{"id":69326,"date":"1958-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1958-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958"},"modified":"2018-12-11T19:15:54","modified_gmt":"2018-12-11T13:45:54","slug":"mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected … on 23 April, 1958"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected … on 23 April, 1958<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 731, \t\t 1959 SCR 629<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Das, S.K., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Bose, Vivian<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHD.  HANIF QUARESHI & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR(and connected petition)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/04\/1958\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nDAS, S.K.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBOSE, VIVIAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1958 AIR  731\t\t  1959 SCR  629\n\n\nACT:\n       Cow     slaughter-Legislation\tPlacing\t   total     ban-If\n       Constitutional -Directive Principles of State Policy,  value\n       of-Fundamental\t\t    rights\t\t Reasonable\n       restrictions--Test-Intention  in Supreme Court  Proceedings,\n       when  permissible-Bihar\tPreservation  and  Improvement\t of\n       Animals\tAct, 1955 (Bihar II of 1956)-U.\t P. Preve  lion\t of\n       Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.  P. 1 of 1956)-C.  P. and  Berar\n       Animal  Preservation  Act,  1949 (C.  P. and  Berar  LII\t of\n       1949)-Constitution  of  India, Arts.  14,  19,  48---Supreme\n       Court Rules, 0. XLI, r. 2.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act  ,955,\nput  a\ttotal  ban on the slaughter  of\t all  categories  of\nanimal,,  of  the  species  of bovine  cattle.\t The  U.  P.\nPrevention  of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, put a total  ban  on\nthe slaughter of cows and her progeny which included  bulls,\nbullocks,  heifers and calves.\tThe C. P. and  Berar  Animal\nPreservation Act, 1949, placed a total ban on the  slaughter\nof cows, male or female calves of cow, bulls, bullocks,\t and\nheifers\t and  the slaughter of buffaloes  (male\t or  female,\nadults\tor  calves) was permitted only under  a\t certificate\ngranted by the proper authorities.  No exception was made in\nany  of these Acts permitting slaughter of cattle  even\t for\nbona fide religious purposes.  These three Acts were enacted\nin  pursuance  of the directive principles of  State  policy\ncontained in Art. 48 Of the Constitution.  The\tpetitioners,\nwho  were engaged in the butcher's trade and its  subsidiary\nundertakings, challenged the constitutional validity of\t the\nthree  Acts on the grounds that they infringed their  funda-\nmental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 25  of\nthe  Constitution.   The  respondents  contended  that\t the\nimpugned  Acts\twere constitutional and valid as  they\twere\nmade in consonance with the directive principles of Art-  48\nwhich  were superior to the fundamental rights and that\t the\nimpugned Acts did not offend Art. 14, 19(1)(g) or 25\nHeld,  (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of\t all\nages  and  calves  of cows and of  she-buffaloes,  male\t and\nfemale, was quite reasonable and valid;\n(ii)that  a total ban on the slaughter of  she-buffaloes  or\nbreeding  bulls\t or  working bullocks  (cattle\tas  well  as\nbuffaloes),  as long as they were capable of being  used  as\nmilch or draught cattle, was also reasonable and valid; and\n(iii)  that a total ban on the slaughter  of  she-buffaloes,\nbulls\n630\nand  bullocks  (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased  to  be\ncapable\t of  yielding  milk or of  breeding  or\t working  as\ndraught\t animals  was not in the interests  of\tthe  general\npublic and was invalid.\nThe directive in Art. 48 for taking steps for preventing the\nslaughter  of  animals is quite explicit  and  positive\t and\ncontemplates   a  ban  on  the\tslaughter  of  the   several\ncategories  of animals specified therein, namely,  cows\t and\ncalves\tand  other cattle which answer\tthe  description  of\nmilch or draught cattle.  The protection is confined only to\ncows and calves and to those animals which are presently  or\npotentially  capable  of yielding milk or of doing  work  as\ndraught\t cattle but does not extend to cattle which  at\t one\ntime  were milch or draught cattle but which have ceased  to\nbe  such.  The directive principles of State policy set\t out\nin Part IV of the Constitution have to conform to and run as\nsubsidiary to the fundamental rights in Part 111.\nState of Madras v. Smt.\t Champakam Dorairajan,<\/a> [1951] S.C.R.\n525, followed.\nThe  ban on the slaughter of cows even on the slaughter\t day\ndid  not violate the fundamental rights of  the\t petitioners\nunder  Art.  25\t as it had not\tbeen  established  that\t the\nsacrifice  of a cow on that day was an obligatory overt\t act\nfor a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea.\nRatilal\t Panachand  Gandhi v. The State\t of  Bombay,<\/a>  [1954]\nS.C.R. 1055, applied.\nThe  impugned  Acts  which affected only  the  butchers\t who\nslaughtered  cattle  and not the  butchers  who\t slaughtered\nsheep or goats, did not offend Art. 14 Of the  Constitution.\nThe  different\tcategories of animals being  susceptible  of\nclassification\tinto separate groups on the basis  of  their\nusefulness  to society, the butchers who kill each  category\nmay  also  be placed in distinct classes  according  to\t the\neffect\tproduced  on  society by the carrying  on  of  their\nrespective occupations.\t This classification is based on  an\nintelligible  differentia which places the petitioners in  a\nwell  defined  class and distinguishes them from  those\t who\nslaughter  sheep or goats and this differentia has  a  close\nconnection with the object sought to be achieved by the\t im-\npugned\tActs,  namely,\tthe  preservation,  protection\t and\nimprovement of livestock.\nIn  determining\t the  question\tof  the.  reasonableness  of\nrestrictions imposed on the fundamental rights conferred  by\nArt.  19(1)(g) the Court cannot proceed on a general  notion\nof  what  is  reasonable  in the abstract  or  even  on\t the\nconsideration  of what is reasonable from the point of\tview\nof  the\t person\t or persons on\twhom  the  restrictions\t are\nimposed.   What the Court has to do is to  consider  whether\nthe restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interests  of\nthe  general  public.  The test of reasonableness  has\tbeen\nlaid  down in State of Madras v. I.  G. Row,<\/a>  [1952]  S.C.R.\n597  at\t 602.\tIt  should  also  be  remembered  that\t the\nlegislature\n631\nis the best judge of what is good for the community.  Though\na  constitutional question cannot be decided on the  grounds\nof  the sentiment of a section of the people, it has  to  be\ntaken  into  consideration,  though  only  as  one  of\t the\nelements,  in  arriving\t at a judicial\tverdict\t as  to\t the\nreasonableness of the restrictions.\nThe effect of the impugned Acts on the fundamental rights of\nthe   petitioners   under  Art.\t 19(1)(g)  is\tdirect\t and\ninstantaneous  as soon as the Acts are brought\tinto  force,\nand  it has to be determined whether they can  be  justified\nunder  cl. (6) of Art. 19 The country is in short supply  of\nmilch  cattle,\tbreeding bulls and working bullocks,  and  a\ntotal  ban on the slaughter of these which are essential  to\nthe  national economy for the supply of\t milk,\tagricultural\nworking power and manure is a reasonable restriction in\t the\ninterests  of  the general public.  But a total ban  on\t the\nslaughter of useless cattle, which involves a wasteful drain\non the nation's cattle feed which is itself in short  supply\nand  which  would deprive the useful cattle of\tmuch  needed\nnourishment,  cannot be justified as being in the  interests\nof the general public.\nUnder O. XLI r. 2, Of file Supreme Court Rules\tintervention\nis  permitted only to the Attorney-General of India  or\t the\nAdvocates-General  for\tthe  States.   There  is  no   other\nprovision  for permitting a third party to intervene in\t the\nproceedings before the Supreme Court.  In practice, however,\nthe  Supreme  Court, in- exercise of  its  inherent  powers,\nallows a third party to\t intervene when such third party  is\na  party to some proceedings in the Supreme Court or in\t the\nHigh  Courts  where  the same or similar  questions  are  in\nissue,\tfor the decision of the Supreme Court will  conclude\nthe case of that party.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 58, 83, 84, 103,\t117,
\n126, 127, 128, 248, 144 & 145 of 1956 & 129 of 1957.
\nPetitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India\t for
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
H.   J. Umrigar, N. H. Hingorani and A. G. Ratnaparkhi,\t for
\nthe petitioners in all the petitions except Petition No. 103
\nof 1956.  The impugned Acts infringe the fundamental  rights
\nunder  Art.  19(1)(g) of the petitioners who  are  butchers,
\ntanners,  gut merchants, curers and cattle dealers to  carry
\non their respective trades.  Where, as in the present  case,
\nthe enactment on the face of it violates a fundamental right
\nthe  burden  lies on those who support it to  show  that  it
\nfalls  within  the purview of cl. (6) of Art.  19.   Saghir,
\nAhmed v. The State of U.P., ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 707 at 726);\n<\/p>\n
632<\/span><\/p>\n
Chiranjitlal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, ([1950] S.C.R.
\n869  at 891-892).  The impugned Acts put a total ban on\t the
\ntrade and business of the petitioners who kill only  cattle.
\nTotal  prohibition  of\ta trade\t which\tis  not\t immoral  or
\nobnoxious  can\tnever be reasonable restriction\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of el. (6) of Art. 19.\t Chintaman Rao v. The  State
\nof  Madhya  Pradesh,  ([1950]  S.C.R.  759  at\t765);\tR.M.
\nSheshadri  v. The District Magistrate ( [1955] 1 S.C.R.\t 686
\nat  689, 690); Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. The  Excise  Commis-
\nsioner,\t ( [1954] S.C.R. 873); Rashid Ahmed.  The  Municipal
\nBoard,\tKairana,  ([1950]  S.C.R. 566).\t Total\tban  on\t the
\nslaughter  of cattle is not in the interests of the  general
\npublic.\t Animal husbandry will suffer by a total ban.  There
\nis  shortage  of fodder and pasture in the country  and\t the
\nuseless and uneconomic cattle will deprive the useful cattle
\nof these things.  Setting up of Gosadans for the  uneconomic
\ncattle will be a tremendous waste of public money.  [Counsel
\nreferred to various official reports in this connection.]
\nThe  impugned Acts create an odious  discrimination  between
\nbutchers  and persons dealing solely in cows,  bulls,  etc.,
\nand  those dealing in sheep and goats, and offend  Art.\t 14.
\nThese Acts which single out the petitioners’ community which
\nkills only cows, bulls, etc., are hostile and discriminatory
\nlegislation.   Ye Cong Eng v. Trinidad, (70 L. Ed.  1059  at
\n1071);\tFowler\tv. Rhode Island, (97 L. Ed.  828);  Lane  v.
\nWilson, (83 L. Ed.  1281 at 1287); Ligget Co.  v.  Baldrige,
\n(73 L. Ed. 204).\n<\/p>\n
The  impugned Acts also contravene Art. 25 as they  prohibit
\nthe Mussalmans from performing the religious practice of the
\ncommunity  to sacrifice the cow on the occasion of Bakr\t Id.
\nRatilal\t Panachand  Gandhi v. The State of  Bombay,<\/a>  ([1954]
\nS.C.R. 1055 at 1063).\n<\/p>\n
The directive principles of State policy set out in Art.  48
\ncan never override fundamental rights.\tThe State of  Madras
\nv.  Sm.\t Champakam Dorairajan,<\/a> ([1951]) S.C.R. 525 at  530);
\nSaghir Ahmed’s Case, ( [1955] ) 1  S.C.R. 707 at 727).\t The
\nimpugned  Acts traverse, beyond the directive principles  in
\nArt. 48.\n<\/p>\n
633<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Bihar and the Madhya Pradesh Acts which  affect  inter-
\nState trade in cattle and beef offend Art. 301 and are\tvoid
\nas  the\t assent\t of  the President  was\t riot  taken  before
\nenacting them.\n<\/p>\n
Frank  Anthony\tand  K. L. Mehta,  for\tthe  petitioners  in
\nPetition No. 103 of 1956.  Section 9 of the U. P. Prevention
\nof  Cow\t Slaughter Act makes the slaughtering  of  cattle  a
\ncognisable   and  non-bailable\toffence.   This\t and   other
\nprovisions of the Act are ex facie restrictions on the right
\nof the petitioners to carry on their trade.  The onus is  on
\nthe respondents to show that the restrictions are reasonable
\nrestrictions  in  the  interests  of  the  general   public.
\nChintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, ([1950] S.  C.
\nR. 759 at 763); Seghir Ahmed v. The State of U. P.,  ([1955]
\n1 S. C. It. 707 at 726).  The legislation is colourable\t and
\nmala  fide and is inspired by religious motives.   State  of
\nMadras\tv. V. G. Rao,<\/a> ([1952] S. C. R. 597).  Article 48  in
\nso far as its imposes blanket ban on cow would have to yield
\nto  Art. 19 (1) (g).  The restrictions in the Act amount  to
\ntotal  prohibition  and\t extinction of\tthe  trade  of\tbeef
\nbutchers.   Saghir Ahmed’s case; Dwarka Prasad Laxmi  Narain
\nv.  The\t State\tof U. P., (  [1954]  S.C.R.  803),  Fairmout
\nCreamery  Co.  v. Minnesota, (71 L. Ed. 893  it\t 897).\t The
\nimpugned Act offends Art. 14 as it discriminates against the
\nbeef  butchers.\t  These\t butchers  have\t a  legal  right  to
\nslaughter  cow\tfor food or sacrifice.\t Naubahar  Singh  v.
\nQadir  Bux, (A. 1. R. 1930 All. 753); Shahbazkhan  v.  Umrao
\nPuri, (I.  L. R. 30 All. 181); Emperor -v.  Muhammad  Yakub,
\n(I.  L. R. 32 All. 571).\n<\/p>\n
C.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, with  Mahabir-
\nPrasad,\t  Advocate-General   of\t Bihar\tand  S.\t  P.   Varma
\n(respondent  in Petitions Nos. 58, 83 and 84 of\t 1956),\t and
\nwith  R. H. Dhebar, for the State of Bombay  (respondent  in
\nPetition No. 117 of 1956).  The legislature has thought\t fit
\nthat  slaughter\t of cattle should be stopped  in  the  inter
\nstates of animal husbandry and public policy.  It is not for
\nthe  Court  to say that such a policy should not  have\tbeen
\nadopted.  Both on the question of policy at-id the extent of
\nthe restrictions
\n634<\/span>
\nthe  Court should interfere only if it is convinced that  in
\nno view of the matter could the restrictions be\t reasonable.
\nThere  are  two conflicting opinions on\t this  controversial
\nmatter,\t i.  e., whether there should be total ban  or\tonly
\npartial ban.  In such a case the opinion of the\t legislators
\nmust prevail and the Court should not interfere where  there
\nis controversy as to facts.  State of -Madras v. V. G.\tRao,
\n([1952]\t S.  C.\t R.  597 at 606);  The\tState  of  Bihar  v.
\nMaharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh,<\/a> ([1952] S. C. R. 889 at\n<\/p>\n
941);  Arumugham v. State of Madras, (I.  L. R. [1953]\tMad.\n<\/p>\n
937).\tUnless it can be said that the restrictions have  no
\nbearing on the object sought to be achieved the\t legislation
\nmust  be upheld.  Article 37 enjoins the State to apply\t the
\ndirective  principles  of  State policy in Part\t IV  of\t the
\nConstitution   in  making  law.,  The  legislation   is\t  in
\naccordance with the direction given in Art. 48.
