{"id":35828,"date":"2005-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005"},"modified":"2017-10-21T01:45:57","modified_gmt":"2017-10-20T20:15:57","slug":"state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab … on 26 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab … on 26 October, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: A.K. Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4937-4940 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Gujarat\t\t\t\t\t      \n\nRESPONDENT:\nMirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/10\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nA.K. MATHUR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWith<\/p>\n
C.A. No.4941-44 of 1998 and C.A. No.4945 of 1998<\/p>\n
A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tI have gone through the erudite  judgment  by Hon’ble  Chief Justice.
\nBut I  regret  I cannot  support the view taken by Hon’ble Chief Justice.\n<\/p>\n
\tBasic question that arises in  these petitions are whether there is need
\nto over-rule the earlier decisions which held the field right from 1958-1996,
\nis the ground realities have materially changed so as to reverse the view held
\nby successive Constitutional Benches of this Court or those decisions
\nceased to have any relevance.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that  life is ever changing and the concept which was useful
\nin 18th century may not be useful in this millennium.  We  have gone  from
\ncartage to space age.  New scientific temper is a guiding factor in this
\nmillennium.  But despite the  changing pattern of life it cannot be said  that
\nthe decision delivered in the case of Mohd. Qureshi  followed by subsequent
\ndecisions have outlived its ratio.  In my respectful view the material which
\nhas been placed for taking a contrary  view  does not  justify the reversal of
\nearlier decisions.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe detailed history of the legislation and various decisions bearing
\non the subject has been dealt with by Hon’ble Chief Justice in most
\nexhaustive and  pains-taking manner.  Therefore,  there is no  need  to repeat
\nthose legislative as well as judicial history  here.     My endeavor  in this
\nopinion will be  to show that the  situation which existed  right from 1958
\ntill this date there is no material change warranting reversal of the judgments
\nbearing on the subject from 1958-96.\n<\/p>\n
The whole controversy arose in the writ petition  filed in the Gujarat
\nHigh Court challenging the validity of  the  Bombay Animal Preservation
\n(Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to Gujarat Act No. 4
\nof 1994).  By this amendment the age of bulls and bullocks which was
\nexisted at that time  that is bull below the age of 16 years and bullocks below
\nthe age of 16 years can not be slaughtered was deleted.  By this amendment
\nthe age restriction was totally taken away and that means that  no  bull and
\nbullock irrespective of  age shall be slaughtered.  This amendment was
\nchallenged before the Gujarat High Court.  The Gujarat High Court  after
\ndealing with  all aspects  in detail held that amendment  is ultra vires.
\nHence, the present petition alongwith the  other petitions came up  before
\nthis Court by Special Leave Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe matter was listed before the three Judges’ Bench.  Thereafter, it
\nwas  taken by the Constitution Bench and the Constitution Bench realizing
\ndifficulty  that there are  already  Constitution Bench judgments holding the
\nfield, referred the matter to the seven  Judges’ Bench for reconsideration of
\nall the earlier decisions of the Constitution Benches.  Hence these matters
\nare before  seven Judges’ Bench.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble the Chief Justice has already reproduced the objects and
\nreasons for  amendment  therefore same need not be reproduced here. This
\namendment brought about to effect  directive principles of the State Policy
\nunder  Articles 47,  48 of the Constitution and Clause (b) and (c)  of Article
\n39 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,  Hon’ble  Chief Justice  has also reviewed all the cases
\nbearing on the subject which can be enumerated as under:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tAIR 1958 SC 731 ( Mohd. Hanif Qureshi & Ors. Vs. State of
\nBihar)\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAIR 1961 SC448 ( Abul Hakim Vs. State of Bihar)\n<\/p>\n
3.\t1969 (1) SCC 853 ( Mohd. Faruk Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)\n<\/p>\n
4.\t1986 (3) SCC 12 ( Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi Vs. State of
\nGujarat\n<\/p>\n
5.\t1996 (4) SCC 391 ( Hashmattullah  Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)<\/p>\n
In these cases, this very question  was agitated  & by  series of
\ndecisions it was  answered in the negative.\n<\/p>\n
In Mohd. Hanif Qureshi’s case this Court upheld  a  total  prohibition
\nof   slaughter of  the cows of all ages   and calf of buffalows  (male and
\nfemale) & she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks, without
\nprescribing any test of requirement  as to their age.  But so far as bull &
\nbullocks are concerned   when they  ceased to have  draughtability
\nprohibition of their slaughter was not upheld in public interest.  Hon’ble S.R.
