Case: Abdul Hakim Quraishi &amp; Others Vs. State of Bihar &amp; Others

2. In the year 1958 this Court had to consider the validity of certain provisions of three Acts:(1) The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of 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)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, male or 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 butchers trade and its subsidiary undertakings; they challenged the constitutional validity of the Acts on the ground that they infringed their fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. In the decision which this Court gave in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, 1959 SCR 629  : (AIR 1958 SC 731  ), it held:(i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and she buffaloes, male or female, was quite reasonable and valid;(ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls, or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) so long as they were capable of being used as milch or draught cattle was also reasonable and valid; and(iii) that a total ban on slaughter of she buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (Cattle or buffaloe) after they ceased to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals was not in the interests of the general public and was invalidIn the result this Court directed the respondent States not to enforce their respective Acts in so far as they were declared void by it. This led to some amending or new legislation, and we are concerned in these three cases with the provisions of these amending or new Acts and the rules made thereunder. In Bihar (Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959) the impugned Act is called the Bihar Preservation of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1958, which received the assent of the Governor on January 13, 1959. In Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 21 of 1959) the impugned Act is called the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958 and in Madhya Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 14 of 1960) a new Act was passed calledthe Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959(Act 18 of 1959), which received the assent of the President on July 24, 1959 and came into force on January 15, 1960. The rules made thereunder are called the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 1959.

Reasoning:
Apart from the affidavits made on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent State, a large volume of authoritative and expert opinion had 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 upto 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 to 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 draught animals up to the age of 4 years-being raw and untrained - fetch comparatively low prices. Between 4 and 8 years of age, the animals are in the prime of their youth and render best service, and fetch maximum prices. From the 8th year onwards old age sets in, and a graded decline is observed in their capacity to work and consequently prices depreciate considerably."In a Food and Agricultural Organisation study of cattle in India and Pakistan (Zebu Cattle of India and Pakistan, page 94) it is stated that the active breeding life of a bull is estimated to be about 10 years. In Blacks Veterinary Dictionary (edited by W. C. Riller and G. P. West, fifth edition) it is stated that pedigree bulls may reach 12 or 14 years of age before being discarded: and cattle seldom live longer than 15 to 16 years, and when they do, their age is usually of no immediate importance. In another publication of the Ministry of Agriculture called Problems of Cattle Insurance under Indian conditions, it is stated that the life of cattle is comparatively much shorter, the maximum age being only about 15 years. There is an interesting chart relating to the determination of age in cattle in a publication called Cattle Development in Uttar Pradesh by R. L. Kaura, Director of Animal Husbandry; that chart shows that at 11 years incisors appear smaller due to wearing out; at 12 years space appears between the teeth, and after 12 teeth wear out constantly and roots remain far apart from one another. As against all this expert opinion the respondent State has relied on the chart embodying some useful data about domestic animals, prepared by Major A. C. Aggarwala, Director of Veterinary Services. Punjab, and R. R. Gulati, Superintendent, Veterinary Department, Jullandur, which shows the sterility age of a buffalo at 15 and average age at 25, and of a copy sterility at 15 and 16 years and average life 22 years11. We consider that these grievances of the petitioners have substance, and judged from the practical point of view, the provisions of R. 3 impose disproportionate restrictions on their right. It is difficult to understand why the Veterinary Officer, who has the necessary technical knowledge, cannot be trusted to give the certificate and why it should be necessary to resort to a complicated procedure to resolve a possible difference of opinion between two officers, later followed by a still more expensive appeal12. We, therefore, hold R. 3 also to be bad in so far as it imposes disproportionate restrictions indicated above, on the right of the petitionersThis is an aspect which we have already considered in relation to the Bihar Act. What we have said about the age-limit in that connection applies equally to the Uttar Pradesh Act. The 8th Live-stock Census, 1956, shows that in Uttar Pradesh bulls and bullocks over 3 years of age, not in use for breeding or work, numbered as many as 126,201 in 1956 as compared to 162,746 in 1951. The Municipal Manual, Uttar Pradesh, Vol. 1, contains a direction that for slaughter of animals, bullocks and male buffaloes in good state of health below ten years of age should be included. Secondly, it is pointed out that not being content with fixing an unreasonably high age-limit, the impugned provision 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 draught purposes. The result of this double restriction, it is stated, it 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 Quareshis case, 1959 SCR 629  : (AIR 1958 SC 731  ), 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 draught 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 unless it is more than 20 years in age. The restriction will in effect put an end to the trade of the petitioners21. Section 5 in so far as it imposes a restriction as to the time for slaughter is again open to the same objection as has been discussed by us with regard to a similar provision in the Uttar Pradesh Act. A right of appeal is given to any person aggrieved by the order. In other words, a member of the public, if he feels aggrieved by the order granting a certificate for slaughter, may prefer an appeal and hold up for a long time the slaughter of the animal. We have pointed out that for all practical purposes 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 cl. (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution22. 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 Act23. 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 S. 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 proprovisions of S.The argument is that S. 12 infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners inasmuch as it puts the burden of proof on an accused person not only for his own knowledge or intention but for the knowledge or intention of other persons. We do not think that this contention is correct. The accused person, so far as Ss. 5 and 7 are concerned, must be the person who has slaughtered the animal or who has purchased, sold or otherwise disposed of the animal etc. Therefore, the only question will be his knowledge and the legislature was competent to place the burden of proof on him. So far as S. 6 is concerned, it specifically refers to the knowledge of the person who has transported or offered for transport or caused to be transported any agricultural cattles from any place within the State to any place outside the State. Therefore, when the section talks of knowledge, it talks of the knowledge of that person who has transported or offered for transport etc. The knowledge of no other the person comes into the purview of S. 6. We are, therefore, of the view that S. 12 is not invalid on the ground suggested by the petitioners25. Therefore, the result of our examination of the various provisions of the Act is that the impugned provisions in cl. (a) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 4, in sub-sec. (3) of S. 4 relating to the right of appeal by any person aggrieved by the order, and in S. 5 relating to the time of slaughter, impose unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions which must be held to be unconstitutional26. As to the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, R. 3 says "that an application for a certificate under S. 4 shall be made to the competent authority", and R. 4 says that on receipt of the application, the competent authority shall by an order direct the person keeping the animal to submit it for examination by the Veterinary Officer. Rule 5 reproduces the provisions of cls. (a) and (b) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 and in so far as we have held that the provision in cl. (a) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 is unconstitutional, the rule must also fall with itIt is open to the legislature to enact ancillary provisions to give effect to the main object of the Act, namely, the prevention of slaughter of animals like bulls, bullocks or buffaloes which are still useful for the purposes for which they are generally used. It is pointed out that acts innocent in themselves may be prohibited and the restrictions in that regard would be reasonable, if the same were necessary to secure efficient enforcement of valid provisions. For example, it is open to the Legislature if it feels it necessary, in order to reduce the possibilities of evasion to a minimum, to enact provisions which would give effect to the main object of the legislation. We have not ignored this aspect and have kept in mind the undisputed right of the legislature to decide what provisions are necessary to give effect to the main object of the legislation. In these cases the petitioners have complained that the main object of the impugned provisions is not the prohibition of slaughter of animals which are still useful; the impugned provisions as they are worded really put a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes and for all practical purposes they put a stop to the profession and trade of the petitioners. We have held that this complaint is justified in respect of the main provisions in the three Acts.