\nThe object of the legislation is not to control any trade or
\nindustry but to improve the breed of cattle and to  organise
\nanimal\thusbandry and agriculture.  Unless  the\t legislation
\ndirectly hits trade or business it does not infringe Art. 19
\n(1)  (g).  A. K. Gopalan v. The State, ( [1950] S. C. R.  88
\nat 101); Ram Singh v. The State of Delhi, ( [1951] S. C.  R.
\n451  at\t 455-457); R. S. Ram Jawaya Kapur v.  The  State  of
\nPunjab, ([1955] 2 KS.  C. R. 225); State of Bombay v. R.  M.
\nD. Chamar-baugwala,<\/a> ( A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 699 at 721).
\nB.Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the State of Bombay\t (respondent
\nin  Petitions Nos. 126 to 128 and 248 of 1956), and for\t the
\nState  of Madhya Pradesh (respondent in Petition No. 144  of
\n1956).\n<\/p>\n
M.Adhicary,  Advocate-General  for  the,  State\t of   Madhya
\nPradesh\t and I. N. Shroff, for the State of  Madhya  Pradesh
\n(respondent  in\t Petition  No. 145  of\t1956),\tadopted\t the
\narguments of C. K. Daphtary.\n<\/p>\n
H.   N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India,\tG.C.
\nMathur and C. P. Lal, for the State of U. P. (respondent  in
\nPetitions Nos. 103 of 1956 and 129 of 1957).  The provisions
\nof  the U. P. Act have a reasonable relation to the  purpose
\nin view i. e. the directive
\n635<\/span>
\nin Art. 48 and consequently the Act cannot be said to offend
\nArt.  19  (1)  (g).  Chintaman Rao v. The  State  of  Madhya
\nPradesh,  ([1950]  S. C. R. 759 at 763).  According  to\t the
\nfacts\tand  figures  given  in\t the  Gosamvardhan   Enquiry
\nCommittee’s  Report  the  cattle  population  was   actually
\ndecreasing  and\t total\tban on slaughter  was  necessary  to
\nprotect\t and  preserve the cattle.  The State of U.  P.\t had
\nmade ample provisions for looking after the decrepit cattle,
\nand such cattle also was not uneconomic as it yielded  hides
\nand manure.\n<\/p>\n
The  U. P. Act which prohibits the slaughter of\t cattle\t but
\nnot  that  of  buffaloes  does not offend  Art.\t 14  as\t the
\ndiscrimination\tis  based upon proper  classification.\t The
\nbuffalo does not require any protection.  The female buffalo
\nis in no danger as its yield of milk is very high.  The\t he-
\nbuffalo is not very useful for draught purposes and there is
\nno  need to protect it.\t Besides, the buffalo population  is
\nsteadily increasing.\n<\/p>\n
The  U. P. Act does not violate Art. 25.  Article 25 of\t our
\nConstitution is similar to Art. 8 of the Irish Constitution.
\nThere  is  no  religious compulsion  on\t the  Mussalmans  to
\nsacrifice a cow on Bakr Id Day.\n<\/p>\n
Thakurdas   Bhargava,  as  amicus  curiae.   The   directive
\nprinciples  of State policy in Part IV of  the\tConstitution
\nare superior to fundamental rights and the enactments  which
\nare  in\t pursuance of the directions given by  Art.  48\t are
\nvalid  and constitutional even though they may infringe\t the
\nfundamental rights of the petitioners.\tThe total ban on cow
\nslaughter  in the impugned Acts is justified and is  in\t the
\ninterests  of  the general public.  The\t facts\tand  figures
\ngiven  in the official reports are inaccurate, and there  is
\nno  real  shortage  of fodder or  pasture  land.   There  is
\nshortage  of  milk  in the country and it  is  essential  to
\nprotect\t the  cow.  The bullock takes the largest  share  in
\nmeeting\t  the\tpower  requirement  for\t  our\tagricultural
\nproduction.   Cow  dung manure contributes about  rupees  63
\ncrores per year to our national income.\n<\/p>\n
H.J. Umrigar, in reply.\n<\/p>\n
Frank Anthony, also replied.\n<\/p>\n
636<\/span><\/p>\n
1958.  April 23.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDAS   C.  J.-These  12\tpetitions  under  Art.\t32  of\t our
\n,Constitution  raise  the  question  of\t the  constitutional
\nvalidity of three several legislative enactments banning the
\nslaughter of certain animals passed by the States of  Bihar,
\nUttar\tPradesh\t and  Madhya  Pradesh\trespectively.\t The
\ncontroversy concerning the slaughter of cows has been raging
\nin  this  country for a number of years and in the  past  it
\ngenerated   considerable  illwill  amongst  the\t two   major
\ncommunities  resulting even in riots and civil commotion  in
\nsome places.  We are, however, happy to note that the  rival
\ncontentions  of the parties to these proceedings  have\tbeen
\nurged  before  us without importing into them  the  heat  of
\ncommunal  passion and in a rational and objective way, as  a
\nmatter\tinvolving constitutional issues should be.  Some  of
\nthese  petitions  come from Bihar, some from U. P.  and\t the
\nrest from Madhya Pradesh, but as they raise common questions
\nof  law, it will be convenient to deal with and\t dispose  of
\nthem together by one common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions  Nos.\t 58  of\t 1956, 83 of 1956  and\t84  of\t1956
\nchallenge  the\tvalidity  of  the  Bihar  Preservation\t and
\nImprovement  of\t Animals  Act,\t1955  (Bihar  11  of  1956),
\nhereinafter  referred to as the Bihar Act.  In Petition\t No.
\n58 of 1956 there are 5 petitioners, all of whom are  Muslims
\nbelonging  to  the Quraishi community which is\tsaid  to  be
\nnumerous  and  an  important  section  of  Muslims  of\tthis
\ncountry.  The members of the community are said to be mainly
\nengaged\t  in   the  butchers’  trade  and   its\t  subsidiary
\nundertakings  such  as\tthe sale  of  hides,  tannery,\tglue
\nmaking, gut making and blooddehydrating, while some of\tthem
\nare  also engaged in the sale and purchase of cattle and  in
\ntheir  distribution over the various areas in the  State  of
\nBihar as well as in the other States of the Union of  India.
\nPetitioners Nos.  1 and 2 are butchers and meat vendors who,
\naccording  to  the petition, only slaughter cattle  and\t not
\nsheep\tor   goats   and   are\tcalled\t ”   Kasais   ”\t  in
\ncontradistinction to the “‘Chicks ” who slaughter
\n637<\/span>
\nonly  sheep and goats.\tAfter slaughtering the cattle  these
\npetitioners sell the hides to tanners or bide merchants\t who
\nare  also members of their community and the intestines\t are
\nsold   to  gut\tmerchants.   It\t is  said  that\t there\t are
\napproximately  500 other Kasais in Patna alone apart from  2
\nlacs  of  other\t Kasais all over the State  of\tBihar.\t The
\ncorrectness  of\t these\tfigures\t is  not  admitted  by\t the
\nrespondent  State  but we do not doubt that  the  number  of
\nKasais is considerable.\t Petitioner No. 3 is the owner of  a
\ntanning\t factory  and Petitioner No. 4 is  a  gut  merchant,
\nwhile  Petitioner  No. 5 is the General Secretary  of  Bihar
\nState  Jamiatul Quraish.  In petition No. 83 there  are\t 180
\npetitioners  residing  at different places in the  State  of
\nBihar who are all Muslims whose occupation is that of Kasais
\nor cattle dealers or exporters of hides.  In Petition No. 84
\nthere  are 170 petitioners all residents of  Patna  District
\nwho are also Muslims belonging to the Quraishi community and
\nwho  carry on business as Kasais or dealers of cattle.\t All
\nthe  petitioners  in these three petitions are\tcitizens  of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
The Bill, which was eventually passed as the Bihar Act,\t was
\npublished  in  the  Bihar Gazette on April  20,\t 1953.\t The
\nscheme of the Bill, as originally drafted, was, it is  said,
\nto put a total ban only on the slaughter of cows and  calves
\nof  cows below three years of age.  The Bill was sent  to  a
\nSelect\tCommittee  and\tits  scope  appears  to\t have\tbeen
\nconsiderably enlarged, as will be seen presently.  The Bill,
\nas eventually passed by the Bihar Legislature, received\t the
\nassent\tof  the\t Governor  on December\t8,  1.955,  and\t was
\npublished  in  the  Official Gazette on\t January  11,  1956.
\nSection\t 1 of the Act came into force immediately upon\tsuch
\npublication,  but before any notification was  issued  under
\nsub-s. (3) of s. 1 bringing the rest of the Act or any\tpart
\nof it into force in the State or any part of it, the present
\npetitions  were filed in this Court challenging the  consti-
\ntutional  validity  of\tthe Act.   On  applications  for  an
\ninterim order restraining the State of Bihar from issuing  a
\nnotification under s. 1(3) of the Act bringing the Act\tinto
\noperation   having  been  made\tin  these   petitions,\t the
\nrespondent State, by and through the learned
\n638<\/span>
\nSolicitor General of India, gave an undertaking not to issue
\nsuch notification until the disposal of these petitions and,
\nin  the\t premises, no order was considered necessary  to  be
\nmade on those applications.\n<\/p>\n
Petition No. 103 of 1956 has been filed by two\tpetitioners,
\nwho are both Muslims residing in Uttar Pradesh and  carrying
\non business in that State, the first one as a hide  merchant
\nand  the second as a butcher.  Petitioners in  Petition\t No.
\n129 are eight in number all of whom are Muslims residing and
\ncarrying  on  business\tin  Uttar  Pradesh  either  as\t gut
\nmerchants  or cattle dealers, or Kasais or beef\t vendors  or
\nbone  dealers  or hide merchants or  cultivators.   All\t the
\npetitioners in these two applications are citizens of India.
\nBy  these  two\tpetitions  the\tpetitioners  challenge\t the
\nvalidity  of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of  Cow  Slaughter
\nAct,  1955 (LT.\t P. 1 of 1956), hereinafter referred  to  as
\nthe U. P. Act and pray for a writ in the nature of  mandamus
\ndirecting the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh not to\ttake
\nany steps in pursuance of the U. P. Act or to interfere with
\nthe fundamental rights of the petitioners.
\nPetitions Nos. 117 of 1956, 126 of 1956, 127 of 1956, 128 of
\n1956,  248  of 1956, 144 of 1956 and 145 of 1956  have\tbeen
\nfiled  by  6,  95,  541, 58, 37,  976  and  395\t petitioners
\nrespectively,  all  of\twhom are Muslims  belonging  to\t the
\nQuraishi  Community and are mainly engaged in the  butchers’
\ntrade  and its subsidiary undertaking such as the supply  of
\nhides,\t tannery,   glue  making,   gutmaking\tand   blood-
\ndehydrating.  Most of them reside at different places which,
\nat the dates of the filing of these petitions were parts  of
\nthe  State  of Madhya Pradesh, but which or parts  of  which
\nhave,  in  the course of the recent re-organisation  of\t the
\nStates,\t been transferred to and amalgamated with the  State
\nof  Bombay.  In consequence of such re-organisation  of\t the
\nStates the State of Bombay has had to be substituted for the
\nrespondent  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh\tin  the\t first\tfive
\npetitions and to be added in the sixth petition, for a\tpart
\nof the district in which the petitioners resided had been so
\ntransferred, while the State of Madhya Pradesh continues  to
\nbe the respondent in the seventh
\n639<\/span>
\npetition.By these petitions the petitioners %II of whom are
\ncitizens Of India, challenge the validity of the  C. P.\t and
\nBerar Animal Preservation Act, 1949 (C. P. and Berar Lll  of
\n1949), as subsequently amended.\n<\/p>\n
In  order  to  appreciate the  arguments  advanced  for\t and
\nagainst\t the constitutional validity of the  three  impugned
\nActs  it  will\tbe  necessary  to  refer  to  the   relevant
\nprovisions  of the Constitution under or pursuant  to  which
\nthey  have been made.  Reference must first be made to\tArt.
\n48  which  will be found in Chapter IV of  the\tConstitution
\nwhich enshrines what are called the directive principles  of
\n)State policy.\tUnder Art. 37 these directive principles are
\nnot  enforceable  by any court of law but  are\tnevertheless
\nfundamental  in the governance of the country and are to  be
\napplied by the State in making laws. Article 48 runs thus:-
\nOrganisation\t     48.  The  State  shall   endeavour\t  of
\nagriculture and\t\t  to organise agriculture ‘and
\nanimal husbandry.\t  animal husbandry oil modern and
\n\t\t     scientific lines and shall, in parti-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     cular, take steps for preserving
\n\t\t     and improving the breeds, and
\n\t\t     prohibiting the slaughter, of cows
\n\t\t     and calves and other milch and
\n\t\t     draught cattle.”\n<\/p>\n
The principal purpose of this article, according to  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the petitioners, is to direct  the  ,State  to
\nendeavour  to organise agriculture and animal  husbandry  on
\nmodern\tand scientific lines and the rest of the  provisions
\nof  that  article are ancillary to this\t principal  purpose.
\nThey contend that the States are required to take steps\t for
\npreserving and improving the breeds and for prohibiting\t the
\nslaughter of the animals specified therein only with a\tview
\nto implement that principal purpose, that is to say, only as
\nparts  of the general scheme for organising our\t agriculture
\nand  animal  husbandry\ton  modern  and\t scientific   lines.
\nLearned\t counsel for the petitioners refer to  the  marginal
\nnote to Art. 48 in support of their contention on this\tpart
\nof the case.  They also rely on entry 15
\n640<\/span>
\nin  List  II of the Seventh Schedule  to  the  Constitution.