\nDas, CJ speaking for the Court exhaustively  dealt with all the aspects which
\npractically covers all the arguments which  have been raised before  us,
\nespecially, the utility of the cow-dung for manure as well as the  cow urine
\nfor its chemical qualities like Nitrogen Phosphates and Potash. His Lordship
\nrecognized that this enactment was made in discharge of  State’s obligation
\nunder Art. 48 of the Constitution to preserve our livestock.\n<\/p>\n
His  Lordship has discussed the  question of reasonable restriction
\nunder Article 19 (6) and after considering all  material placed before the
\nCourt, and adverting to social, religious, utility point of  view in  most
\nexhaustive manner finally concluded thus :\n<\/p>\n
“After giving our most careful and anxious consideration to the
\npros and cons of the problem as indicated and discussed above
\nand keeping in view the presumption in favour of the validity of
\nthe legislation and without any the least disrespect to the
\nopinions of the legislatures concerned we feel that in
\ndischarging the ultimate responsibility cast on us by the
\nConstitution we must approach and analyze the problem in an
\nobjective and realistic manner and then make our
\npronouncement on the  reasonableness of the restrictions
\nimposed by the impugned enactments.  So approaching and
\nanalyzing the problem, we have reached the conclusion (i)  that
\na total ban on the slaughter of cows of all  ages and calves of
\ncows  and  calves of she-buffaloes, male and female,  is quite
\nreasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive
\nprinciples laid down  in Art. 48; (ii) that a total ban on the
\nslaughter of she-buffaloes,  or breeding bulls or working
\nbullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes)  as long as they are as
\nmilch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid and (iii) that
\na total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks
\n(cattle or buffalo)  after they cease to be capable of yielding
\nmilk or of  breeding or working as draught animals cannot be
\nsupported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,  their Lordships have summarized the whole concept of
\npreservation of  the  cattle life in India with reservation that those cattle head
\nwhich have lost their utility can be slaughtered specially with regard to
\ndraught  cattle, bulls, bullocks & buffaloes so as to preserve the other
\nmilching cattle  for  their better  breed and their better produce.\n<\/p>\n
Subsequently in another decision, in the case of Abdul Hakim vs.
\nState  of Bihar  reported in AIR 1961 SC 448   the ban was imposed by the
\nStates of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and U.P. which came up for consideration
\nbefore this Court and in this context  it was observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “The test of reasonableness should be applied to each
\nindividual statute impugned and no abstract standard, or general
\npattern, of  reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all
\ncases.  The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed,
\nthe underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent
\nand urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the
\ndisproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the
\ntime, should all enter into the judicial verdict.”\n<\/p>\n
Their Lordship  also emphasized that the legislature  is the best Judge
\nof what is good for the community, by whose suffrage it comes into
\nexistence, the ultimate responsibility for determining the validity  of the law
\nmust rest with the Court and the Court must  not shirk that solemn duty cast
\non it by the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
It was  observed that the unanimous opinion of  the experts is that
\nafter the age of 15, bulls, bullocks and buffaloes are no longer useful for
\nbreeding, draught and other purpose and whatever little use they may have
\nthen is greatly off-set by the economic disadvantage of feeding and
\nmaintaining unserviceable cattle.\n<\/p>\n
Section  3 of the Bihar  Act in so far as it has increased the age limit
\nto 25  in respect  of   bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes, for the purpose of
\ntheir slaughter imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right
\nof the butchers  to carry on their trade and profession.  Moreover the
\nrestriction cannot be said to be in the interests of the general public, and to
\nthat extent it is void.\n<\/p>\n
Then again in  the case of  Mohd. Faruk vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
\nand Ors.<\/a> reported in  1969 (1) SCC 853,  Constitution Bench  was called
\nupon to decide the validity of  the notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh
\nGovernment under  Municipal Corporation Act.  Earlier,  a notification was
\nissued by the Jabalpur  Municipality permitting  the slaughter of bulls and
\nbullocks alongwith the other  animals.    Later on State Government issued
\nnotification cancelling the notification  permitting the slaughter of bulls and
\nbullocks.  This came up for  a  challenge  directly  under Art. 32  of the
\nconstitution before  this Court,  that this  restriction amounts to breach of
\nArt. 19(1)(g) of  the constitution.  In that context, their Lordship observed:\n<\/p>\n
“That the sentiments of  a section of the people may be hurt by
\npermitting slaughter of bulls and bullocks in premises
\nmaintained by a local authority.  But a prohibition imposed on
\nthe exercise  of a fundamental right to carry on an occupation,
\ntrade  or  business  will not be regarded as reasonable if it is
\nimposed not in the interest of the general  public but merely to
\nrespect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the
\npeople  whose way of life belief or thought is not the  same as
\nthat of the claimant.  The notification issued must, therefore, be
\ndeclared ultra virus as infringing Article 19(1)(g) of  the
\nConstitution.”\n<\/p>\n
Then again in the case of  Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi & Ors.
