AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (11) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....history of the legislation under consideration in these cases. 2. In the year 1958 this Court had to consider the validity of certain provisions of three Acts : (1) The Bihar Preservation and Improvement Animals Act, (Bihar Act II of 1956); (2) The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act I of 1956); and (3) The Central Provinces and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949 (C.P. and Berar Act LII of 1949). 3. The Bihar Act put a total ban on the slaughter of all categories of animals of the species of bovine cattle. The U.P. Act put a total ban on the slaughter of cows and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves. The C.P. and Berar Act placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows, made of female calves of cows, bulls, bullocks, and heifers, and the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female, adults or calves) was permitted only under a certificate granted by the proper authorities. These three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principle of State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution. The petitioners who challenged the various provisions of the aforesaid Acts in 1958 were engaged in the butch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, even after such animals have ceased to be useful, and have virtually put an end to their profession and trade. It is pointed out that the age up to which the animals referred to above cannot be slaughtered (20 or 25 years) has been put so high that the practical effect is that no animals can be slaughtered, and the amending or new legislation has put in other restrictions so arbitrary and unreasonable in nature that in effect they amount to a prohibition or destruction of the petitioner's right to carry on their trade and profession. The following allegations quoted from one of the petitions (Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959) give a general idea of the nature of the case which the petitioners have put forward : "That there is good professional authority for the view that even in countries where animal husbandry is organised on a highly progressive and scientific basis, cattle seldom live beyond 15 or 16 years. 6. That there is also good authority to the effect that even pedigree breeding bulls are usually discarded at the age of 12 or 14 years. 7. That in India bulls and bullocks and she-buffaloes rarely live even up to the age of 15 years; drought bullocks begin ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he age below which the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks is prohibited is 25 years. The respondent State had taken the plea that the usefulness or longevity of live-stock for breeding and other purposes depends to a very great extent on (a) better animal husbandry facilities like feeding and management and (b) control of animal diseases, and as these facilities are now available in a greater measure, the legislature came to the conclusion that a bull or bullock or a she-buffalo below 25 years of age continues to remain useful; if a bull, bullock or she-buffalo is permanently incapacitated below that age the impugned provision permits its slaughter and therefore the legislation which is challenged conforms to the decision of this Court and does not violate any fundamental right. In Uttar Pradesh the age is 20 years as respects bulls or bullocks, with a further restriction to be referred to later. The reply of the respondent State is that bulls or bullocks do not become unfit at the age of 12 or 14 years as alleged by the petitioners; on the contrary, they continue to be useful and at no time they become entirely useless. It is then stated in the affidavit : "As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h case. (1) We take up first the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959 and the rules made under the main Act of 1955. Section 3 of the Act as amended reads : "S. 3 Prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull, bullock or she-buffalo : Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, calf, bull, bullock or she-buffalo : Provided that the prescribed authority may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, allow the slaughter of - (i) a bull or bullock which is over twenty-five years of age or which has become permanently incapable of breeding or of being used as a drought animal, as the case may be, and (ii) a she-buffalo which is over twenty-five years of age or which has become permanently incapable of breeding or yielding milk, if the permanent incapability has not been caused deliberately; Provided further that the State Government may be general or special order, and subject to such conditions as it may think ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e place indicated in the certificate and it shall be slaughtered within 20 days of the date of the receipt of the certificate by the person in whose favour it is issued. (5) In case of difference of opinion between the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer, the matter shall be referred to the Sub-divisional Animal Husbandry Officer or the District Animal Husbandry Officer, as the case may be, and the certificate shall be issued or refused according to the decision of the Sub-divisional Animal Husbandry Officer or the District Animal Husbandry Officer, as the case may be. (6) (a) any person aggrieved by an order refusing to grant a certificate under the proviso to section 3 may, within 15 days of the communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal - (i) where the order is passed by the District Animal Husbandry Officer under sub-rule (5) to the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry; (ii) where the order is passed by the Sub-divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, under sub-rule (5), to the District Animal Husbandry Officer and (iii) where the order is passed by the authority prescribed under sub-rule (1) to the Sub-divisiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State, a large volume of authoritative and expert opinion has been placed before us which shows beyond any doubt that a bull, bullock or she-buffalo does not remain useful after 14 or 15 years and only a few of them live up to the age of 25. In the Report of the Cattle Preservation and Development Committee, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, it is recommended by the Committee that the slaughter of animals over 14 years of age and unfit for work as also animals of any age permanently unable to work owing it injury or deformity, should be allowed. In the Report on the Marketing of Meat in India (published by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture) there is a reference to a draft Bill circulated by the Ministry of Agriculture (page 112 of the Report) which contains a clause that animals over 14 years of age and unfit for work may be slaughtered on a certificate from a Veterinary Officer. In the Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India, again published by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, occurs the following passage as to the price of animals with reference to their age : "Young drought animals up to the age of 4 years - being raw and untrained - fetch comparative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes, imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners, a restriction moreover which cannot be said to be in the interests of the general public, and to that extent it is void. We may here repeat what we said in Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1950]1SCR759 : "The phrase 'reasonable restriction' connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word 'reasonable' implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Art. 