\nThat entry reads: ” Preservation, protection and improvement
\nof  stock  and\tprevention of  animal  diseases;  veterinary
\ntraining  and  practice.” There is no  separate\t legislative
\nhead for prohibition of slaughter of animals and that  fact,
\nthey  claim,  lends  support to their  conclusion  that\t the
\nprohibition  of\t the slaughter of animals specified  in\t the
\nlast  part  of Art. 48 is only ancillary  to  the  principal
\ndirections  for preservation, protection and improvement  of
\nstock, which is what is meant by organising agriculture\t and
\nanimal\thusbandry.  Learned counsel for the respondents\t and
\nPandit Thakurdas Bhargava, who appears as amicus cutriae, on
\nthe  other  hand, maintain that the article  contains  three
\ndistinct and separate directions, each of which should, they
\nurge,  be  implemented\tindependently  -and  as\t a  separate
\ncharge.\t  It is not necessary for us, on this  occasion,  to
\nexpress a final opinion on this question.  Suffice it to say
\nthat  there  is no conflict between the different  parts  of
\nthis  article  and  indeed  the\t two  last  directives\t for
\npreserving and improving the breeds and for the\t prohibition
\nof  slaughter of certain specified animals represent, as  is
\nindicated  by  the  words ” in\tparticular  “,\ttwo  special
\naspects\t of the preceding general directive  for  organising
\nagriculture  and animal husbandry on modern  and  scientific
\nlines.\tWhether the last two directives are ancillary to the
\nfirst  as  contended for by learned counsel  for  the  peti-
\ntioners or are separate and independent items of  directives
\nas  claimed by counsel on the other side, the directive\t for
\ntaking steps for preventing the slaughter of the animals  is
\nquite  explicit and positive and contemplates a ban  on\t the
\nslaughter  of  the several categories of  animals  specified
\ntherein,  namely,  cows and calves and\tother  cattle  which
\nanswer\tthe  description of milch or  draught  cattle.\t The
\nprotection recommended by this part of the directive is,  in
\nour  opinion, confined only to cows and calves and to  those
\nanimals\t which\tare  presently\tor  potentially\t capable  of
\nyielding  milk or of doing work as draught cattle  but\tdoes
\nnot,  from  the very nature of the purpose for which  it  is
\nobviously recommended, extend to cattle which at
\n641<\/span>
\none time were milch or draught cattle but which have  ceased
\nto  be such.  It is pursuant to these  directive  principles
\nand in exercise of the powers conferred by Arts. 245 and 246
\nof  the\t Constitution read with entry 15 in List 11  of\t the
\nSeventh\t Schedule thereto that the, Legislatures  of  Bihar,
\nUttar Pradesh and Madhya, Pradesh have respectively  enacted
\nthe  statutes which are challenged as unconstitutional.\t  In
\norder  properly, to appreciate the meaning and scope of\t the
\nimpugned  Acts it has to be borne in mind that each  one  of
\nthose  Acts  is\t a  law\t with  respect\tto  ”  preservation,
\nprotection   and   improvement\tof  stock   “,\t and   their
\nconstitutional\tvalidity  will\thave to be  judged  in\tthat
\ncontext\t  and\tagainst\t that  background.    Keeping\tthis
\nconsideration  in  view,  we  proceed  now  to\texamine\t the
\nrelevant provisions of the three Acts.\n<\/p>\n
The  title of the Bihar Act is ” An Act to provide  for\t the
\npreservation and improvement of certain animals in the State
\nof  Bihar.”  Sub-section  (3) of s.  1\tprovides  that\tthat
\nsection\t shall\tcome into force at once\t and  the  remaining
\nprovisions  of the Act or any of them shall come into  force
\non  such date as the State Government may, by  notification,
\nappoint\t and  that  different dates  may  be  appointed\t for
\ndifferent provisions and for different areas.  Section 2  is
\nthe definition section and the following definitions are  to
\nbe noted:\n<\/p>\n
(a)  ” Animal ” means-\n<\/p>\n
(i)bull,  bullock, cow, heifer, buffalo, calf,\tsheep,\tgoat
\nand-any other ruminating animal;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) poultry; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  elephant, horse, camel, ass, mule, dog, swine\t and
\nsuch other domesticated animals as may be specified in\tthis
\nbehalf\tby  the\t State Government  by  notification  in\t the
\nOfficial Gazette;\n<\/p>\n
(b)……………………………………………………\n<\/p>\n
(c)  ”\tbull  ” means an uncastrated male above the  age  of
\nthree years belonging to the species of bovine cattle ;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  ”\tbullock\t ” means a castrated male above the  age  of
\nthree  years  belonging to the species specified  in  clause\n<\/p>\n
(e)” calf ” means a female or a castrated or
\n642<\/span>
\nuncastrated  male,  of\tthe age of  three  years  and  below
\nbelonging to the species specified in clause (c);\n<\/p>\n
(f)…………………………………………………\n<\/p>\n
(g)  ”\tcow ” means a female above the age  of\tthree  years
\nbelonging to the species specified in clause (e) ;
\nSection\t 3, which is the principal section for the  purposes
\nof the Bihar Petitions, runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
” 3. Prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull or bullock.
\nNotwithstanding\t anything contained in any law for the\ttime
\nbeing in force or in any usage or custom to the contrary, no
\nperson shall slaughter a cow, the calf of a cow, a bull or a
\nbullock; Provided that the State Government may, by  general
\nor  special order and subject to such conditions as  it\t may
\nthink fit to impose, allow the slaughter of any such  animal
\nfor any medicinal or research purposes.”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 4  provides  for  penalties  for  contravention  or
\nattempted contravention or abetment of contravention of\t any
\nof  the provisions of s. 3. The remaining provision; in\t the
\nfollowing  three chapters are not material for\tour  present
\npurpose.   It  will be noticed that the words ”\t bull  “,  ”
\nbullock\t “,  ” calf ” and ” cow” have been defined  in\tcls.\n<\/p>\n
(c), (d), (e) and (g) of s. 2 as belonging to the species of
\nbovine cattle.\tThe expression ” species of  bovine cattle ”
\nis  wide  enough to in-elude and does in  ordinary  parlance
\ninclude\t buffaloes,(male,  or  female  adults  or   calves).
\nTherefore,   the  corresponding\t categories  of\t  buffaloes,
\nnamely, buffalo bulls, buffalo bullocks, buffalo calves\t and
\nshe-buffaloes must be taken as included in the four  defined
\ncategories  of\tthe  species of bovine cattle  and  as\tsuch
\nwithin\tthe prohibition embodied in s. 3 of the Act.  It  is
\nto be, noted, however, that the allegations in the petitions
\nand  the affidavits in opposition proceed on the  assumption
\nthat  buffaloes (male or female adults or calves)  were\t not
\nwithin\tthe protection of the section and, indeed, when\t the
\nattention  of learned counsel for the petitioners was  drawn
\nto the reference to the ” species of bovine cattle ” in each
\nof the four definitions, they
\n643<\/span>
\nstill  made  an\t attempt  to  support  the  latter  view  by
\nsuggesting that if buffaloes were to be included within\t the
\nwords defined in cls. (c), (d), (e) and (g), then there\t was
\nno necessity for specifying it separately in the  definition
\nof ” animal ” in el. (a).  This argument does not appear  to
\nus  to be sound at all, for, then, on a parity of  reasoning
\nit was wholly unnecessary to specify\theifer\t ”  in\t the
\ndefinition of ” animal “. If heifer\tis    not   to\t  be
\nincluded in the definition of cow ”\tbecause heifer ”  is
\nseparately enumerated in ‘the definition of animal ” then an
\nastounding  result will follow, namely, that  the  operative
\npart  of s. 3 will not prohibit the slaughter of ” heifer  ”
\nat all-a result which obviously could not possibly have been
\nintended.   The\t obvious reason for the enumeration  of\t the
\ndifferent  categories  of  animals in the  definition  of  ”
\nanimal ” must have been to provide a word of wide import  so
\nthat  all those sections where the wider word ” animal ”  is
\nused  may apply to the different kinds of animals  included-
\nwithin that term.  If the intention of the Bihar legislature
\nwas  to exclude buffaloes (male or female adults or  calves)
\nfrom the protection of s. 3 then it must be said that it has
\nfailed to fulfil its intention.\n<\/p>\n
The  U.\t P.  Act  is intituled ”  An  Act  to  prohibit\t the
\nslaughter  of  COW and its progeny in  Uttar  Pradesh.”\t The
\npreamble to the Act recites the expediency ” to prohibit and
\nprevent\t the  slaughter\t of cow and  its  progeny  in  Uttar
\nPradesh”.   Although  the 17.  P. Act has  been\t made  under
\nentry  15  in  List  11\t and  presumably  pursuant  to\t the
\ndirectives contained in Art. 48 nowhere in the Act is  there
\nany  express  reference\t whatever  to  the  ”  preservation,
\nprotection  or\timprovement of stock.” Section 2  defines  ”
\nbeef ” as meaning the flesh of cow but does not include\t the
\nflesh of cow contained in sealed containers and imported  as
\nsuch in Uttar Pradesh.\tClause (b) is very important, for it
\ndefines\t ”  cow ” as including a bull, bullock,\t heifer,  or
\ncalf.  Section 3, which is the operative section runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any
\n82<\/span>
\n644<\/span>
\nother law for the time being in force or any usage or custom
\nto  the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause  to  be
\nslaughtered  or offer or cause to be offered  for  slaughter
\nany cow in any place in Uttar Pradesh.”\n<\/p>\n
Two exceptions are made by s. 4 in respect of cows suffering
\nfrom contagious or infectious disease or which is  subjected
\nto  experimentation  in the interest of\t medical  or  public
\nhealth research.  Section 5 prohibits the sale or  transport
\nof  beef or beef products in any form except  for  medicinal
\npurposes  and  subject to’ the provisions of  the  exception
\ntherein\t mentioned.   Section 6, on which  counsel  for\t the
\nState  relies, provides for the establishment, by the  State
\nGovernment or by any local authority wherever so directed by
\nthe  State Government, of institutions as may  be  necessary
\nfor  taking care of uneconomic cows.  Under s. 7  the  State
\nGovernment  may\t levy  such  charges  or  fees,\t as  may  be
\nprescribed for keeping uneconomic cows in the  institutions.
\nSection\t 8 provides for punishment for contravention of\t the
\nprovisions  of ss. 3, 4 and 5. Section 9 makes the  offences
\ncreated by the Act cognisable and non-bailable.\t Section  10
\ngives  power to the State Government to make rules  for\t the
\npurpose\t of carrying into effect the provisions of the\tAct.
\nIt should be noted that the U. P. Act protects the ” cow  “,
\nwhich,\taccording  to the definition, includes\tonly  bulls,
\nbullocks,  heifer and calves.  There is no reference to\t the
\nspecies of bovine cattle and, therefore, the buffaloes (male
\nor  female  adults  or calves) are  completely\toutside\t the
\nprotection of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  C. P. and Berar Act of 1949 was originally intituled  ”
\nAn  Act\t to provide for preservation of certain\t animals  by
\ncontrolling the slaughter thereof,” and the preamble recited
\nthat  it was ” expedient to provide for the preservation  of
\ncertain\t animals  by  controlling  the\tslaughter  thereof.”
\n,Animal ” was defined in s. 2 as meaning an animal specified
\nin  the\t schedule.   The schedule  specified  the  following
\ncategories of animals, namely, (1) bulls, (2) bullocks,\t (3)
\ncows,  (4)  calves, (5) male and female\t buffaloes  and\t (6)
\nbuffalo\t  calves.   Section  4\toriginally  prohibited\t the
\nslaughter
\n645<\/span>
\nof  an\t” animal ” without certificate.\t There was  then  no
\ntotal  ban  on the slaughter of any animal as  defined.\t ,In
\n1951, the C. P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, was
\namended\t by the Madhya Pradesh Act XXIII of 1951.   By\tthis
\namending Act the words, ” by prohibiting or ” were added  to
\nthe   long  title  and\tthe  preamble  before  the  word   ”
\ncontrolling ” and a new clause was added to s. 2 as el.\t (i)\n<\/p>\n
(a) defining ” cow ” as including a female calf of a cow and
\nsub-s. 1 of s. 4 was amended so as to read as follows:
\n“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
\nthe. time being in force or in any usage to the contrary, no
\nperson-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  shall slaughter a cow; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  shall slaughter any other animal unless he has obtained
\nin  respect  of such other animal a certificate\t in  writing
\nsigned by the executive authority and the veterinary officer
\nfor  the area in which the animal is to be slaughtered\tthat
\nthe animal is fit for slaughter.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus  a total ban was imposed on the slaughter of  cows\t and
\nfemale\tcalf  of  a cow and the male calf of  a\t cow,  bull,
\nbullock,  buffalo  (male or female adult or calf)  could  be
\nslaughtered on obtaining a certificate.\t The Act was further
\namended\t in  1956  by Act X of\t1956  substituting  for\t the
\namended definition of ” cow ” introduced by the amending Act
\nof 1951 as cl. (1)(a) of s. 2 of the C. P. and Berar  Animal
\nPreservation  Act,  1949,  a new definition of ”  cow  ”  as
\nincluding  a male or female calf of a cow, bull, bullock  or
\nheifer and a new schedule specifying only (1) cows, (2) male
\nand female buffaloes and (3) buffalo calves was\t substituted
\nfor  the  original  schedule to the Act.   Shortly  put\t the
\nposition in Madhya Pradesh has been this: while under the C.
\nP. and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, as it originally
\nstood, the slaughter of all categories of animals  mentioned
\nin  the\t original  schedule  were  only\t controlled  by\t the
\nrequirement of a certificate from the appropriate  authority
\nbefore\tthe actual slaughter, by the amending Act  XXIII  of
\n1951,  a total ban was imposed on the slaughter of ” cows  ”
\nwhich was then defined as including only a female calf of a
\n646<\/span>
\ncow  and  the slaughter of all other categories\t of  animals
\ncoming\twithin\tthe  original schedule\twas  controlled\t and
\nfinally\t after\tthe amending Act X of 1956, there is  now  a
\ntotal  ban  on the slaughter of ” cows ” which\tby  the\t new
\ndefinition  includes a male or female calf of a\t cow,  bull,
\nbullock or heifer so that the male and female buffaloes\t and
\nbuffalo\t calves (male and female) can still  be\t slaughtered
\nbut   on  certificate  issued  by  the\tproper\t authorities
\nmentioned  in  the Act.\t The Madhya Pradesh Act X  of  1956,
\namending  the C. P. and Berar Animal peservation Act,  1949,
\nreceived the assent of the Governor on May 18, 1956.  The C.
\nP. and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, as amended up to
\n1956, is hereinafter referred to as the Madhya Pradesh Act.’
\nTo  sum\t up, under the Bihar Act there is in  the  State  of
\nBihar a total ban on slaughter of all categories of  animals
\nof the species of bovine cattle.  In Uttar Pradesh there is,
\nunder the If.  P. Act, a total ban on the slaughter of\tcows
\nand  her  progeny which include bulls, bullocks,  heifer  or
\ncalves.\t The buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) are
\ncompletely  outside  the  protection of\t the  Act.   In\t the
\npresent\t Madhya\t Pradesh and the  districts  which  formerly
\nformed\t part  of  Madhya  Pradesh  but\t have\tsince\tbeen
\ntransferred  to\t the State of Bombay and  where\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh law including the Madhya Pradesh Act still  applies,
\nthere is a total ban on the slaughter of cow, male or female
\ncalves\tof  a  cow,  bulls, bullocks,  or  heifers  and\t the
\nslaughter of buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) are
\ncontrolled  in\tthat  their  slaughter\tis  permitted  under
\ncertificate  granted by the proper authorities mentioned  in
\nthe  Act.  No exception has been made in any of these  three
\nActs  permitting  slaughter  of cattle even  for  bona\tfide
\nreligious purposes such as has been made, say, in the Bombay
\nAnimal Preservation Act, 1948 (Bom.  LXXXI of 1948).