\nvs. State of Gujarat<\/a> reported in (1986) 3 SCC 12,  the insertion of Section 5
\n(1-A) (c) and (d)   was made under the  Bombay Animal Preservation
\n(Gujarat amendment) act 1979) came up for consideration.  By virtue of this
\ninsertion by the Gujarat State, it was laid down that there will be ban of
\nslaughter of  bulls, bullocks below the age of 16 years.  It was contented that
\nthis prohibition is unreasonable and violative of Art. 19(1)(g).   Their
\nLordships upheld the restriction under  Art. 19(6) with reference to Art. 48
\nof the constitution.     Their Lordships   upheld the contention of the  State of
\nGujarat    that with the improvement of scientific methods cattle up to   the
\nage of 16 years    are used for the purpose of breeding and other agricultural
\noperation.   But by this Act of  1994 this age restriction has now been totally
\ntaken away by the Act of 1994 (which is subject matter of challenge  in these
\npetitions).\n<\/p>\n
Then again the matter  came up before this Court in the case of
\nHashmattullah vs. State of  M.P. and Ors. reported in   1996 (4) SCC 391.
\nThis time  the provisions of the M.P. Agricultural  Cattle Preservation Act,
\n1959 came up  for consideration.  This Act was amended by Amending Act
\nof  1991 and a total ban on slaughter  of bulls and bullocks came  to  be
\nimposed.   And this was challenged being violative of Art. 19 (1)(g) of the
\nconstitution.\n<\/p>\n
Their Lordships after reviewing all earlier cases on the subject and
\ntaking into consideration the uselessness of  these  bulls  and bullocks after
\nthey have attained  a particular age for agriculture operation like  manure as
\nwell as  bio-gas and ecology,  observed  in para 18  as under:\n<\/p>\n
“We are pained to notice the successive attempts made by the
\nState of Madhya Pradesh to nullify the effect of this Court’s
\ndecisions beginning with Mohd. Hanif’s case and ending with
\nMohd. Faruk’s case, each time on flimsy grounds.  In this last
\nsuch attempt, the objects and reasons show how insignificant
\nand unsupportable the ground for bringing the legislation was.
\nThe main thrust of the objects and reasons for the legislation
\nseems to be that even animals which have ceased to be capable
\nof yielding milk or breeding or working as draught animals can
\nbe useful as they would produce dung which could be used to
\ngenerate non-conventional sources of energy like bio-gas
\nwithout so much as being aware of the cost of maintaining such
\nanimals for the mere purpose of dung.  Even the supportive
\narticles relied  upon do not bear on this point.  It is obvious that
\nsuccessive attempts are being made in the hope that some day it
\nwill succeed as indeed it did with the High Court which got
\ncarried away by research papers published only two or three
\nyears before without realizing that they dealt with the aspect of
\nutility of dung but had nothing to do with the question of the
\nutility of animals which have ceased to be reproductive of
\ncapable of being used as draught animals.   Besides, they do not
\neven reflect on the economical aspect of; maintaining such
\nanimals for the sole  purpose of  dung. Prim facie it seems
\nfarfetched and yet the State Government thought it as sufficient
\nto amend the law.”\n<\/p>\n
And their Lordships  declined to review the ratio laid  down in  Mohd. Hanif
\nQureshi’s  case & reiterated the same.\n<\/p>\n
This is a survey of the judicial determination on the subject.   And in
\nthe last case their Lordships frowned on unsuccessful attempt by the State to
\nsomehow nullify the  ratio laid down in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi’s  case and
\nsubsequent decisions following Qureshi’s case.      But this time, the State of
\nGujarat  has come up to seek  the review of earlier decisions.   Now I shall
\nexamine the material which has been placed  by  the State of Gujarat to
\njustify the total prohibition of  slaughter of bulls and bullocks.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel  for the appellant has brought to our notice the
\naffidavit filed by the State  of Gujarat  which has been reproduced by the
\nHon’ble Chief Justice on page 56 in his opinion onwards.    Therefore, I
\nneed not reproduce the  whole of the affidavit.   Mr. J.S.Parikh, Deputy
\nSecretary, Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Department of
\nthe State of Gujarat has in his affidavit stated that  almost in 50% of the
\nagricultural operation by tractor is not possible because of small holdings in
\nthe State of Gujarat.   Therefore, for such small holdings the  draught
\nanimals are best used for cultivation purposes.   It  was also stated  that the
\ntotal cultivated area of Gujarat  State  is about 124 lakh hectares and   a pair
\nof bullocks is required for ploughing 10 hectares of land. Therefore,
