https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174371 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. en-us Wed, 30 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:28:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174371 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174371