\nAs  already  stated  the petitioners, who  are\tcitizens  of
\nIndia,\tand  Muslims  by  religion,  mostly  belong  to\t the
\nQuraishi   community  and  are\tgenerally  engaged  in\t the
\nbutchers’  trade  and its subsidiary  undertakings  such  as
\nsupply of hides, tannery, glue making, gut making
\n647<\/span>
\nand  blood  de-hydrating, Those, who carry on  the  butchers
\ntrade,\tare  mostly.  Kasais who, the petitioners  say\tkill
\nonly  cattle but not ship or goat which are  slaughtered  by
\nother  persons known as Chicks.\t Learned  counsel  appearing
\nfor  the petitioners challenge the, constitutional  validity
\nof  the\t Acts  respectively  applicable\t to  them  on  three
\ngrounds,  namely,  that they offend the\t fundamental  rights
\nguaranteed  to them by Arts. 14 ‘ 19(1)(g) and 25.   Learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondent States, of course, seek
\nto support their respective enactments by controverting\t the
\nreasons\t advanced  by learned counsel for  the\tpetitioners.
\nBharat Go-Sevak Samaj, All India AntiCow-Slaughter  Movement
\nCommittee,  Sarvadeshik\t Arya  pratinidhi Sabha\t and  M.  P.
\nGorakshan  Sangh put in petitions for leave to intervene  in
\nthese proceedings.  Under Order XLI, rule 2, of’ the Supreme
\nCourt Rules intervention is permitted only to the  Attorney-
\nGeneral\t of India or the Advocates General for\tthe  States.
\nThere  is no other express provision for permitting a  third
\nparty to intervene in the proceedings before this Court.  In
\npractice,  however, this Court, in exercise of its  inherent
\npowers,\t allows a third party to intervene when\t such  third
\nparty is a party to some proceedings in this Court or in the
\nHigh  Courts  where the same, or similar  questions  are  in
\nissue, for the decision of this Court will conclude the case
\nof  that  party.  In the present case,\thowever,  the  peti-
\ntioners for intervention are not parties to any\t proceedings
\nand  we\t did not think it right to permit them\tformally  to
\nintervene   in\tthese  proceedings;  but  in  view  of\t the
\nimportance of the questions involved in these proceedings we
\nhave heard Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava, who was instructed  by
\none of these petitioners for intervention, as amicus curiae.
\nWe are deeply indebted to all learned counsel appealing\t for
\nthe  parties  and  to  Pandit  Thakurdas  Bhargava  for\t the
\nvaluable assistance they have given us.\n<\/p>\n
Before\twe  actually  take tip and  deal  with\tthe  alleged
\ninfraction  of\tthe petitioners’ fundamental rights,  it  is
\nnecessary  to  dispose of a preliminary question  raised  by
\nPandit Thakurdas Bhargava.  It will be recalled
\n648<\/span>
\nthat the impugned Acts were made by the States in  discharge
\nof  the obligations laid on them by Art. 48 to endeavour  to
\norganise agriculture and animal husbandry and in  particular
\nto  take steps for preserving and improving the\t breeds\t and
\nprohibiting  the  slaughter of\tcertain\t specified  animals.
\nThese directive principles, it is true, are not\t enforceable
\nby any court of law but nevertheless they are fundamental in
\nthe  governance\t of the country and it is the  duty  of\t the
\nState  to give effect to them.\tThese laws having thus\tbeen
\nmade in discharge of that fundamental obligation imposed  on
\nthe State, the fundamental rights conferred on the  citizens
\nand  others  by\t Chapter III of\t the  Constitution  must  be
\nregarded  as  subordinate  to  these  laws.   The  directive
\nprinciples, says learned counsel, are equally, if not  more,
\nfundamental and must prevail.  We are unable to accept\tthis
\nargunent  as sound.  Article 13(2) expressly says  that\t the
\nState  shall not make any law which takes away\tor  abridges
\nthe  rights  conferred by Chapter III  of  our\tConstitution
\nwhich  enshrines  the  fundamental  rights.   The  directive
\nprinciples  cannot  over-ride this  categorical\t restriction
\nimposed on the legislative power of the State.\tA harmonious
\ninterpretation has to be placed upon the Constitution and so
\ninterpreted  it\t means\tthat  the  State  should   certainly
\nimplement the directive principles but it must do so in such
\na  way\tthat  its  laws do not\ttake  away  or\tabridge\t the
\nfundamental rights, for otherwise the protecting  provisions
\nof  Chapter  III will be ” a mere rope of sand\t“.  As\tthis
\nCourt  has  said in the State of Madras v.  Smt.   Champakam
\nDorairajan<\/a>  (1) , “The directive principles of State  policy
\nhave  to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter  on
\nFundamental Rights”.\n<\/p>\n
Coming\tnow  to the arguments as to the violation of  4\t the
\npetitioners’  fundamental rights, it will be  convenient  to
\ntake  up  first the complaint founded on Art.  25(1).\tThat
\narticle runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”  Subject to public order, morality and health and  to\t the
\nother  provisions  of  this Part, all  persons\tare  equally
\nentitled  to freedom of conscience and the right  freely  to
\nprofess, practise and propagate religion”.
\n(1)  [1951] S.C.R. 525 531-\n<\/p>\n
649<\/span><\/p>\n
After referring to the provisions of el. (2) which lays down
\ncertain\t exceptions which are not material for\tour  present
\npurpose\t this Court has, in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v.\t The
\nState of Bombay<\/a> (1) explained the meaning and scope of\tthis
\narticle thus:\n<\/p>\n
”  Thus,  subject  to the restrictions\twhich  this  article
\nimposes,  every\t person has a fundamental  right  under\t our
\nConstitution  not merely to entertain such religious  belief
\nas may be approved of by his judgment\tor conscience but to
\nexhibit hisbelief and ideas in such  overt acts\t as  are
\nenjoinedor  sanctioned\tby  his religion  and  further\tto
\npropagatehis religious views for the edification of others.
\nItis immaterial also  whether the propagation is made  by
\na  person  in his individual capacity or on  behalf  of\t any
\nchurch\tor  institution.  The free exercise of\treligion  by
\nwhich is meant the performance of outward acts in  pursuance
\nof  relgious belief, is, as stated above, subject  to  State
\nregulation imposed to secure order, public health and morals
\nof the people.\t”\n<\/p>\n
What then, we inquire, are the materials placed before us to
\nsubstantiate  the  claim  that the sacrifice  of  a  cow  is
\nenjoined  or sanctioned by Islam ? The materials  before  us
\nare  extremely meagre and it is surprising that on a  matter
\nof  this description the allegations in the petition  should
\nbe  so vague.  In the Bihar Petition No. 58 of 1956 are\t set
\nout the following bald allegations:\n<\/p>\n
That  the petitioners further respectfully submit  that\t the
\nsaid  impugned section also violates the fundamental  rights
\nof  the\t petitioners  guaranteed tinder Article\t 25  of\t the
\nConstitution in-as-much as on the occasion of their Bakr  Id
\nDay,  it  is  the religious  practice  of  the\tpetitioners’
\ncommunity to sacrifice a cow on the said occasion.  The poor
\nmembers of the community usually sacrifice one cow for every
\n7 members whereas it would require one sheep or one goat for
\neach  member which would entail considerably  more  expense.
\nAs a result of the total ban imposed by the impugned section
\nthe  petitioners would not even be allowed to make the\tsaid
\nsacrifice which is a practice
\n(1)  [1954] S.C.R. 1055, 1062-1063.\n<\/p>\n
650<\/span><\/p>\n
and  custom  in their religion, enjoined upon them  by\t‘the
\nHoly   Quran,  and  practised  by  all\tMuslims\t from\ttime
\nimmemorial and recognised as such in India.  ”
\nThe  allegations in the other petitions are similar.  ,These
\nare  met  by  an  equally bald denial in  para.\t 21  of\t the
\naffidavit in opposition.  No affidavit has been filed by any
\nperson specially competent to expound the relevant tenets of
\nIslam.\t ‘No  reference\t ‘is made in  the  petition  to\t any
\nparticular Surah of the Holy Quran which, in terms, requires
\nthe  sacrifice\tof  a cow.  All that was  placed  before  us
\nduring\tthe argument were Surah XXII, Verses 28 and 33,\t and
\nSurah  XXII,.\tWhat the Holy book enjoins  is\tthat  people
\nshould\tpray unto the Lord and make sacrifice.\tWe  have  no
\naffidavit   before   us\t by  any  Maulana   explaining\t the
\nimplications  of those Verses or throwing any light on\tthis
\nproblem.   We,\thowever,  find it laid\tdown  in  Hamilton’s
\ntranslation  of Hedaya Book XLIII at p. 592 that it  is\t the
\nduty  of  every\t free  Mussulman,  arrived  at\tthe  age  of
\nmaturity, to offer a sacrifice on the Yd Kirban, or festival
\nof the sacrifice, provided he be then possessed of Nisab and
\nbe  not\t a  traveller.\tThe sacrifice  established  for\t one
\nperson is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel.  It is
\ntherefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goat for one
\nperson\tor a cow or a camel for seven persons.\tIt does\t not
\nappear to be obligatory that a person must sacrifice a\tcow.
\nThe  very  fact\t of an option seems to run  counter  to\t the
\nnotion\tof an obligatory duty.\tIt is, however, pointed\t out
\nthat  a\t person\t with six other members of  his\t family\t may
\nafford\tto sacrifice a cow but may not be able to afford  to
\nsacrifice  seven  goats.   So  there  may  be  an   economic
\ncompulsion although there is no religious compulsion.  It is
\nalso  pointed  out  that from  time  immemorial\t the  Indian
\nMussalmans have been sacrificing cows and this practice,  if
\nnot enjoined, is certainly sanctioned by, their religion and
\nit  amounts to their practice of religion protected by\tArt.\n<\/p>\n
25.  While the petitioners claim that the sacrifice of a cow
\nis essential, the State denies the obligatory nature of\t the
\nreligious   practice.\t The   fact,   emphasised   by\t the
\nrespondents, cannot be
\n\t\t\t651<\/span>
\ndisputed,  namely, that many Mussalmans do not\tsacrifice  a
\ncow on the Bakr Id Day.\t It is part of the known history  of
\nIndia  that  the  Moghul Emperor Babar\tsaw  the  wisdom  of
\nprohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious
\nsacrifice  and\tdirected  his son  Humayun  to\tfollow\tthis
\nexample.   Similarly  Emperors Akbar,  Jehangir,  and  Ahmad
\nShah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter.  Nawab Hyder Ali
\nof Mysore made cow slaughter an offence punishable with\t the
\ncutting of the hands of the offenders.\tThree of the  member
\nof  the Gosamvardhan Enquiry Committee set up by  the  Uttar
\nPradesh Government in 1953 were Muslims and concurred in the
\nunanimous recommendation for total ban on slaughter of cows.
\nWe have, however, no material on the record before us  which
\nwill  enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing  facts,
\nthat  the  sacrifice of a cow on that day is  an  obligatory
\novert  act for a Mussalman to exhibit his  religious  belief
\nand  idea.   In the premises, it is not possible for  us  to
\nuphold this claim of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
The  next  complaint  is against the  denial  of  the  equal
\nprotection   of\t the  law.   It\t is  thus  formulated:\t The
\npetitioners are Muslims by religion and butchers (Kasais) by
\noccupation and they carry on the trade of selling beef.\t The
\nimpugned  Acts prejudicially affect only the  Muslim  Kasais
\nwho kill cattle but not others who kill goats and sheep\t and
\nwho  sell goats’ meat and mutton.  It is,  therefore,  clear
\nthat  only the Muslim Kasais, who slaughter only cattle\t but
\nnot  sheep or goats, have been singled out for\thostile\t and
\ndiscriminatory\ttreatment.  Their further grievance is\tthat
\nthe U. P. Act makes a distinction even between butchers\t who
\nkill  cattle and butchers who kill buffaloes and the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t Act  also  makes  a  like  discrimination  in\tthat
\nslaughter   of\tbuffaloes  is  permitted,   although   under
\ncertificate,  while slaughter of cows, bulls,  bullocks\t and
\ncalves\t are  totally  prohibited.   In\t the  premises\t the
\npetitioners   contend  that  the  law  which  permits\tsuch
\ndiscrimination\tmust  be  struck down as  violative  of\t the
\nsalutary provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
83<\/span>
\n652<\/span><\/p>\n
The meaning, scope and effect of Art. 14, which is the equal
\nprotection clause in our Constitution, has been explained by
\nthis Court in a series of decisions in cases beginning\twith
\nChiranjitlal Choudhury v. The Union of India (1) and  ending
\nwith the recent case of Ram Krishna Dalmia and others v. Sri
\nJustice S. R.Tendolkar<\/a> (2).  It is now well established that
\nwhile  Art. 14 forbids class legislation it does not  forbid
\nreasonable  classification for the purposes  of\t legislation
\nand  that in order to pass the test of\tpermissible  classi-
\nfication  two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i)\t the
\nclassification\t must\tbe  founded   on   an\tintelligible
\ndifferentia  which distinguishes persons or things that\t are
\ngrouped together from others left out of the group and\t(ii)
\nsuch differentia must have a rational relation to the object
\nsought\tto  be\tachieved by the statute\t in  question.\t The
\nclassification,\t it  has  been\theld,  may  be\tfounded\t  on
\ndifferent  bases,  namely,  geographical,  or  according  to
\nobjects or occupations or the like and what is necessary  is
\nthat   there  must  be\ta  nexus  between  the\t basis\t of’
\nclassification\t and   the   object   of   the\t Act   under
\nconsideration.\t The  pronouncements of this  Court  further
\nestablish,  amongst  other things, that there  is  always  a
\npresumption  in\t favour\t of  the  constitutionality  of\t  an
\nenactment  and that the burden is upon him, who attacks\t it,
\nto  show  that\tthere  has been a  clear  violation  of\t the
\nconstitutional principles.  The courts, it is accepted, must
\npresume\t that  the  legislature\t understands  and  correctly
\nappreciates  the needs of its own people, that its laws\t are
\ndirected  to problems made manifest by experience  and\tthat
\nits discriminations are based on adequate grounds.  It\tmust
\nbe  borne in mind that the legislature is free to  recognise
\ndegrees\t of harm and may confine its restrictions  to  those
\ncases  where  the  need is deemed to  be  the  clearest\t and
\nfinally\t that  in  order  to  sustain  the  presumption\t  of
\nconstitutionality  the\tCourt may  take\t into  consideration
\nmatters\t of common knowledge, matters of common report,\t the
\nhistory\t of  the times and may assume every state  of  facts
\nwhich can be conceived existing at the time of\tlegislation.
\nWe, therefore, proceed to examine
\n(1) [1950] S.C.R. 869.\t\t(2) [1959] S.C.R. 279.\n<\/p>\n
653<\/span><\/p>\n
the  impugned  Acts  in the light  of  the  principles\tthus
\nenunciated by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
The impugned Acts, it may be recalled, have been made by the
\nStates\tin discharge of the obligations imposed on  them  by
\nArt. 48.  In order to implement the directive principles the
\nrespective   Legislatures  enacted  the\t impugned  Acts\t  in
\nexercise  of the powers conferred on them by Art.  246\tread
\nwith  entry 15 in List II of the Seventh Schedule.   It\t is,
\ntherefore,  quite  clear  that\tthe  objects  sought  to  be
\nachieved   by  the  impugned  Acts  are\t the   preservation,
\nprotection  and\t improvement of\t livestocks.   Cows,  bulls,
\nbullocks and calves of cows are no doubt the most  important
\ncattle for the agricultural economy of this country.  Female
\nbuffaloes yield a large quantity of milk and are, therefore,
\nwell looked after and do not need as much protection as cows
\nyielding  a  small  quantity of milk  require.\t As  draught
\ncattle\tmale buffaloes are not half as useful  as  bullocks.