\n5.481million  and approximately equal number is required for carting of
\nwhole land.   In accordance with livestock census, the Gujarat State  has
\navailability of indigenous bullocks around 2.84 millions that means  that  a
\nState  has only 25% of  their requirement and it is also stated that each bull is
\nrequired for this purpose.   He has also stated that bull or bullocks  at every
\nstage  of life  supplies 3500 kg. of dung and  2000 ltrs.  of urine  and  this
\nquantity of dung  can supply 5000 cubic feet of biogas, 80 M.T. of organic
\nfertilizer and the urine can supply 2000 ltrs of pesticides and the use of  it in
\nfarming increases the yield very substantially.   That in recent advancement
\nof technology use of biogas has become very useful source of energy and the
\nbiogas can be prepared out of the cow dung and other inputs.  It was pointed
\nout that  there are 19362 biogas plants installed in the State during 1995-97.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, an additional affidavit  was filed  by Mr. D.P. Amin, Joint
\nDirector of Animal Husbandry, Gujarat State.  He has mentioned that the
\nnumber of the  slaughter houses  have declined during the year 1982-83  to
\n1996-97.  The average number of   animals slaughtered  in regulated
\nslaughter houses  was 4,39,141.  It is also stated  that there  is a reduction in
\nslaughter   of  the bull and bullocks above the age of 16 years.  Almost 50
\nper cent of the land holdings are less than 2 hectares; tractor operation is not
\naffordable to small farmers.  For tractors operation one should have large
\nholding of land.  Such land holders are only around 10 per cent of the total
\nland holders.  Hence the farmers with small land holdings require bullocks
\nfor their agricultural operations and transport.  There is reduction in
\nslaughter of bulls and bullocks above the age of 16 years reported in the
\nregulated slaughter houses of Gujarat  State.  As reported in the years from
\n1982-83 to 1996-97, the slaughter of bulls and bullocks above the age of 16
\nyears was only 2.48% of the total animals of different categories slaughtered
\nin the State.  This percentage has gone down to the level of only 1.10%
\nduring last 8 years i.e. 1997-98 to 2004-05 which is very less significant to
\ncause or affect the business of butcher communities.  He has also stated that
\nthe  bullock above the age of 16 years can  generate 0.68  horse power
\ndraught output    while the  prime bullock generates 0.83 horse power per
\nbullock during carting\/hauling draught work.  Considering the utility of
\nbullocks above 16 years of age as draught power a detailed combined study
\nwas carried out by Department of Animal Husbandry and Gujarat
\nAgricultural University (Veterinary Colleges S.K. Nagar & Anand).   The
\nstudy covered different age groups of 156 (78 pairs) bullocks above the age
\nof 16 years age generated 0.68 horse power draught output per bullock while
\nthe prime bullock generated 0.83 horse power per bullock during
\ncarting\/hauling draught work in a summer with about more than 42: F temp.
\nThe study proves that 93% of aged bullock above 16 years of age are still
\nuseful to farmers to perform light and medium draught works.  The
\nimportance of organic manure as a source of humus and plant nutrients to
\nincrease the fertility level of soils has been well recognized.  The organic
\nmatter content of cultivated soils of the tropics and sub-tropics is
\ncomparatively low due to high temperature and intense microbial activity.
\nThe crops remove annually large quantity of plant nutrients from soil.
\nMoreover, Indian soils are poor in organic matter and in major plant
\nnutrients.  Therefore, soil humus has to be replenished through periodic
\naddition of organic manure for maintaining soil productivity.  It was
\nmentioned that there is  number of bio-gas plants operating in the State of
\nGujarat.\n<\/p>\n
Apart from these affidavits many more published documents have
\nbeen placed on record which has been reproduced by the Hon’ble Chief
\nJustice of India in his opinion.  But all these are general datas which only
\nprovide the usefulness of cow dung for the purposes of manure as well as for
\nbiogas and likewise the urine of the cows for pesticides and ayurvedic
\npurposes. But all those datas cannot change the reality that such an aged bull
\nand bullocks produce huge quantity of the cow dung manure and urine
\nwhich can alter a situation materially so as to reverse the earlier decisions of
\nthis court.  Utility of the cow dung and urine was realized and appreciated in
\nthe earlier decision of this Court in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi’s and Ors. vs State
\nof Bihar and Ors. (AIR 1958 SC 731)  The then Chief Justice has quoted
\nfrom various scriptures emphasizing the importance of the cattle life.