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by clause (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality." 21. As to r. 3 the grievances of the petitioners are these. Under the rule the prescribed authority for the purpose of section 3 of the Act consists of the Veterinary Officer and the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ihar [1959]1SCR629 an Ordinance was passed called the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958. This Ordinance was later repealed and replaced by the Act. The petitioners say that in the Bill as originally drafted the age limit below which slaughter was not permissible was put at 15 years; but the Select Committee increased it to 20 years. It will probably be best, for clearness sake, to set forth not the whole provisions of the Act, for that would be too lengthy, but those which form most directly the subject-matter on which the controversy turns. Section 3 of the Act reads (omitting portions not relevant for our purpose) - "S. 3(1) Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter - (a)................................................................... (b) a bull or bullock, unless be has obtained in respect thereof a certificate in writing, from the competent authority of the area in which the bull or bullock is to be slaughtered, certifying that it is fit for slaughter... (2) No bull or bullock, in respect of which a certificate has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, it is pointed out that not being content with fixing an unreasonably high age-limit, the impugned provisions imposes a double restriction. It says that the animal must be over twenty years in age and must also be permanently unfit and unserviceable; and in the case of a bullock, the unfitness must be for "any kind of agricultural operation" and not merely for drought purposes. The result of this double restriction, it is stated, is that even if the animal is permanently unserviceable and unfit at an earlier age, it cannot be slaughtered unless it is over twenty years in age. Before a certificate can be given, the animal must fulfil two conditions as to (1) age and (2) permanent unfitness. We consider this to be a demonstrably unreasonable restriction. In Md. Hanif Quareshi's case [1950] S.C.R. 629 this Court had said that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks after they had ceased to be capable of breeding or working as drought animals was not in the interests of the general public. Yet this is exactly what the impugned provision does by imposing a double restriction. It lays down that even if the animal is permanently unserviceable, no certificate can be given....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ea which the cattle is to be slaughtered that the cattle is fit for slaughter. (2) No certificate under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be issued by the Competent Authority unless the Veterinary Officer after examining the cattle certifies that - (a) the cattle is over twenty years of age and is unfit for work or breedings or has become permanently incapacitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or an incurable disease; and (b) the cattle is not suffering from any disease which makes its meat unwholesome for human consumption. (3) The Competent Authority shall, before issuing or refusing to issue a certificate under this section record its order in writing. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority under this section, may, within ten days of the date of the order, prefer an appeal against such order to the Collector of the district of such other officer as may, by notification, be authorised in this behalf by to State Government, and the Collector or such other officer may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit. (4) Subject to the orders passed in appeal, if any, under sub-section (3), the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut, and rightly in our opinion, that clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners. That clause in its first part lays down that the cattle (other than cows and calves) must be over 20 years of age and must also be unfit for work or breeding; and in the second part it says, "or has become permanently incapacitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or an incurable disease." It is a little difficult to understand why the two parts are juxtaposed in the section. In any view the restriction that the animal must be over 20 years of age and also unfit for work or breeding is an excessive or unreasonable restriction as we have pointed out with regard to a similar provision in the Uttar Pradesh Act. The second part of the clause would not be open to any objection, if it stood by itself. If, however, it has to be combined with the age-limit mentioned in the first part of the clause, it will again be open to the same objection; if the animal is to be over 20 years of age and also permanently incapacitated from work or breeding etc., then the age-limit is really meaningless. Then, the expression '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ractical purpose such a restriction will really put an end to the trade of the petitioners and we are unable to accept a restriction of this kind as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of clause (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution. 33. Section 6 standing by itself, we think, is not open to any serious objection. It is ancillary in nature and tries to give effect to the provision of the Act prohibiting slaughter of cattle in contravention of the Act. 34. Section 7 relates to the prohibition of sale, purchase etc., of cows and calves and inasmuch as a total ban on the slaughter of cows and calves is valid, no objection can be taken to section 7 of the Act. It merely seeks to effectuate the total ban on the slaughter of cows and calves (both of cows and she-buffaloes). Section 8 is also ancillary in character and if the other provisions are valid no objection can be taken to the provisions of section 8. Sections 10 and 11 impose penalties and their validity cannot be seriously disputed. 35. However, we must say a few words about section 12 of the Act which has also been challenged before us. Section 12 is in these terms : "S. 12. In any trial for an offence pu....