\nSheep  and goat give very little milk compared to  the\tcows
\nand the female buffaloes and have practically no utility  as
\ndraught\t animals.   These different  categories\t of  animals
\nbeing susceptible of classification into separate groups  on
\nthe  basis of their usefulness to society, the butchers\t who
\nkill  each category may also be placed in  distinct  classes
\naccording to the effect produced on society by the  carrying
\non  of their respective occupations.  Indeed  the  butchers,
\nwho  kill  cattle,  according  to  the\tallegations  of\t the
\npetitioners themselves in their respective petitions, form a
\nwell   defined\tclass  based  on  their\t occupation.\tThat
\nclassification is based on an intelligible differentia which
\nplaces\tthem in a well defined class and distinguishes\tthem
\nfrom those who kill goats and sheep and this differentia has
\na close connection with the object sought to be achieved  by
\nthe  impugned Act, namely, the preservation, protection\t and
\nimprovement  of\t our  livestock.  The  attainment  of  these
\nobjectives  may\t well necessitate that the  slaughterers  of
\ncattle\tshould\tbe  dealt with\tmore  stringently  than\t the
\nslaughterers  of, say, goats and sheep.\t The impugned  Acts,
\ntherefore,  have  adopted  a  classification  on  sound\t and
\nintelligible basis and can quite clearly stand the test laid
\ndown in
\n654<\/span>
\nthe decisions of this Court.  Whatever objections there\t may
\nbe against the validity of the impugned Acts the -denial  of
\nequal  protection of the laws does not, prima facie,  appear
\nto  us to be one of them.  In any case, bearing in mind\t the
\npresumption of constitutionality attaching to all enactments
\nfounded on the recognition by the court of the fact that the
\nlegislature  correctly\tappreciates  the needs\tof  its\t own
\npeople\tthere  appears to be no escape from  the  conclusion
\nthat  the petitioners have not discharged the onus that\t was
\non  them and the challenge under Art. 14 cannot,  therefore,
\nprevail.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel for the petitioners then take\ttheir  final
\nstand on Art. 19(1)(g).\t Immediately learned counsel for the
\nrespondents counter the charge by saying that Art.  19(1)(g)
\ncan hit only the law which purports to directly violate\t its
\nprovisions.   The impugned Acts, we are reminded, have\tbeen
\nmade in implementation of the directive principles laid down
\nin Art. 48 and are laws with respect to matters set forth in
\nentry  15  of  List II and it is emphasised  that  the\tsole
\npurpose\t of these enactments is to secure the  preservation,
\nprotection and improvement of stock and that its real aim is
\nnot  to take away or abridge the rights guaranteed  by\tArt.
\n19(1)(g).   If at all, these enactments may only  indirectly
\nand incidentally affect those, rights but that\tcircumstance
\ncannot\talter  their real nature and purpose.\tReliance  is
\nplaced\tin  support  of this  contention  on  the  following
\nobservations  of Kania C. J. in A. K. Gopalan v.  The  State
\n(1).\n<\/p>\n
” If there is a legislation directly attempting to control a
\ncitizen’s  freedom of speech or expression, or his right  to
\nassemble  peaceably  and without aims,\tetc.,  the  question
\nwhether\t that  legislation is saved by the  relevant  saving
\nclause\tof  article’  19  will\tarise.\t If,  however,\t the
\nlegislation  is\t not  directly in respect of  any  of  these
\nsubjects,  but\tas  a  result  of  the\toperation  of  other
\nlegislation,  for  instance,  for  punitive  or\t  preventive
\ndetention,  his\t right\tunder any of  these  sub-clauses  is
\nabridged, the question of the application of article 19 does
\nnot  arise.   The  true approach is  only  to  consider\t the
\ndirectness of the legislation and not what will
\n(1)  [1950] S.C.R. 88, 101.\n<\/p>\n
655<\/span><\/p>\n
be the result of the detention otherwise valid, on the\tmode
\nof the detenue’s life.\t”\n<\/p>\n
This  part  of\tthe  argument  advanced\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondents  is further sought to be reinforced by the\tfact
\nthat the above observations of Kania C. J. had\tsubsequently
\nbeen adopted by this Court in Ram Singh v.The State of Delhi
\n(1).  Those observations of Kania C.\tJ.  should,  in\t our
\nopinion, be read in the context of the facts of those cases.
\nIt  should be remembered that both these cases arose out  of
\norders\tmade  under  the  Preventive  Detention\t Act,  1950.
\nArticle\t 22,  which  is to be found in Chapter\tIII  of\t the
\nConstitution,\trecognises  the\t necessity  for\t  preventive
\ndetention, however odious it may be.  The purpose of the Act
\nunder  which  the detention orders had been  made  in  those
\ncases,\twas to prevent the persons concerned from acting  in
\nany  manner prejudicial to one or other of the three  impor-
\ntant matters specified therein.\t The effect of the execution
\nof the orders was to deprive those persons of their  liberty
\naccording  to  procedure  established  by  law.\t  Preventive
\ndetention,  like punitive detention, having taken  away\t the
\npersonal  liberty of those persons they could not claim\t the
\nrights under Art. 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) for those were the
\nrights of free men.  It was, therefore, considered that\t the
\nprimary\t and direct object of the Preventive Detention\tAct,
\n1950, being, inter alia, to secure the security of the State
\nand  maintenance  of  law  and\torder,\tits  impact  on\t the
\nfundamental  rights  was indirect and,\ttherefore,  the\t Act
\ncould not be challenged for breach of the fundamental rights
\nunder  Art. 19(1).  The position in the cases now before  us
\nis  quite  different.\tThe  last  part\t of  the   directive
\nprinciples  embodied  in Art. 48 require the State  to\ttake
\nsteps for prohibiting the slaughter of the specified animals
\nand  this directive can only be carried out  by\t prohibiting
\nthe  petitioners and other butchers (Kasais)  from.  slaugh-
\ntering\tthem.  There can be no mistake about the  directness
\nof  these legislations vis-a-vis the petitioners  and  other
\nbutchers  and  the  effect of these  legislations  on  their
\nrights\tis  direct  and instantaneous as soon  as  they\t are
\nbrought into force.  The title of the U. P. Act
\n(1)  [1951]1 S.C.R. 451, 456-457.\n<\/p>\n
656<\/span><\/p>\n
does  not  even\t attempt to conceal the\t directness  of\t its
\nimpact\ton the butchers of Uttar Pradesh.  The\targument  of
\nlearned counsel for the respondents on this point cannot  be
\naccepted  and the question of the alleged violation of\tArt.
\n19(1)(g) has to be dealt with on merits.\n<\/p>\n
The  complaint of the petitioners under Art. 19 (1)  (g)  is
\nthat  the  impugned Acts, if enforced, will compel  them  at
\nonce  to  close\t down their business and  will,\t in  effect,
\namount\tto  a complete denial of their right  to  carry\t oil
\ntheir  occupation,  trade  or  business\t in  spite  of\t the
\nmandatory  provisions  of Art. 19(1)(g).  The  objection  is
\nelaborated  thus:  The\tlivelihood of a\t butcher  of  cattle
\ndepends\t on the existence of many factors.  First he has  to
\npurchase the cattle which he will slaughter.  The statistics
\nwill show that a large number of cattle are slaughtered\t for
\nfood  every  year.  According to Table 11 on p.\t 24  of\t the
\nReport\ton the Marketing of Cattle in India 18,93,000  heads
\nof  cattle  and 6,09,000 buffaloes were slaughtered  in\t the
\nyear 1948.  Taking that 7 goats are the equivalent in  flesh
\nof   cow or buffalo these butchers who\tslaughter  25,02,000
\nbovine cattle will have to find 7 times that number of goats
\nor sheep, that is to say, they will have to have 1,75,14,000
\nextra  goats  and sheep per year. This it is  said,  is\t not
\navailable  in -India.  Then the butchers will have  to\tfind
\nbuyers\tfor this enormous quantity of goats’ meat or  mutton
\nthe  price of which, according to the figures given at\tp.12
\nof the Expert Committee’.-, Report, is very much higher than
\nthat  of  beef.\t  Poorer  people  may  afford  to  buy\tbeef
\noccasionally but goat-,’ meat or mutton will be beyond their
\nreach  and consequently there will not be a market for\tsale
\nof the meat of so many goats and sheep and the butchers will
\nhave to reduce the number of goats and sheep for purposes of
\nslaughter and that will reduce their income to a  negligible
\nfigure.\t  Further,  what will they do with the skins  of  so
\nmany goats, and sheep ? They will not have ready sale in the
\nmarket\tas hides of cows and buffaloes have, for the  latter
\nare  used  in the manufacture of boots, shoes,\tsuit  cases,
\nbelts  and other leather goods while the skins of goats\t and
\nsheep will be useless
\n657<\/span>
\nfor such purpose.  The same considerations will apply to the
\nguts.\tThere is, therefore, no escape, say learned  counsel
\nfor  the petitioners from the inevitable conclusion  that  a
\ntotal  ban on the slaughter of all animals belonging to\t the
\nspecies\t  of  bovine  cattle  will  bring  about   a   total
\nprohibition  of the business and occupation of the  butchers
\n(Kasais).   Clause  (6) of Art. 19, no doubt,  protects\t the
\noperation of the existing laws in so far as they impose\t and
\ndo  not prevent the State from making any law  imposing,  in
\nthe interest of the general public, reasonable\trestrictions
\non  the\t exercise of the right conferred by  Art.  19(1)(g).
\nBut   restrictions,  they  say,\t cannot\t extend\t  to   total
\nprohibition and reference is made to the observations to  be
\nfound  in  some\t of  the  decisions  of\t this  Court.\t The
\ncontention  is\tthat  the  State  may  regulate\t but  cannot
\nannihilate  a business which a citizen has a right to  carry
\non.\n<\/p>\n
The  rival  contention is thus\tformulated:  The  dictionary
\nmeaning of the word ” butcher ” is ” slaughterer of  animals
\nfor  food,  dealer in meat”.  It is one of the\tthree  well-
\nknown  occupations  included  in the homely  phrase,  ”\t the
\nbutcher, the baker, the candlestick maker”.  The  expression
\n”  butcher “, as popularly understood now, has no  reference
\nto any particular animal.  The term is now applicable to any
\nperson\twho slaughters any animal for food.  Taken  in\tthis
\nlarger\tsense,\tthe facts alleged in the petitions  do\tnot,
\naccording  to learned counsel for the respondents,  indicate
\nthat  any of the impugned Acts has the effect of  completely
\nstopping   the\tpetitioners’  businesses.   They   seek\t  to
\nillustrate  their point thus: Take the case  of\t piece-goods
\nmerchants.   Some may deal in country made  piece-goods\t and
\nothers may import and sell piece-goods manufactured, say, in
\nEngland\t or  Japan.  Some may deal in dhotis and  saris\t and
\nothers may confine their activities to the purchase and sale
\nof long cloth or other varieties of piece-goods.  They\tare,
\nhowever, all piece-goods merchants.  Suppose in the interest
\nof  our indigenous textile industry and to protect the\tbest
\ninterests of the general public it becomes necessary to stop
\nthe import of foreign cloth altogether.\t Such stoppage\twill
\nnot prevent any cloth
\n658<\/span>
\nmerchant  from\tcarrying on his trade or business  as  cloth
\nmerchant,  for\the can still deal in  cloth  and  piecegoods
\nmanufactured in India.\tWill any piece-goods merchant, whose
\nbusiness was only to import foreign piece-goods for sale  in
\nIndia,\tbe heard to complain that the stoppage of import  of
\nforeign cloth has completely prevented him from carrying  on
\nbusiness  as  a piece goods merchant  and,  therefore,\tsuch
\nstoppage  of import of foreign cloth being more than a\tmere
\nrestriction  violates  his  fundamental\t right\tunder\tArt.
\n19(1)(g)  ?  Where, they ask, will the argument\t lead  us  ?
\nSuppose that the import of one particular variety of  piece-
\ngoods,\tsay saris, is stopped but import of dhotis  and\t all
\nother varieties of piece-goods are allowed.  On a  reasoning
\nat par with that urged in the last case should not a  dealer
\nwho  imports only that variety of piece-goods the import  of
\nwhich has been stopped be entitled to say that his  business
\nhas  been  completely  stopped ? Suppose the  State  in\t the
\ninterest  of Khadi and cottage industries imposes a  ban  on
\nthe manufacture or sale of cloth of a very fine count,\twill
\na  merchant who deals only in fine cloth be entitled to\t say
\nthat as he deals only in fine cloth, the ban has  completely
\nprohibited  the carrying on of his business ? The  truth  of
\nthe  matter, they submit, is that the ban on the  import  of
\nforeign\t cloth or on the manufacture of cloth of  very\tfine
\ncount  is  only\t a restriction imposed\ton  the\t piece-goods
\nbusiness, for the ban affects one or more of the segments of
\nthat  business\tbut  leaves the\t other\tsegments  untouched.
\nThere is, therefore, only some restriction imposed on piece-
\ngoods merchants in that they cannot deal in certain kinds of
\npiece-goods, but they are not wholly prevented from carrying
\non  piece-goods\t business.  The position, they say,  is\t the
\nsame  in  the  case of\tbutchers  (Kasais).   The  butchers’
\nbusiness, they point out, has several segments and a ban  on
\none segment may be complete prohibition of the activities of
\nthat  segment,\tfor  restriction is complete as\t far  as  it
\nextends, but in the larger context of the butchers’ business
\nsuch  a\t ban, they submit, operates only as  a\trestriction.
\nFar  less, it is said can a dealer in hides,  complain\tthat
\nthe ban
\n659<\/span>
\nimposed on the slaughter of cattle and buffaloes prevent him
\nfrom,  carrying on his, business as a hide merchant, for  he
\ncall  still carry on his business in ,fallen hides.   Indeed
\nthe statistics collected in the Report of Marketing of Hides
\nin  India, Second Edition, p.9, show that the percentage  of
\nfallen\thides to the total cattle population is 8.8  whereas
\nthe  percentage\t of slaughtered hides to  the  total  cattle
\npopulation is
\n1.4. The.  same\t argument has been  advanced  regarding\t gut
\nmerchants and other dealers in subsidiary things.
\nIt is not necessary for us to dilate upon or to express\t any
\nopinion\t  on   the  rival  contentions\tas   abstract\tpro.
\npositions  .  The matter has to be dealt  with\tobjectively.
\nWhat  do  the Acts actually provide ? In Uttar\tPradesh\t the
\npetitioners  can freely slaughter buffaloes (male or  female
\nadults or calves) and sell their meat for food.\t It is\talso
\nopen to them to slaughter goats and sheep and sell the meat.