\nTherefore it cannot be said that the earlier decisions rendered by the
\nConstitution Bench was oblivious of these facts.\n<\/p>\n
However, so far as the affidavits filed on behalf of State of Gujarat
\nabout the use of biogas and the usefulness of the draught animals has to be
\ntaken with pinch of salt, in both the affidavits it has been admitted that urine
\nand the cow dung of the aged bull and bullocks beyond 16 years is reduced
\nconsiderably and likewise their draughtability.  Therefore, it is admitted that
\nthe bullocks which have crossed the age of 16 years their output for the
\nurine, cow dung and draughtability is substantially  reduced.  Therefore it is
\nexplicit from their affidavits that the age of 16 years prescribed earlier was
\non a very reasonable basis after proper scientific study but de hors those
\nscientific study the State Government brought this amendment removing the
\nage limit for slaughtering of the bulls and bullocks and totally prohibited
\nslaughtering of the same.  This decision of the State Government does not
\nadvance the public interest.\n<\/p>\n
Another significant disclosure in both these affidavits is that
\nslaughtering of these bulls and bullocks has considerably reduced in the year
\n1997-98 to 2004-2005.  The slaughtering of bulls and bullocks beyond the
\nage of 16 years was only 2.48 % of the total animals of different categories
\nslain in the State prior to this period.  This percentage has gone down to the
\nlevel of only 1.10 % during the last 8 years i.e. 1997-98 to 2004-2005.
\nThese details reveal that in fact the slaughtering of these bulls and bullocks
\nbeyond the age of 16 years constituted only 1.10% of the total slaughtering
\ntakes place in the State.  If this is the ratio of the slaughtering, I fail to
\nunderstand how this legislation can advance the cause of the public at the
\nexpense of the denial of Fundamental Right of this class of persons
\n(butchers).  In view of facts disclosed in the affidavit filed by the two senior
\nofficer of the State of Gujarat speaks volume that for small percentage of
\n1.10% can the fundamental right of this class of persons should be sacrificed
\nand earlier decisions be reversed. I fail to understand how it would advance
\nthe cause of the public at large so as to deprive the handful of persons of
\ntheir rights to profession.    On the basis of this material, I am of the opinion
\nthat the earlier decisions of this Court have not become irrelevant in the
\npresent context.  The tall claim made by State looks attractive in a print but
\nin reality it is not so.  I fail to understand that how can an animal  whose
\naverage age is said to be 12-16 years  can at  the age of 16 years reproduce
\nthe cow-dung or urine which can off set the  requirement of the  chemical
\nfertilizer.   In this connection reference be made to text book where average
\nage is 12 years.  It is a common  experience that the use of the chemical
\nfertilizer has increased  all over the country and the first priority of the
\nfarmer is the chemical fertilizer, as a result of which the production in food
\ngrain in the country has gone up  and  today the  country has become
\nsurplus.   This is because of the use of the chemical fertilizer only  and not
\nthe  organic manure.  It was observed  in Mohd. Hanif’s case    that India has
\na largest cattle head but a lower in the production of milk.  It is only because
\nof the scientific methods employed by veterinarian which has increased the
\nmilk production in the country  not because of the poor  breed of  the bulls.
\nIt is common  experience  that aged bulls are not used for purposes  of
\ncovering the  cows for better quality of the breed.   Only well-built young
\nbulls are used for the purpose of  improving the breeding and not the aged
\nbulls.   If the aged and weak bulls are allowed for mating purposes, the off-
\nspring will be of poor health and that will not be in the interest of the
\ncountry.\tSo far as the use of biogas is concerned, that has also been
\nsubstantially reduced after the advent of L.P.G.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore in my opinion, in the background of this scenario, I do not
\nthink that it will be proper to reverse the view which has been held good for
\na long spell of time from 1958 to 1996.  There is no material change in
\nground realities warranting reversal of earlier decisions.\n<\/p>\n
One of the other reasons which has been advanced for reversal of
\nearlier judgments was that at the time when these earlier judgments were
\ndelivered Article 48(A) and 51(A) were not there and impact of both these
\nArticles were not considered.  It is true that Article 48(A) which was
\nintroduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 with effect from
\n3.1.1977 and Article 51(A) i.e. fundamental duties were also brought about
\nby the same amendment.  Though, these Articles were not in existence at
\nthat time but the effect of those Articles were indirectly considered in the
\nMohd. Hanif Qureshi’s case in 1958. It was mentioned that cow dung can be
\nused for the purposes of manure  as well as for the purpose of fuel that will
\nbe more echo-friendly.  Similarly, in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi’s case their
\nLordships have quoted from the scriptures to show that we should have a
\nproper consideration for our cattle wealth and in that context their Lordships
\nquoted in para 22 which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“22. The avowed object of each of the impugned Acts is to
\nensure the preservation, protection, and improvement of the
\ncow and her progeny.  This solicitude arises out of the
\nappreciation of the usefulness of cattle in a predominantly
\nagricultural society.  Early Aryans recognized its importance as
\none of the most indispensable adjuncts of agriculture.  It would
\nappear that in Vedic times animal flesh formed the staple food
\nof the people.  This is attributable to the fact that the climate in
\nthat distant past was extremely cold and the Vedic Aryans had
\nbeen a pastoral people before they settled down as
\nagriculturists.  In Rg. Vedic times goats, sheep, cows, buffaloes
\nand even horses were slaughtered for food and for religious
\nsacrifice and their flesh used to be offered to the Gods.  Agni is
\ncalled the “eater of ox or cow” in Rg.Veda (VIII,43,11).  The
\nslaying of a great ox (Mahoksa) or a “great Goat” (Mahaja) for
\nthe entertainment of a distinguished guest has been enjoined in
\nthe Satapatha Brahmana (III.4. 1-2).  Yagnavalkya also
\nexpresses a similar view (Vaj.1. 109).  An interesting account
\nof those early days will be found in Rg.Vedic Culture by Dr.
