Summarize the following court judgment. 15 of 1959	 14 of 1960 and 21 of 1959. Petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Frank Anthony and J. B. Dadachanji	 for the petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 15 and 21 of 1959). 612 H. J. Umrigar	 O. P. Rana and A. G. Ratnaparkhi	 for the petitioners (In Petn. No. 14 of 1960). L. K. Jha and section P. Varma	 for the respondent (In Petn. No. 15 of 1959). C. K. Daphtary	 Solicitor General of India	 M. Adhikari	 Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh and I. N. Shroff	 for the respondent (In Petn. No. 14 of 1960). H. N. Sanyal	 Additional Solicitor General of India and C. P. Lal	 for the respondent (In Petn. No. 21 of 1959). November 23. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section K. DAS	 J. These three writ petitions have been heard together	 as they raise common questions of law and fact. They relate	 however	 to three different enactments made by the Legislatures of three different States Bihar in writ petition No. 15	 Uttar Pradesh in writ petition No. 21	 and Madhya Pradesh in writ petition No. 14. The petitioners in the several petitions have challenged the 'validity of a number of provisions of the enactments in question and	 in some cases	 also of the rules made thereunder. The impugned provisions are similar in nature	 but are not exactly the same. Therefore	 we shall first state in general terms the case of the petitioners and then consider in detail and separately the impugned provisions in each case. But before we do so	 it is necessary to refer to some background history of the legislation under consideration in these cases. 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 1 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 613 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 article 48 of the Constitution. The petitioners who challenged the various provisions of the aforesaid Acts in 1958 were engaged in the butcher 's trade and its subsidiary undertakings; they challenged the constitutional validity of the Acts on the ground that they infringed their fundamental rights under articles 14	 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. In the decision which this Court gave in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs The State	 of Bihar (1)	 it held (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and of 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 buffalo) 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 invalid. In 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 and Improvement of Animals (1) ; 78 614 (Amendment) Act	 1959 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 called the 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 there under are called the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules	 1959. The general case of the petitioners	 who are several in number in each of the three cases	 is that they are citizens of India and carry on their profession and trade of butchers; they allege that the various provisions of the impugned legislation infringe their fundamental rights in that they	 for all practical purposes	 have put a total ban on the slaughter of she buffaloes	 bulls or bullocks	 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. 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. 	 That in India bulls and bullocks and she buffaloes rarely live even up to the age of 15 years; draught bullocks begin to age after eight years	 615 That the raising of the age limit from 15 to 20 years is arbitrary	 unreasonable and against the general public interests and is repugnant to and infringes the	 fundamental rights of the	 petitioners under Article 19 (1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. That section 3 of the amending Act is a mala fide	 colourable exercise of power	 repugnant to the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19 (1)(f) and (g). That this arbitrary raising of the age limit will be against the public interests For the following among ' other reasons: (i) That there will	 in fact	 be no bulls or bullocks or she buffaloes available for slaughter as few	 if any	 of such animals survive in India up to the age of 15 years; (ii) that the profession	 trade and occupation of millions of Muslims will be permanently and irreparably injured; (iii) that millions of members of the minority communities such as Christians	 Scheduled Castes	 Scheduled Tribes and Muslims	 for whom cattle beef is a staple item of their diet	 will be deprived of this diet; (iv) that the menace of the rapidly increasing uneconomic cattle population in such matters as the destruction of crops	 being a public nuisance	 will be accentuated by this arbitrary age limit	 and in effect will ensure that bulls and bullocks cannot be slaughtered; (v) that the menace of the rapidly increasing population of uneconomic cattle to the fodder and other animal food resources of the country will be accentuated. (vi) that the competition between the rapidly increasing cattle population	 a large percentage I of which is uneconomic and useless	 add the human population for available land will be accentuated; (vii) that this piece of legislation will ensure the steady increase of useless bulls and bullocks and must react disastrously against any attempt to improve milk production	 bullock power or animal husbandry generally." 616 Similar allegations have been made in the other two petitions also. The correctness of these allegations has been con. tested on behalf of the respondent States	 which through some of their officers have filed affidavits in reply. We shall presently examine at greater length the averments made in these affidavits	 but we may indicate here in broad outline what their general effect is. In Bihar the age below which the slaughter of she buffaloes	 bulls and bullocks is prohibited is 25 years. The respondent State has 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 shebuffalo 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 res pondent 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 a matter of fact	 the age up to which the animals can live and are serviceable depends upon the care and attention they receive and the quality of the grass on which they are grazed. . . . . .According to a high authority the average age of an ox