in prosecutions for contravention of the Act was valid.
Analysis: The burden-shifting provision was confined to matters within the accused's own knowledge and conduct in relation to slaughter, transport or sale. It did not require proof of matters lying outside the accused's personal sphere where the statute itself made the relevant mental element attributable to that person. On that basis, the provision was treated as a permissible rule of evidence and not as an infringement of fundamental rights.
Conclusion: The burden of proof provision was upheld as valid.
Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded in part as the restrictive provisions that in substance made lawful slaughter illusory were struck down, while the burden-shifting provision was sustained as constitutionally permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction on a lawful occupation is invalid if, in practical operation, it is excessive and disproportionate so as to convert a permitted activity into an illusory one; a burden-of-proof clause is valid where it is confined to matters within the accused's own knowledge and conduct.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