\nA.C. Das, Chapter 5, pages 203-5 and in the History of
\nDharamasastras (Vol.II, Part II) by P.V. Kane at pages 772-773.
\nThough the custom of slaughtering of cows and bulls prevailed
\nduring the vedic period, nevertheless, even in the Rg. Vedic
\ntimes there seems to have grown up a revulsion of feeling
\nagainst the custom.  The cow gradually came to acquire a
\nspecial sanctity and was called “Aghnya” (not to be slain).
\nThere was a school of thinkers amongst the Risis, who set their
\nface against the custom of killing such useful animals as the
\ncow and the bull.  High praise was bestowed on the cow as will
\nappear from the following verses from Rg.Veda, Book VI,
\nHymn XXVIII (Cows) attributed to the authorship of Sage
\nBhardavaja:\n<\/p>\n
“1 . The kine have come and brought good fortune;\n<\/p>\n
let them rest in the cow-pen and be happy near us.\n<\/p>\n
Here let them stay prolific, many coloured, and
\nyield through many morns their milk for Indra.\n<\/p>\n
6. O Cows, ye fatten e’n the worn and wasted, and
\nmake the unlovely beautiful to look on.\n<\/p>\n
Prosper my house, ye with auspicious voices, your
\npower is glorified in our assemblies.\n<\/p>\n
7. Crop goodly pasturages and be prolific; drink
\npure sweet water at good drinking places.\n<\/p>\n
Never be thief or sinful man your master, and may
\nthe dart of Rudra still avoid you.”\n<\/p>\n
(Translation by Ralph Griffith).  Verse 29 of hymn 1 in Book X
\nof Atharva Veda forbids cow slaughter in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
“29. The slaughter of an innocent, O Kritya, is an
\nawful deed, Slay not cow, horse, or man of ours.”\n<\/p>\n
Hyman 10 in the same book is a rapturous glorification of the
\ncow:\n<\/p>\n
“30. The cow is Heaven, the cow is Eath, the cow
\nis Vishnu, Lord of life.\n<\/p>\n
The Sadhyas and the Vasus have drunk the
\noutpourings of the cow.\n<\/p>\n
34. Both Gods and mortal men depend for life and
\nbeing on the cow.\n<\/p>\n
She hath become this universe; all that the sun
\nsurveys is she.”\n<\/p>\n
P.V. Kane argues that in the times of the Rg.Veda only barren
\ncows, if at all, were killed for sacrifice or meat and cows
\nyielding milk were held to be not fit for being killed.  It is only
\nin this way, according to him that one can explain and reconcile
\nthe apparent conflict between the custom of killing cows for
\nfood and the high praise bestowed on the cow in Rg.Vedic
\ntimes.  It would appear that the protest raised against the
\nslaughter of cows greatly increased in volume till the custom
\nwas totally abolished in a later age.  The change of climate
\nperhaps also make the use of beef as food unnecessary and even
\ninjurious to health.  Gradually cows became indicative of the
\nwealth of the owner.  The Neolithic Aryans not having been
\nacquainted with metals, there were no coins in current use in the
\nearlier stages of their civilization, but as they were eminently a
\npastoral people almost every family possessed a sufficient
\nnumber of cattle and some of them exchanged them for the
\nnecessaries of their life.  The value of cattle (Pasu) was,
\ntherefore, very great with the early Rg.Vedic Aryans.  The
\nancient Romans also used the word pecus or pecu (pasu) in the
\nsense of wealth or money.  The English words, “pecuniary” and
\n“impecunious”, are derived from the Latin root pecus or pecu,
\noriginally meaning cattle.  The possession of cattle in those
\ndays denoted wealth and a man was considered rich or poor
\naccording to the large or small number of cattle that he owned.