\nTherefore,  so\tfar  as the butchers of\t Uttar\tPradesh\t are
\nconcerned, there A,, obviously no total prohibition of their
\noccupation  but only some restrictions have been imposed  on
\nthem in respect of one part of their occupation, namely, the
\nslaughter of cows, bulls, bullocks, and calves of cows.\t  In
\nMadhya\tPradesh\t the Act, it is true,  totally\tforbids\t the
\nslaughter  of  cows including bulls, bullocks and  cows\t but
\npermits the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female adults or
\ncalves)\t under\tcertain conditions.   Therefore,  in  Madhya
\n[Pradesh  also\tthere  is no  law  totally  prohibiting\t the
\ncarrying  on of the business of a butcher.  In\tBihar  there
\nis,  no\t doubt,\t a total ban against the  slaughter  of\t all
\nanimals\t belonging  to the, species of bovine  cattle  which
\nincludes buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) but  it
\nis  still  possible for the butchers of Bihar  to  slaughter
\ngoats  and sheep and sell goats’ meat and mutton  for  food.
\nAs will be -seen hereafter the total ban on the slaughter of
\nbulls, bullocks, buffaloes (male or female adults or calves)
\nirrespective of their age or usefulness is, in our view, not
\na  reasonable restriction imposed on, the butchers  (Kasais)
\nin  the\t interest  of the general  public  and\tthat  being,
\ntherefore, void, no question can arise, even in
\n660<\/span>
\nBihar, of any total prohibition of the rights of butchers to
\ncarry on their occupation or business.\tIn this view of\t the
\nmatter\twe  need  express  no final  opinion  on  the  vexed
\nquestion  as to whether restrictions permissible  under\t cl.
\n(6)  of\t Art.  19 may extend  to  total\t prohibition.\tThat
\nquestion was left open by this court in Saghir Ahmed v.\t The
\nState O. U. P. and others (1) and in The State of Bombay  v.
\nR. M. D. Chamarbaugwala<\/a> (2) and in the view we have taken on
\nthe  facts  and\t construction  of  the\tseveral\t Acts  under
\nconsideration,\tdoes not call for an answer in disposing  of
\nthese petitions.  The question that calls for an answer from
\nus  is\twhether\t these restrictions are\t reasonable  in\t the
\ninterests of the general public.\n<\/p>\n
Clause\t(6) of Art. 19 protects a law which imposes  in\t the
\ninterest  of the general public reasonable  restrictions  on
\nthe  exercise of the right conferred by sub cl. (g)  of\t cl.
\n(1) of Art. 19.\t Quite obviously it is left to the court, in
\ncase  of  dispute, to determine the  reasonableness  of\t the
\nrestrictions  imposed  by  the\tlaw.   In  determining\tthat
\nquestion the court, we conceive, cannot proceed on a general
\nnotion\tof what is reasonable in the abstract or even  on  a
\nconsideration  of what is reasonable from the point of\tview
\nof  the\t person\t or persons on\twhom  the  restrictions\t are
\nimposed.  The right conferred by sub-cl. (g) is expressed in
\ngeneral\t language  and\tif  there  had\tbeen  no  qualifying
\nprovision  like el. (6), the right so conferred\t would\thave
\nbeen an absolute one.  To the person who has this right\t any
\nrestriction will be irksome and may well be regarded by\t him
\nas unreasonable.  But the question cannot be decided on that
\nbasis.\tWhat the court has to do is to consider whether\t the
\nrestrictions imposed are reasonable in the interests of\t the
\ngeneral\t public.   In the State of Madras v. V. 0.  Row\t (3)
\nthis  court has laid down the test of reasonableness in\t the
\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n
”  It is important in this context to bear in mind that\t the
\ntest  of  reasonableness,  wherever  prescribed,  should  be
\napplied to each individual statute impugned-,
\n(1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707, 724.\t (2) [1957] S.C.R. 874.
\n(3) [1952] S.C.R. 597, 607.\n<\/p>\n
661<\/span><\/p>\n
and  no\t abstract standard, or general pattern,\t of  reason-
\nableness  can be laid down as applicable to all cases.\t The
\nnature\tof  the right alleged to have  been  infringed,\t the
\nunderlying  purpose of the restrictions imposed, the  extent
\nand  urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby,\t the
\ndisproportion  of the imposition, the prevailing  conditions
\nat the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.  In
\nevaluating  such  elusive  factors  and\t forming  their\t own
\nconception  of what is reasonable, in all the  circumstances
\nof a given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy
\nand  the scale of values of the judges participating in\t the
\ndecision  should  play an important part, and the  limit  to
\ntheir  interference with legislative judgment in such  cases
\ncan  only be dictated by their sense of\t responsibility\t and
\nself-restraint\t and  the  sobering  reflection\t  that\t the
\nConstitution  is meant not only for people of their  way  of
\nthinking  but for all, and that the majority of the  elected
\nrepresentatives\t of  the  people have,\tin  authorising\t the
\nimposition  of\tthe  restrictions,  considered\tthem  to  be
\nreasonable.”\n<\/p>\n
These observations have been adopted by this Court in  later
\ncases, e. g., The State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal\tBose<\/a>
\n(1) and Ebrahim Vazir Mavat v. The State of Bombay<\/a> (2).\t  In
\nthis  connection  it  will  also be  well  to  remember\t the
\nobservation  of\t Mahajan  J.  in  The  State  of  Bihar\t  v.
\nMaharajadhiraj\tSir  Kameshwar\tSingh  of  Dharbangha<\/a>\t(3),
\nnamely, that ” the legislature is the best judge of what  is
\ngood  for  the community, by whose suffrage  it\t comes\tinto
\nexistence……. This should be the proper approach for\t the
\ncourt  but the ultimate responsibility for  determining\t the
\nvalidity  of the law must rest with the court and the  court
\nmust  not  shirk  that\tsolemn\tduty  cast  on\tit  by\t the
\nConstitution.\tWe have, therefore, to approach the  problem
\nnow  before us in the light of the principles laid  down  by
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
The avowed object of each of the impugned Acts is to  ensure
\nthe preservation, protection, and improvement of the cow and
\nher progeny.  This solicitude
\n(1) (1954] S.C.R. 587, 627.  (2) [1954] S.C.R. 933, 949-950,
\n\t\t(3) [1952] S.C.R. 889, 041.\n<\/p>\n
662<\/span><\/p>\n
arises\tout of the appreciation of the usefulness of  cattle
\nin  a  predominantly  agricultural  society.   Early  Aryans
\nrecognised  its importance as one of the most  indispensable
\nadjuncts  of  agriculture.  It would appear  that  in  Vedic
\ntimes  animal  flesh formed the staple food of\tthe  people.
\nThis  is attributable to the fact that the climate  in\tthat
\ndistant\t past  was extremely cold and the Vedic\t Aryans\t had
\nbeen   a  pastoral  people  before  they  settled  down\t  as
\nagriculturists.\t  In  Rg.  Vedic times goats,  sheep,  cows,
\nbuffaloes and even horses were slaughtered for food and\t for
\nreligious  sacrifice and their flesh used to be\t offered  to
\nthe Gods.  Agni is called the ” eater of ox or cow ” in\t Rg.
\nVeda (VIII. 43, 11).  The staying of a great ox (Mahoksa) or
\na  ”  great  Goat  ” (Mahaja) for  the\tentertainment  of  a
\ndistinguished  guest  has  been enjoined  in  the  Satapatha
\nBrahmana (111. 4. 1-2).\t Yagnavalkya also expresses  similar
\nview (Vaj 1. 109).  An interesting account of those    early
\ndays  will be found in Rg.  Vedic Culture by Dr. A. C.\tDas,
\nCh. 5, pp. 203-5, and in the History of Dharmasastras  (Vol.
\nII-,  Part  II) by P. V. Kane at pp.  772-773.\t Though\t the
\ncustom\tof slaughtering of cows and bulls  prevailed  during
\nthe Vedic period, nevertheless, even in the Rg.\t Vedic times
\nthere seems to have grown up a revulsion of feeling  against
\nthe  custom.   The cow gradually came to acquire  a  special
\nSanctity and was called ” Aghnya ” (not to be slain).  There
\nwas  a\tschool of thinkers amongst the Rsis, who  set  their
\nface  against the custom of killing such useful\t animals  as
\nthe  cow and the bull.\tHigh praise was bestowed on the\t cow
\nas  will  appear from the following verses from\t Rg.   Veda,
\nBook VI, Hymn XXVIII (Cows) attributed to the authorship  of
\nSage Bhardvaja:\n<\/p>\n
”  1. The kine have come and brought good fortune; lot\tthem
\nrest in the cow-pen and be happy near US.\n<\/p>\n
Here  let  them\t stay prolific,\t many  coloured,  and  yield
\nthrough many morns their milk for Indra.\n<\/p>\n
6. O cows, ye fatten e’en the worn and wasted, and make\t the
\nunlovely beautiful to look on.\n<\/p>\n
Prosper\t my house, ye with auspicious voices, your power  is
\nglorified in our assemblies.\n<\/p>\n
663<\/span><\/p>\n
7.   Crop  goodly  pasturages and be  prolific;\t drink\tpure
\nsweet water at good drinking places.\n<\/p>\n
Never  be thief or sinful man your master, and may the\tdart
\nof Rudra still avoid you.\n<\/p>\n
(Translation by Ralph Griffith).  Verse 29 of Hymn 1 in Book
\nX.of Atharva Veda forbids cow slaughter in
\nthe following words:\n<\/p>\n
”  29.\tThe slaughter of an innocent, O Kritya, is an  awful
\ndeed, Slay not cow, horse, or man of ours.  ” Hymn 10 in the
\nsame Book is a rapturous glorification of the cow:
\n”  30.\t The  cow is Heaven, the cow is Earth,\tthe  cow  is
\nVishnu, Lord of life,
\nThe  Sadhyas and the Vasus have drunk the outpourings of the
\ncow.\n<\/p>\n
34.  Both  Gods and mortal men depend for life and being  on
\nthe cow.\n<\/p>\n
She hath become this universe; all that the sun ,surveys  is
\nshe.  ”\n<\/p>\n
P.V.  Kane argue,, that in the times of’ the Rg.  Veda\tonly
\nbarren cows,if at all, were killed for sacrifice or meat and
\ncows yielding milk were held to be not fit for being killed.
\nIt  is\tonly  in this way, according to him,  that  one\t can
\nexplain\t and  reconcile the apparent  conflict\tbetween\t the
\ncustom of killing COWS for food and the high praise bestowed
\noil  the cow in Rg.  Vedic times.  It would appear that\t the
\nprotest\t raised\t against  the  slaughter  of  cows   greatly
\nincreased in volume till the custom was totally abolished in
\na  later age.  The change of climate perhaps also  make\t the
\nuse  of beef food unnecessary and even injurious to  health.
\nGradually cows became indicative of the wealth of the owner.
\nThe Neolithic Aryans not having been acquainted with metals,
\nthere were no coins in current use in the earlier stages  of
\ntheir  civilisation, but as they were eminently\t a  pastoral
\npeople almost every family possessed a sufficient number  of
\ncattle and ‘some of them exchanged them for the\t necessaries
\nof  their life,.  The value of cattle (Pasu)was,  therefore,
\nvery  great with the early Rg.\tVedic Aryans.\tThe  ancient
\nRomans also used the word pecus or pecu (pasu) in the  sense
\nof wealth or money.  The English words,
\n664<\/span>
\n”  Pecuniary  ” and ” impecunious “, are  derived  from\t the
\nLatin  root pecus or pecu, originally meaning  cattle.\t The
\npossession of cattle in those days denoted wealth and a\t man
\nwas considered rich or poor according to the large or  small
\nnumber\tof  cattle  that he owned.   In\t the  Ramayana\tKing
\nJanaka’s  wealth  was described by reference  to  the  large
\nnumber of herds that he owned.\tIt appears that the cow\t was
\ngradually  raised  to the status  of  divinity.\t  Kautilya’s
\nArthasastra  has a special chapter (Ch.\t XXIX) dealing\twith
\nthe “superintendent of cows” and the duties of the owner  of
\ncows  are  also referred to in Ch.  XI of Hindu Law  in\t its
\nsources\t by Ganga Nath Jha.  There can be no gainsaying\t the
\nfact  that  the\t Hindus in general hold\t the  cow  in  great
\nreverence and the idea of the, slaughter of cows for food is
\nrepugnant  to  their notions and this sentiment has  in\t the
\npast  even  led to communal riots.  It is also a  fact\tthat
\nafter  the  recent partition of the country  this  agitation
\nagainst the slaughter of cows has been further\tintensified.
\nWhile  we agree that the constitutional question  before  us
\ncannot\tbe  decided on grounds of  mere\t sentiment,  however
\npassion\t ate it may be, we, nevertheless, think that it\t has
\nto  be taken into consideration, though only as one of\tmany
\nelements,  in  arriving\t at a judicial\tverdict\t as  to\t the
\nreasonableness of the restrictions.\n<\/p>\n
Cattle\tin  India, it is said, has a treble  role  to  play,
\nnamely, (i) to produce milk for food, (ii) bulls for draught
\nand (iii) manure for agriculture.  It is necessary to advert
\nto the arguments advanced under each head.  According to the
\n1951  census  there were 15,60,00,000 heads  of\t cattle\t and
\n4,00,00,000  of buffaloes making a total of 19,60,00,000  or
\nroughly 20,00,00,000 of animals belonging to the species  of
\nbovine\tcattle.\t  In  India there are 123  heads  of  cattle
\nincluding  buffaloes per square mile and 43 heads  to  every
\n100  persons.\tOut  of\t the  total  cattle  population\t  of
\n15,60,00,000  and  buffalo population of  4,00,00,000  there
\nwere in Bihar 1,52,97,000 cattle and 33,16,000 buffaloes, in
\nMadhya\tPradesh\t 1,48,58,000 heads of cattle  and  26,00,000
\nbuffaloes  and in Uttar Pradesh 2,35,13,000 heads of  cattle
\nand 92,50,000 buffaloes.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t  665<\/span><\/p>\n
The total distribution of cattle and buffaloes, according to
\nage, sex and work, was as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  Males\t\t\tCattle\t       Buffaloes\nBreeding bulls\t\t\t   6,52,0003,06,000\nWorking bullocks\t    5,88,18,00060,36,000\nBulls and bullocks over three\nyears not in use for breed-\n<\/pre>\n
ing and work, i. e., useless.  27,35,0004,66,000
\nYoung stock under once year.  97,63,000\t   28,70,000
\nYoung stock one to three
\n\t    years of age.      1,22,57,000  23,84,000
\nTotal\t\t\t 8,42,25,000  1,20,02,000
\n\t  Females
\nBreeding cows, i.e., cows, over
\n3 years kept for breeding
\nor milk production.\t   4,67,23,000\t2,10,08,000
\nCows over 3 years used for
\nwork.\t\t\t     23,17,000\t  5,34,000
\nCows over 3 years not in
\nuse for work or breeding
\npurposes, i. e., useless.    12,02,0003,15,000
\nYoung stock over 1 year.     93,05,00042,02,000
\nYoung stock 1 to 3 years of
\nage.\t\t\t      1,25,44,00052,83,000
\n     Total\t       7,20,91,000    3,13,42,000
\n     Grand total\t 15,63,16,000\t4,33,44,000
\nAs stated in the Report on the Marketing of Cattle in  India
\nissued\tby  the\t Directorate of\t Marketing  and\t Inspection,
\nMinistry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, 1956,
\nthe proportion of males in cattle is a little more than half
\nof  the\t total\tcattle\tpopulation whilst  in  the  case  of
\nbuffaloes,  females  predominate and are about\t3\/4  of\t the
\ntotal.\tFor agricultural purposes male cattle are  generally
\npreferred for their comparative lightness and active nature.