under favourable conditions would be between 15 to 20 years. Even under conditions prevailing in Uttar Pradesh	 bulls can live upto 20 years or more as would appear from an analysis of a survey report of the animal husbandry department. " 617 On these averments the respondent State contends that the legislation is valid. In Madhya Pradesh also the age is 20 years. The Under Secretary to the( State Government in the Agricultural Department ' has made the reply affidavit in which it has been stated inter alia that conditions in Madhya Pradesh are different from conditions in other States. The affidavit then states: "The State of Madhya Pradesh has a total area of 107	589	000 acres	 out of which total cropped area is 43	572	000 acres. Forest area is 33	443	000 acres	 area not available for cultivation is 11	555	000 acres	 uncultivated land is 18	405	000 acres and fallow land is 5	834	000 acres. It will thus be seen that this State has a large forest area and plenty of grass land for pasturage. As the forests supply the greater part of the fuel needs of the human population	 the dung of animals is largely available as manure. The legislature considered that bulls	 bullocks and buffaloes are useful in this State till they are well past twenty years of age and that they should not be slaughtered till they are past that age and are also unfit for work or breeding. The problem of animals dying of slow starvation or of worthless animals depriving useful animals of fodder needs no consideration in this State. The agricultural community in the State benefits by the existence of animals as long as they are useful. " There are also further averments as to the shortage of breeding bulls	 working bullocks and she buffaloes in Madhya Pradesh. On these averments the contention of the respondent State is that the cattle in that State are useful up to the age of 20 years. We have indicated above in general terms the case of the petitioners and the reply which the respondent States have given. We proceed now to a detailed consideration of the impugned legislation in each 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: "section 3.

In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs The State of Bihar the Supreme Court held that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls	 bullocks and she buffaloes after they had ceased to be useful was not in the interests of the general public and was invalid. Thereafter	 the Bihar Legislature passed the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act	 1958	 the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act	 1958 and the Madhya Pradesh Legislature passed a new Act	 the M. P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act	 1959. Section 3 of the Bihar Act prohibited the slaughter of a bull	 bullock or she buffalo except when it was over 25 years of age and had become useless. Rule 3 of the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Rules	 1960 prescribed that the certificate for slaughtering an animal could be granted only with the concurrence of the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer of a District Board	 Municipality etc.	 and if the two differed	 then according to the decision of the Sub Divisional Animal Husbandary Officer. Section 3 of the U. P. Act permitted the slaughter of a bull or bullock only if it was over 20 years of age and was permanently unfit. It further provided that the animal could not be slaughtered within 20 days of the grant of 'a certificate that it was fit to be slaughtered and gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order granting the certificate. Section 4(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Act provided that no bull	 bullock or buffallo could be slaughtered except upon a certificate issued by the competent authority and section 4(2)(a) provided that no certificate could be issued unless the animal was over 20 years of age and was unfit for work or breeding. Section 4(3) gave a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority. Section 5 provided that no animal 611 shall be slaughtered within 10 days of the date of the issue of the certificate and where an appeal was preferred against the grant of the certificate	 till the time such appeal was disposed of. The petitioners	 who carried on the profession and trade of butchers	 contended that the various provisions of the three Acts set out above infringed their fundamental rights by practically putting a total ban on the slaughter of bulls	 bullocks and she buffaloes even after the animal had ceased to be useful and thus virtually put an end to their profession and trade. Held	 (i) that the ban on the slaughter of bulls	 bullocks and she buffaloes below the age of 20 or 25 years was not a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public and was void. A bull	 bullock or buffalo did not remain useful after 15 years	 and whatever little use it may have then was greatly offset by the economic disadvantages of feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle. The additional condition that the animal must	 apart from being above 20 or 25 years of age	 also be unfit was a further unreasonable restriction. Section 3 of the Bihar Act	 section 3 of the U. P. Act and section 4(2)(a) of the M. P. Act were invalid. (ii) Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules was bad as it imposed dis proportionate restrictions on the rights of the petitioners. The procedure involved such expenditure of money and time as made the obtaining of the certificate not worthwhile. (iii) The provisions in the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Acts providing that the animal shall not be slaughtered within 20 and10 days respectively of the issue of the certificate and that any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority	 may appeal against it	 were likely to hold up the slaughter of the animal for a long time and practically put a total ban on slaughter of bulls	 bullocks and buffaloes even after they had ceased to be useful. These provisions imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioners and were void. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs The State of Bihar	 [1959] S.C.R. 629	 State of Madras vs V. G. Row	 ; and The State of Bihar vs Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga	 	 referred to.