\nIn the Ramayana king Janaka’s wealth was described by
\nreference to the large number of herds that he owned.  It
\nappears that the cow was gradually raised to the status of
\ndivinity.  Kautilya’s Arthasastra has a special chapter
\n(Ch.XXIX) dealing with the “superintendent of cows” and the
\nduties of the owner of cows are also referred to in Ch.XI of
\nHindu Law in its sources by Ganga Nath Jha.  There can be no
\ngainsaying the fact that the Hindus in general hold the cow in
\ngreat reverence and the idea of the slaughter of cows for food is
\nrepugnant to their notions and this sentiment has in the past
\neven led to communal riots.  It is also a fact that after the recent
\npartition of the country this agitation against the slaughter of
\ncows has been further intensified.  While we agree that the
\nconstitutional question before us cannot be decided on grounds
\nof mere sentiment, however passionate it may be, we,
\nnevertheless, think that it has to be taken into consideration,
\nthough only as one of many elements, in arriving at a judicial
\nverdict as to the reasonableness of the restrictions.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore it cannot be said that the Judges were not conscious about
\nthe usefulness and the sanctity with which the entire cow and its progeny has
\nbeen held in our country.  Though Article 48(A) and 51(A) were not there,
\nbut their Lordships were indirectly conscious of the implication.  Articles
\n48(A) and 51(A) do not substantially change the ground realities which can
\npersuade to change the views which have been held from 1958 to 1996.
\nReference was also made that for protection of top soil, the cow dung will be
\nuseful.  No doubt the utility of the cow dung for protection of the top soil is
\nnecessary but one has to be pragmatic in its approach that whether the small
\nyield of the cow dung and urine from aged bulls and bullocks can
\nsubstantially change the top soil.  In my opinion this argument was advanced
\nonly for the sake of argument but does not advance the case of the
\npetitioners\/appellants to reverse the decision of the earlier Benches which
\nhad stood the test of time.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, it will be relevant to refer the principle of stare
\ndecisis.  The expression of ‘stare decisis’ is a Latin phrase which means “to
\nstand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former
\nadjudications”.  It is true that law is a dynamic concept and it should change
\nwith the time.  But at the same time it shall not be so fickle that it changes
\nwith change of guard.  If the ground realities have not changed and it has not
\nbecome irrelevant with the time then it should not be reviewed lightly.  I
\nhave discussed above the reasons which have been given by the State of
\nGujarat for reconsideration of the earlier decisions on the subject, in my
\nhumble opinion the justification so pleaded is not sufficient to change or
\nreview the decision of the Constitution Bench by the present Bench of seven
\nJudges.\n<\/p>\n
The principle of stare decisis is based on a public policy.  This policy
\nis based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the
\nlaw are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e. that parties should be
\nable to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable
\nassurance of the governing rules of law.  If the courts start changing their
\nviews frequently then there will be a lack of certainty in the law and it is not
\ngood for the health of the nation.\n<\/p>\n
Craies on Statue Law, 7th Edition, it was observed that:
\n “The rule is also founded more logically on the axiom statre
\ndecisis, which was the ground of the decision in Hanau vs
\nEhrlich.  The case turned on the ambiguous words in the Statute
\nof Frauds as to agreements not to be performed within a year
\nfrom the making thereof.  The House of Lords in 12912 decided
\nthat though it may be well doubted whether an agreement for
\nmore than one year determinable by notice within the year is
\nwithin the statute, a long course of decisions going back to
\n1829 in the affirmative ought not to be disturbed.  And in 1945
\nScott L.J. refused to decide against a decision of Malins Vs. C.
\nin 1870 on the ground that the construction placed by the Vice-
\nChancellor on certain sections of the Companies Act 1862 had
\nbeen accepted for a long time.  In 1958 Lord Evershed M.R.
\nsaid: “There is well-established authority for the view that a
\ndecision of long standing, on the basis of which many persons
\nwill in the course of time have arranged their affairs, should not
\nlightly be disturbed by a superior court not strictly bound itself
\nby the decision.”\n<\/p>\n
In 1919 Lord Buckmaster enunciated the principles on which
\nthe rule of stare decisis is based.  “Firstly, the construction of a
\nstatute of doubtful meaning once laid down and accepted for a
\nlong period of time ought not to be altered unless your
\nLordships could say positively that it was wrong and productive
\nof inconvenience.  Secondly, that the decisions upon which title
\nto property depends or which by establishing principles of
\nconstruction otherwise form the basis of contracts ought to
\nreceive the same protection.  Thirdly, decisions affecting the
\ngeneral conduct of affairs, so that their alteration would mean
\nthat taxes had been unlawfully imposed or exemption
\nunlawfully obtained, payments needlessly made or the position
\nof the public materially affected, ought in the same way to
\ncontinue.”\n<\/p>\n
Earlier, Lord Westbury had thus stated the rule, “We must bow
\nto the uniform interpretation which has been put upon the
\nstatute of Elizabeth and must not attempt to disturb the
\nexposition it has received .  If we find a uniform
\ninterpretation of a statue upon a question materially affecting
\nproperty, and perpetually recurring, and which has been
\nadhered to without interruption, it would be impossible for us to
\nintroduce the precedent of disregarding that interpretation.