\nOf  the\t total 39,57,000 unserviceable heads  of  cattle  in
\nIndia  there  were  5,35,000 in Bihar,\t1,55,000  in  Madhya
\nPradesh\t and  1,84,000\tin  Uttar  Pradesh.   Of  the  total
\n7,81,000
\n666<\/span>
\nunserviceable buffaloes there were 1,20,000 in Bihar, 15,000
\nin Madhya Pradesh and 28,000 in Uttar Pradesh.
\nAlthough,  according to the census figures given above,\t our
\ncattle\twealth is, in number, the highest in the  world\t the
\nmilk  production  is perhaps the lowest.  According  to\t the
\nfigures given in the Second Five Year Plan, at the beginning
\nof  the\t First\tFive  Year Plan the  milk  output  was\tover
\n1,80,00,000  ton,;.   The average yield of milk per  cow  in
\nIndia  was  413\t pounds which is about\tthe  lowest  of\t any
\ncountry\t in  the  world\t as  against  8,000  pounds  in\t the
\nNetherlands,  7,000  pounds in Australia,  6,000  pounds  in
\nSweden and 5,000 pounds in the U.S.A. Out of the total yield
\nshe-buffaloes  give 54% while cows give only  42%.   Buffalo
\nmilk is richer in fat, 6 to 7% as compared to 4.5% of fat in
\nthe cow’s milk,. But cows milk is richer in other  important
\ncontent.,,  and is more easily digestible.  The average\t per
\ncapita consumption of milk and milk products was worked\t out
\nby  the First Five Year Plan at 5.5 ounces, i.e., about\t 2.5
\nchhataks  or  1\/6 of a seer per day, though  10\t ounces\t are
\nrecommended by nutrition experts.  In the Facts and  Figures
\nabout  Bihar published in 1955 by the Department  of  Public
\nRelations,  the average annual. milk yield is stated  to  be
\n620  lbs.  per\tcow  and 1,526\tlbs.  per  buffalo.   It  is
\nrecognised in Human Nutrition vis-a-vis Animal Nutrition  in
\nIndia,\ta  Memorandum  prepared by  the\t Nutrition  Advisory
\nCommittee of the Indian Council of Medical Research and\t the
\nAnimal\tCommittee  of  the Indian  Council  of\tAgricultural
\nResearch  that\tthe  performance  of  Indian  much  animals,
\nparticularly of cows, is extremely poor and that from a more
\neconomic  point\t of  view  there does not  seem\t to  be\t any
\njustification  for maintaining animals yielding 2 pounds  of
\nmilk or less per day and perhaps these animals would  better
\nbe eliminated.\tBut, as the Memorandum also says, one should
\nrealise,  before  such\ta  drastic  action  is\ttaken,\t the
\nconsequences  that  may\t follow from the  adoption  of\tthis
\npolicy,\t for if the animals giving 2 pounds or less of\tmilk
\nare condemned as unsuitable it will mean elimination of more
\nthan  90%  of the present day much cows and  loss  of  about
\n70,00,000 tons out of 97,00,000 tons of annual
\n667<\/span>
\ngross  production of milk from this group, besides  a  large
\nnumber\tof bullocks that they will bear.  According  to\t the
\ntable  of  the\thuman food requirement\trecommended  by\t the
\nNutrition  Advisory  Committee\tof  the\t Indian\t Council  of
\nMedical Research 10 ounces of milk per adult unit per day is
\nnecessary  to  make tip a balanced diet.   The\ttotal  human
\npopulation,  according\tto  1951  census,  was\t35,68,00,000
\nwhich,\tat  the current rate of increase, was  estimated  to
\nhave  reached the figure of 37,76,00,000 in 1956.   Treating
\nchildren  below 10 years of age as 0.83 of adult value,\t the
\ntotal adult unit is calculated at 31,30,00,000.\t At the rate
\nof  10\tounces of milk per adult per day  we  Would  require
\n3,23,00,000 tons of milk per annum.  It is clear, therefore,
\nthat  in  India, where a large section\tof  tile  population
\nconsists  of  vegetarians, there is a huge shortage  in\t the
\nsupply of milk.\t Cows and other milch cattle, therefore, are
\nof  very  great\t value to this\tcountry.  If  milk  yielding
\ncapacity  were\tthe  only  consideration  the  comparatively
\nsmaller number of female buffaloes which produce 54% of\t the
\ntotal  milk  supply  of our  country  would  obviously\thave
\ndeserved  a  far  greater preference over the  cows  in\t our
\nestimation.   But,  as\tpointed\t out  by  Pandit   Thakurdas
\nBhargava, there is another important consideration which  is
\nperhaps\t more  important from the standpoint of\t human\tfood
\nsupply.\t  It is the bullock that takes the largest share  in
\nmeeting\t  the  power  requirements  for\t  our\tagricultural
\nproduction.   Based  perhaps on age  old  experience  Indian
\nagriculturists habitually prefer a cow bullock to a  buffalo
\nbullock.   As a result of the evolutionary process of  trial
\nand error, we find in this country about 10 cow bullocks for
\nevery buffalo bullock as is shown by the 1951 census figures
\nset out above.\tIf this relative distribution is  considered
\nunavoidable for our crop production, we may expect no change
\nin  the existing ratio in the population of the two  species
\nunless a revolution can be brought about in our methods\t and
\npractice  of land cultivation.\tAccording to the  Report  on
\nthe  Marketing of Cattle in India, 1956, p. 22, animals\t are
\nutilised   in\tIndia\tunder  four   heads:(1)\t  used\t for
\ncultivating6,54,22,000 (2) used
\n85<\/span>
\n668<\/span>
\nfor  carting  in  urban areas-11,80,000\t (3)  used  as\tpack
\nanimals-67,705\tand (4) used in oil crushers,  etc.4,30,000,
\nmaking\tup  the total of 6,70,99,705.  As  against  this  we
\nhave,  according to the 1951 census figures set\t out  above,
\n5,88,18,000  working  bullocks\tand  60,36,000\tworking\t he-
\nbuffaloes, aggregating to 6,48,54,000.\tThere is therefore a
\nshortage  of  22,45,705 bullocks including  buffaloes  which
\npresumably  represent the dry cows and female buffaloes\t put
\nto  agricultural  labour, as shown in the Second  Five\tYear
\nPlan at pp. 281-282.  It is true that tractors have begun to
\nbe  used but they are still of a negligible number  and\t for
\nmany  years  to come the country will have  to\tdepend\tupon
\nanimal\tpower  for her agricultural operations in  order  to
\ngrow enough food for meeting the demands of the fast growing
\nhuman  population.  In Uttar Pradesh, according to the\t1951
\ncensus, there were 2,35,12,839 heads of cattle and 92,50,488
\nbuffaloes, making a total of 3,27,63,327.  The total area of
\nUttar Pradesh was 7,22,78,809 acres out of which 4,92,30,120
\nacres were under cultivation.  If a pair of bullocks can  be
\ntaken  on an average to cover 10 acres the total area  under
\ncultivation  will  require  98,46,000  bullocks.   The\t1951
\ncensus\tfigures\t show  1,15,00,000  of\tbullocks  which\t are
\nslightly  in excess of the number of bullocks  required\t for
\nthe  purposes  of cultivation only.  Indeed  both  in  Uttar
\nPradesh and in Bihar, according to the First Five Year Plan,
\np.  247, there was a surplus of about 40,00,000 of  bullocks
\nwhile in the Punjab and Pepsu the number available was\tjust
\nadequate to meet the demands.  If, however, account is taken
\nof  the\t other\tpurposes for which  bullocks  may  be  used,
\nnamely,\t for carting or as pack animals or for\tworking\t oil
\ncrushers  or  drawing water from the  wells  for  irrigation
\npurposes,  the total available animal power will fall  short
\nof the requirements.  In addition to that we have to keep in
\nview  the necessity for further expansion of the  cultivated
\narea  to  meet\tthe food requirements of  the  fast  growing
\npopulation,  and in that case the deficit will go  up  still
\nfurther.   In  Bihar, according to the\tFacts  and  Figures,
\n1956,  the total number of animal population of\t the  bovine
\nspecies were:-\n<\/p>\n
     669<\/span><\/p>\n
     Cattle
\n     Cows and oxen (adults)\t   1,15,64,310
\n     Cows and oxen (young stock)    37,33,166
\n     Buffaloes (adult)\t\t    23,78,293
\n     Buffaloes (young stock)\t    9,37,582
\n     The number of working cattle andbuffaloes works out
\nto one for every 6 acres of net area under cultivation.\t  It
\nfollows,  therefore,  that our working animals\tare  perhaps
\njust  about  sufficient\t to supply the\tpower  to  keep\t our
\nagricultural  operations up to the necessary  standard,\t but
\nthe  demand for food is growing and more lands will have  to
\nbe  brought  under cultivation and we shall  require  a\t far
\nlarge number of these animals.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There  are  in India, 6,50,000 breeding bulls  and  3,10,000
\nbreeding buffaloes.  There are 4,63,40,000 breeding cows and
\n2,09,90,000 breeding buffaloes.\t According to the First Five
\nYear  Plan,  1). 274, approximately 750 farm bred  bulls  of
\nknown pedigree are distributed annually by the Government in
\ndifferent States for developing and improving the draught as
\nwell  as the milch breeds.  Besides there are some  approved
\nbulls belonging to private owners.  But the existing  number
\nof  private  bulls  meets  less than 0.\t 15%  of  the  total
\nrequirements of the country.  According to the Report on the
\nMarketing  of  Cattle in India, p. 9, service  bulls  number
\napproximately 6,52,000 or about 0.4% of the total cattle  in
\nthe  country.  In the absence of an arrangement to  castrate
\nor  remove  the\t inferior bulls before a  pedigree  bull  is
\nlocated\t in an area, the progeny of the pedigree bulls\thave
\naccess to scrub, which nullifies the efficiency achieved  in
\nthe  first  generation.\t It is, therefore,  clear  that\t the
\nbreeding  bulls (cattle and buffaloes) are  insufficient  to
\nmeet  the  requirements.  It is true that  the\tpractice  of
\nartificial insemination has been introduced in some  centres
\nbut for many years to come Indian animal husbandry will have
\nto  depend on the ordinary breeding bulls.  We are in  short
\nsupply of them.\n<\/p>\n
The third utility of these animals (cattle and buffaloes) is
\nthe dung.  The First Five Year Plan at p. 255
\n670<\/span>
\nrecords\t that  80,00,00,000 tons of dung are  available\t per
\nannum.\t50% of this is used as fuel by cultivators  and\t the
\nother  50% is used as manure.  If suitable supplies of\tfuel
\ncould  be made available to the cultivators then the  entire
\nquantity of dung could be used for manure.  It is  doubtful,
\nhowever,  if the cultivators would be in a position  to\t pay
\nfor  the  fuel\tand utilise the entirety  of  the  dung\t for
\nmanure.\t  Cattle  urine\t is also useful\t for  the  nitrogen,
\nphosphates and potash contents in it.  In terms of money the
\ndung  and the urine will account for a large portion of\t the
\nagricultural  income  in  India.   Indeed  Pandit  Thakurdas
\nBhargava  appearing  as\t amnicus  curiae  has  claimed\t Rs.
\n63,00,00,000  per  year as the contribution of the  dung  of
\nthese animals to the national income.\n<\/p>\n
The   discussion   in  the  foregoing\tparagraphs   clearly
\nestablishes the usefulness of the cow and her progeny.\tThey
\nsustain\t the  health of the nation by giving them  the\tlife
\ngiving\t milk\twhich  is  so  essential  an   item   in   a
\nscientifically\tbalanced  diet.\t The  working  bullocks\t are
\nindispensable  for  our agriculture, for they  supply  power
\nmore  than  any\t other\tanimal.\t  Good\tbreeding  bulls\t are
\nnecessary  to  improve\tthe breed so that  the\tquality\t and
\nstamina of the future cows and working bullocks may increase
\nand  the production of food and milk may improve and  be  in
\nabundance.   The  dung\tof the animal is  cheaper  than\t the
\nartificial  manures and is extremely useful.  In short,\t the
\nbackbone  of Indian agriculture is in a manner\tof  speaking
\nthe  cow and her progeny.  Indeed Lord Linlithgow has  truly
\nsaid-” The cow and the working bullock have on their patient
\nback  the whole structure of Indian agriculture.  ”  (Report
\non the Marketing of Cattle in India, p. 20).  If, therefore,
\nwe  are to attain sufficiency in the production of food,  if
\nwe  are to maintain the nation’s health, the efficiency\t and
\nbreed\tof  our\t Cattle\t population  must  be\tconsiderably
\nimproved.   To\tattain the above objectives we\tmust  devote
\ngreater\t attention  to\tthe  preservation,  protection\t and
\nimprovement  of the stock and organise our  agriculture\t and
\nanimal\thusbandry on modern and scientific lines.  We  have,
\ntherefore,  to examine the provisions of the  impugned\tActs
\nand
\n671<\/span>
\nascertain   whether   they  help  in  achieving\t  the\tsaid
\nobjectives,  or are calculated to hinder that  process.\t  In
\nthat  context all the considerations above alluded  to\tmust
\nenter the judicial verdict and if the impugned Acts  further
\nthe aforesaid purpose then only can the restrictions imposed
\nby  the\t impugned  Acts\t be said to  be\t reasonable  in\t the
\ninterest of the general public.\n<\/p>\n
We turn now to the other side of the picture.  In  examining
\nthe conspectus of the problem the Court cannot overlook\t the
\nfact, emphasised in the petition, that the petitioners and a
\nvery  large  number of similarly situated persons,  even  if
\ntheir number does not come up to the figure mentioned in the
\npetition,  are butchers (Kasais) by occupation and  make  an
\nincome\tof about Rs. 150 to Rs. 200 per month and that\tthey
\nwill be seriously affected, if not completely thrown out  of
\noccupation,  by the impugned Acts.  It is true, for  reasons
\nhereinbefore  stated,  that they cannot complain  that\tthey
\nhave  been  completely\tdeprived  of  their  occupation\t  or
\nbusiness  but the enactments, if valid, will compel them  to
\nmake fresh arrangements for the supply of animals which\t are
\npermitted to be slaughtered for food.  Theoretically it\t may
\nnot  be impossible for them to do so, but in practice it  is
\nmore than likely to cause considerable inconvenience to them
\nand  may  even involve extra expenses for  them.   The\thide
\nmerchants,  who, they say in the petition, have\t made  their
\narrangements for the supply to them of hides of\t slaughtered
\nanimals\t up  to\t 95 % of their\trequirements,  may  find  it
\ndifficult  to make fresh arrangements for  procuring  fallen
\nhides.\t The  same observations may be made  about  the\t gut
\nmerchants.   The immediate effect of the operation of  these
\nActs  is to cause a serious dislocation of the\tpetitioners’
\nbusiness without any compensatory benefit.  In Saghir  Ahmad
\nv.  The State of U. P.<\/a> (1), at p. 727 this  Court  observed,
\nwith  respect  to the persons engaged in running  buses\t for
\ncarrying passengers:\n<\/p>\n
” One thing, however, in our opinion, has a decided  hearing
\non the question of reasonableness and that is the  immediate
\neffect which the legislation is likely to
\n(1)[1955] 1 S.C.R. 707,724.\n<\/p>\n
672<\/span><\/p>\n
produce.  Hundreds of citizens are earning their  livelihood
\nby  carrying on this business on various routes\t within\t the
\nState of Uttar Pradesh.\t Although they carry on the business
\nonly  with the aid of permits, which are granted to them  by
\nthe   authorities   under  the\tMotor\tVehicles   Act,\t  no
\ncompensation has been allowed to them under the Statute.  ”
\nSimilar\t inconvenience\tmay  easily  be\t supposed  to\thave
\nbefallen  the petitioners and others of their class and\t the
\nimmediate  and possibly adverse impact of the impugned\tActs
\non  their occupation or business must, therefore,  be  taken
\ninto account as one Of the important factors in judging\t the
\nreasonableness or otherwise of the said Acts.
