Trade restrictions on cattle slaughter are invalid when they become excessive, impractical, and disproportionate to the public interest.

Statutory restrictions on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes were examined for whether they imposed unreasonable and disproportionate limits on the freedom to carry on trade. The Court treated age-based limits, cumulative conditions of age plus unfitness, waiting periods, and broad appeal mechanisms as excessive where they made slaughter practically difficult and commercially uneconomic; the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh provisions were therefore held invalid to that extent. In the Madhya Pradesh scheme, the age-and-unfitness requirement, appeal provision and postponement rule were struck down, while ancillary and supporting provisions, including the burden-of-proof clause relating to facts within the accused's knowledge, were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bihar provision fixing the slaughter age at twenty-five years for bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes, and the connected rule-making procedure for certificates and appeals, imposed an unreasonable and disproportionate restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on their trade; (ii) Whether the Uttar Pradesh provision fixing the slaughter age at twenty years, together with the additional conditions, delay, and appeal mechanism, imposed an unreasonable restriction; (iii) Whether the Madhya Pradesh provisions requiring age-limit plus unfitness, permitting appeal by any aggrieved person, and restricting the time of slaughter were unconstitutional, and whether the ancillary provisions and burden-of-proof clause were valid.

Issue (i): Whether the Bihar provision fixing the slaughter age at twenty-five years for bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes, and the connected rule-making procedure for certificates and appeals, imposed an unreasonable and disproportionate restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on their trade.

Analysis: The restriction was tested against the guarantee of free trade and the limitation that any curtailment must be reasonable and in the interests of the general public. The age-limit of twenty-five years was found to be far beyond the period during which bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes ordinarily remained useful for breeding, draught or milk purposes. The certificate procedure under the rule was also found to be burdensome because it involved multiple authorities, possible disagreement, referral and appeal, all of which made slaughter practically difficult and commercially uneconomic. The restriction was therefore not a mere regulatory measure but an excessive one.

Conclusion: The Bihar age-limit provision was void to the extent it imposed an unreasonable restriction, and the connected rule was also bad insofar as it imposed disproportionate restrictions on the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the Uttar Pradesh provision fixing the slaughter age at twenty years, together with the additional conditions, delay, and appeal mechanism, imposed an unreasonable restriction.

Analysis: The provision combined a high age threshold with a further requirement of permanent unfitness, so that even an animal permanently unserviceable could not be slaughtered unless it had also crossed twenty years. It also imposed a waiting period after the certificate and allowed an appeal by any aggrieved person, which could stall slaughter even where a certificate had been granted. In practical operation these features substantially frustrated the business of the petitioners and went beyond permissible regulation.

Conclusion: The Uttar Pradesh provision was unconstitutional to the extent that it imposed unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners' right to slaughter bulls and bullocks.

Issue (iii): Whether the Madhya Pradesh provisions requiring age-limit plus unfitness, permitting appeal by any aggrieved person, and restricting the time of slaughter were unconstitutional, and whether the ancillary provisions and burden-of-proof clause were valid.

Analysis: The age-and-unfitness requirement in section 4(2)(a) was treated as excessive because it combined two cumulative conditions and made the age test largely redundant. The appeal provision in section 4(3) was also found oppressive because any aggrieved person could delay slaughter, creating a practical impediment to the trade. Section 5, which postponed slaughter and extended the delay during appeals, suffered from the same vice. By contrast, section 6 was ancillary and merely enforced the main prohibition, section 7 and section 8 were upheld as consequential to the valid ban on cows and calves, and section 12 was upheld because the burden placed on the accused related only to matters within his knowledge and control. The impugned rule reproducing the invalid age-and-unfitness condition fell with the parent provision.

Conclusion: Section 4(2)(a), section 4(3), section 5, and the corresponding rule were invalid, while section 6, section 7, section 8 and section 12 were valid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in substantial part, and the impugned provisions and rules were restrained from enforcement to the extent declared void, while the ancillary and support provisions that survived were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction on the freedom to carry on trade or profession is invalid when, in practical operation, it is arbitrary or excessive and fails to strike a proper balance between individual freedom and the public interest.

---