\nDisagreeing with it would thereby be shaking rights and titles
\nwhich have been founded through so many years upon the
\nconviction that that interpretation is the legal and proper one
\nand is one which will not be departed from.”\n<\/p>\n
The rule of stare decisis was followed in Associated
\nNewspapers Ltd. vs City of London Corporation, where the
\nHouse of Lords declined to overrule two old cases which
\nestablished the non-ratability of certain property in the City of
\nLondon on the construction of an Act of 1767, and in Morgan
\nvs Fear, where the House of Lords refused to disturb a
\nconstruction of the Prescription Act 1832, which had been
\nsettled and acted on for forty-six years.  In Cohen vs Bayley-
\nWorthington which turned on the construction of the Fines and
\nRecoveries Act, 1833, the House of Lords refused to put on that
\nAct a new construction, as property had been settled or
\notherwise dealt with for a long period of time on the faith of the
\nolder cases, and in Close vs Steel Co. of Wales Ltd. Lord
\nMorton of Henryton said: “I have always understood that when
\nthis House clearly expresses a view upon the construction of an
\nAct of Parliament and bases its decision on that view, the Act
\nmust bear that construction unless and until Parliament alters
\nthe Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore one of the hallmarks of the law is certainty predictability
\nand stability unless the ground realty has completely changed.  In the present
\ncase, as discussed above, in my opinion the ground reality has not changed
\nand the law laid down by this court holds good and relevant.  Some
\nadvancement in technology and more and more use of the cow dung and
\nurine is not such a substantial factor to change the ground realities so as to
\ntotally done away with the slaughtering of the aged bulls and bullocks.  It is
\ntrue my Lord the Chief Justice has rightly observed that principle of stare
\ndecisis is not a dogmatic rule allergic to logic and reason; it is a flexible
\nprinciple of law operating in the province of precedents providing room to
\ncollaborate with the demands of changing times dictated by social needs,
\nState policy and judicial conscience.   There is no quarrel to this proposition,
\nbut the only question is whether the earlier decisions are not logical or they
\nhave become unreasonable with the passage of time.  In my humble opinion,
\nthose decisions still hold good in the present context also.  Therefore, I do
\nnot think that there are compelling reasons for reversal of the earlier
\ndecisions either on the basis of advancement of technology or reason, or
\nlogic, or economic consideration. Therefore, in my humble opinion, there is
\nno need to reverse the earlier decisions.\n<\/p>\n
An argument was raised with regard to role of objects and reasons
\npreceding the enactment.  There is no two opinion that they are useful and
\nfor purposes of interpretation of the provisions whenever its validity is
\nchallenged.  This aspect has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Chief Justice
\nand I do not wish to add anything more to it.\n<\/p>\n
Likewise, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has dealt in detail the relation of
\nFundamental Rights with Directive Principles. His Lordship has very
\nexhaustively dealt with all the cases bearing on the subject prior and after
\ndecision in Keshwanand Bharti’s case. The court should guard zealously
\nFundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens of the society, but at the same
\ntime strike a balance between the Fundamental Rights and the larger
\ninterests of the society. But when such right clashes with the larger interest
\nof the country it must yield to the latter.  Therefore, wherever any enactment
\nis made for advancement of Directive Principles and it runs counter to the
\nFundamental Rights an attempt should be made to harmonise the same  if it
\npromotes larger public interest.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, as a result of above discussion, I am of the view that the
\nview taken by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court is correct and
\nthere is no justification for reversing the view taken by the earlier
\nConstitution Bench decision of this Court.  All appeals are dismissed.  No
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab … on 26 October, 2005 Author: A Mathur Bench: A.K. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4937-4940 of 1998 PETITIONER: State of Gujarat RESPONDENT: Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/10\/2005 BENCH: A.K. MATHUR JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab ... on 26 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab ... on 26 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-20T20:15:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab … on 26 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T20:15:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":6540,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005\",\"name\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab ... on 26 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T20:15:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab … on 26 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab ... on 26 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab ... on 26 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-20T20:15:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab … on 26 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T20:15:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005"},"wordCount":6540,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005","name":"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab ... on 26 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T20:15:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-on-26-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab … on 26 October, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35828","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}