\nThere  is  also no getting away from the fact that  beef  or
\nbuffalo\t meat is an item of food for a large section of\t the
\npeople in India and in particular of the State of Bihar\t and
\nUttar  Pradesh.\t  Table\t 11 at p. 24 of the  Report  on\t the
\nMarketing of Cattle in India shows that in the year 1948 the
\nannual demand for cattle and buffaloes for purposes of\tfood
\nwas:  1.8,93,000  heads of cattle  and\t6,09,000  buffaloes.
\nThese figures indicate that beef and buffalo flesh are\tused
\nfor  food by a large section of the people in India.  It  is
\nwellknown  that poorer sections of Muslims,  Christians\t and
\nmembers of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes consume beef\t and
\nbuffalo\t flesh.\t There is also a limited demand for beef  by
\nthe  foreign  population.   Buffaloes  yield   comparatively
\ncoarse\tand tough meat of inferior quality and\tconsequently
\nthe demand for beef is greater than that for buffalo  flesh.
\nFurther\t the  price of the buffalo flesh is 20 to  40%\tless
\nthan that of beef.  The prices of beef and buffalo meat\t are
\nmuch  cheaper  than  that  of  mutton  or  goat’s  meat\t and
\nconsequently beef and buffalo flesh come within the reach of
\nthe  poorer  people perhaps for a day or two  in  the  week.
\nAccording  to the figures given in the Report of the  Expert
\nCommittee at 1). 12, in 1938 in -Bombay the prices were\t Rs.
\n0-3-9  per  pound of beef, Rs. 0-2-0 per  pound\t of  buffalo
\nflesh  and Rs. 0-5-6 for mutton and goats’ flesh.   In\t1950
\nthese prices went up respectively to Rs. 0-12-0, Rs.  0-11-0
\nand Rs. 1-3-0.\n<\/p>\n
673<\/span><\/p>\n
The  comparatively  low prices of beef, and  buffalo  flesh,
\nwhich are nearly half of that of mutton or goats’ flesh,  is
\nthe  main  reason  for\ttheir  demand.\t Habit\tis   perhaps
\nsecondary.   Learned  counsel for some of:  the\t petitioners
\ncited  the case of the boys and girls residing\tin  boarding
\nhouses\tattached to the Anglo-Indian schools where the\tonly
\nmeat  which  the boarding school authorities can  afford  to
\nsupply\tas part of the diet of the growing children is\tbeef
\nand  that  only on a day or two in the week.  The  Acts,  if
\nenforced,  will prevent them. from having even\tthis  little
\nbit  of nourishment and amenity. It is true that  after\t the
\npartition of the country the Muslim population has decreased
\nand further    that  some  Muslims may not  habitually\ttake
\nbeef  or buffalo flesh, but even so a large section  of\t the
\npoorer\tpeople\tbelonging  to  the  Muslim,  Christian\t and
\nScheduled  Castes  communities do consume beef\tand  buffalo
\nflesh.\tAnd this is not merely a matter of amenity or luxury
\nbut is at any rate partially’, a matter of necessity.  Table
\nVII  set out at p. 32 of the Memorandum on  Human  Nutrition
\nvis-a-vis Animal Nutrition in India recommends one ounce  of
\nmeat  daily whereas the available quantity is much less\t and
\nthe attainable quantity under the new plan may be 1\/3  ounce
\nor a little more.  Poorer people, therefore, who can  hardly
\nafford\tfruit  or  milk or ghee are likely  to\tsuffer\tfrom
\nmalnutrition,  if they are deprived of even one\t out-ice  of
\nbeef  or buffalo flesh which may sometimes be  within  their
\nreach.\t This aspect of the matter must also be\t taken\tinto
\naccount in assessing the reasonableness of the provisions of
\nthe impugned Acts.\n<\/p>\n
The  number of cattle and buffaloes not fit for breeding  or
\nworking\t has already been set out.  Further  particulars  in
\ndetail\tare  available\tfrom Appendices II and\tIII  to\t the
\nReport\ton  the Marketing of Cattle in India.\tThe  figures
\ngiven there show that according to the 1951 census the total
\nnumber\tof unserviceable male cattle was 27,35,000 and\tthat
\nof  female cattle was 12,02,000. Out of these there were  in
\nBihar  2,93,000 male and2,42,000 female, in  Madhya  Pradesh
\n1,24,000 male and31,000 female and in Uttar Pradesh
\n674<\/span>
\n1,63,000   male\t and  21,000  female.\t The   unserviceable
\nbuffaloes  in the whole of India, according to 1951  census,
\nwere 7,81,000 out of which 4,66,000 were males and  3,15,000
\nwere  females.\tOut of the total there were in Bihar  61,000
\nmale  buffaloes\t and  59,000 female,  buffaloes,  in  Madhya
\nPradesh\t 10,000\t male  and 5,000 female,  in  Uttar  Pradesh
\n16,000 male and 12,000 female.\tAccording, to the First Five
\nYear Plan, p. 273, the overall estimates made by the  Cattle
\nUtilisation  Committee\tshow that about 10 % of\t the  cattle
\npopulation  in\tIndia  or roughly  1,14,00,000\tadults\twere
\nunserviceable  or  unproductive.  The Report of\t the  Cattle
\nPreservation  and Development Committee also put the  figure
\nof old, decrepit and unproductive cattle at 10% of the total
\npopulation.   Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava does not accept\t the
\ncorrectness of these figures.  It is difficult to find one’s
\nway  out of the labyrinth of figures and it will  be  futile
\nfor  us\t to  attempt to come to a  figure  of  unserviceable
\nagricultural   animals\twhich  may  even  be   approximately
\ncorrect.  For our purpose it will suffice to say that  there
\nis  a fairly large number of cattle and buffaloes which\t are
\nnot  of\t any  use for breeding\tor  working  purposes.\t The
\nposition may be accepted as correctly summed up at p. 274 of
\nthe  First  Five Year Plan where it is stated,\tinter  alia,
\nthat  there is a deficiency of good milch cows\tand  working
\nbullocks  and  that  there exists a surplus  of\t useless  or
\ninefficient animals.\n<\/p>\n
The  presence of a large number of useless  and\t inefficient
\ncattle in the midst of the good ones affect our agricultural
\neconomy\t in  two ways.\tIn the first place and this  is\t the
\ncrux  of the matter-this surplus stock is pressing upon\t the
\nscanty\tfodder and feed resources of the country and  is  an
\nobstacle to making good the deficit,.  As pointed out by the
\nexpert\tCommittee Report at p. 59 the greatest\thandicap  in
\nimproving  our\tcattle wealth is the lack  of  resources  in
\nfeeding them.  Any effort to improve cattle will fail unless
\nthey are properly fed.\tThe table set out on that very\tpage
\nof that Report records a deficiency of 6,00,00,000 tons,  i.
\ne.,  33% in straw or Kadbi 10,40,00,000 tons, i.e.,  13%  in
\ngreen fodder and 2,65,20,000 tons, i. e.,
\n675<\/span>
\n70%  in\t concentrates (i. e., oil cakes,  bran,\t oil  seeds,
\nmaize’\tbarley and gram, etc.). It is pointed out  that\t the
\nfigures\t shown against green fodder are not  the  quantities
\nwhich  are  presently  available  but!\twhich  can  be\tmade
\navailable if forest’ resources are fully, tapped.  According
\nto  this  Report  even if the  forest  resources  are  fully
\nutilised  there\t will still be a deficiency of\t13%  in\t the
\nsupply.\t The actual availability of this item is limited  by
\nthe  fact  that green fodder is, only available\t during\t the
\nmonsoon\t months\t and much of this is wasted by the  lack  of
\ncountry-wide   arrangements  for  its\tconservation.\t The
\nestimated requirements and the present supply of food stuffs
\nfor  animals  is  also\tgiven in Table V at  p.\t 23  of\t the
\nMemorandum on Human Nutrition vis-a-vis Animal Nutrition  in
\nIndia which tallies with and is more or less about the\tsame
\nas  those given in the Report of the Expert Committee  above
\nreferred to.  Table V also shows a deficiency of 6,00,00,000
\ntons  of  straw or Kadbi 1,78,00,000 tons of  green  fodder.
\nThe  shortage  of  concentrates, i. e.,\t oil  cakes,  maize,
\nbarley, gram, cotton seed and bran vary between 8,50,000  to
\n71,17,000  tons.   According to the estimate  given  in\t the
\nFirst  Five  Year  Plan at p. 273  the\tquantity  of  fodder
\navailable  is  about  75% of  requirements  while  available
\nconcentrates of feeds would suffice only for about 28 % of 1
\nthe  cattle.  The, figures given at p. 24 of the  report  of
\nthe  Gosamvardhan  Enquiry Committee set up  by,  the  Uttar
\nPradesh\t Government are interesting.  The total cattle:\t and
\nbuffalo\t population  in,  Uttar\t Pradesh  is  estimated\t  at
\n3,27,63,327.  The scientific food requirements of this total
\npopulation,  according to, the Western standard, are:  first
\nset  out.  Then begins a: process of scaling down,  for\t the
\nabove-\tscale is, considered to be somewhat lavish  for\t our
\nlow sized village cattle.  The Indian standard, according to
\nthis  report,  will,  require much  less  and  the  figures,
\naccording to Indian standards, are next set out.   Evidently
\nthese,\t figures  also,\t show  a,  very\t big  gap   between,
\nrequirements  and the available, quantities.  So the  report
\nsays  that  event,  this  may,\tbe  reduced  and  -what\t  is
\nsignificantly
\n 86<\/span>
\n676<\/span>
\ndescribed as the ” critical limit ” is then set out.  It  is
\nnot quite intelligible why an Indian cow should not  require
\neven an Indian standard of ration.  Be that as it may,\teven
\nfor the ” critical limit ” the quantity available is far too
\nshort.\t The  gap  between the critical limit  and  what  is
\navailable  is respectively 1,80,00,000 tons of\tdry  matter,
\n15,00,000 tons of protein and 28,61,70,00,000 therms.  It is
\nconceded  that\tthe  requirements  of  mixed  population  of
\n3,27,63,327  heads of animals may be taken  as\trepresenting
\n2,71,30,000  adult  units  and with  the  present  available
\nsupply\tof  straw, green feed and concentrates\tthese  adult
\nunits  cannot  be  fully  fed even  on\tthe  critical  limit
\nstandard.  The available supply can support only 1,59,20,000
\nadult  units  leaving 1, 1 2, 1 0,000 units  unfed.   It  is
\nrecognised  by this Report that with an increase  in  cattle
\npopulation   and  better  prophylactic\t treatment   against
\ncontagious diseases, the trend of population will be towards
\nan  increase  and the deficiency in  nutrition\twill  become
\nstill  more  pronounced.   The\tremedy\tsuggested  is\tthat
\nattention  be paid urgently towards the production  of\tmore
\nfodder from cultivated land and utilisation of all  marginal
\nand  sub-marginal  land\t for  augmenting  food\tand   fodder
\nsources.\n<\/p>\n
With a large population of animals in which the majority  is
\nnot yielding adequate and prompt returns to the owners,\t the
\nanimals are naturally allowed to fenad for themselves and to
\nsubsist\t on  whatever the agriculturist is able\t to  provide
\nfrom  his scanty sources for the maintenance of\t his  stock.
\nNaturally, therefore, the problem of substantial  precentage
\nof  uneconomical  cattle has cropped up along with  that  of
\nstray, wild, old, diseased and uneconomical animals.   These
\nold and useless animals roaming about at pleasure in  search
\nof  food  are  a  nuisance and a source\t of  danger  in\t the
\ncountryside.  They grow wild and become a menace to the crop
\nproduction.   As  pointed out by the Report  of\t the  Expert
\nCommittee,  the danger was actually seen by the\t members  of
\nthat  Committee in Pepsu where, it is significant  to  note,
\nthe slaughter is banned completely.\n<\/p>\n
677<\/span><\/p>\n
The  presence of a large number of old and  useless  animals
\nalso has a bad effect on the quality of the breed.  There is
\na  tendency for this population to multiply and\t bring\tinto
\nbeing  progeny\tof a very inferior kind which  is  bound  to
\nadversely  affect the production of milk or  bullock  power.
\nIt  is absolutely necessary that this surplus cattle  should
\nbe  separated from the good and robust animals and  a  total
\nban  on\t slaughter of cattle and buffaloes  will  contribute
\ntowards worsening the present condition.
\nThe Cattle Preservation and Development Committee set up  by
\nthe  Government\t of  India in 1948 at p. 47  of\t its  Report
\nrecommended,  as  a panacea for the evil menace\t of  useless
\ncattle,\t  a   scheme  for  the\t establishment\t of   cattle
\nconcentration  camp for the old and useless cattle.   It  is
\nthis scheme which subsequently came to be known by the\tname
\nof Gosadans.  At pp. 48 and 49 are set out the estimates  of
\ncost  of  establishing\tand running a camp  to\thouse  2,000
\ncattle.\t The non-recurring cost on land, cattle sheds, staff
\nand  servants’\tquarters  is shown at  Rs.  32,000  and\t the
\nrecurring  cost,  namely,  salary  of  manager,\t  stock-man,
\nchaukidars.  and others on the establishment  together\twith
\nallowances  is shown at Rs. 13,000 per year and it is  hoped
\nthat  a\t sum of Rs. 5,000 will be derived from the  sale  of
\nhides,\tmanure, etc.  According to the Report of the  Expert
\nCommittee each Gosadhan housing 2,000 heads of cattle  would
\nhave  to  have 4,000 acres of land which would permit  of  a
\nrotational and controlled grazing practice and provision has
\nto be made for the surplus grass during the rainy season  to
\nbe  preserved  for  the scarcity months.   There  should  be
\nthatched sheds for protection of the cattle against  weather
\nand  wild animals and fodder is to be cultivated on a  small
\npart  of  the  4,000 acres.  By the end of  1954,  when\t the
\nReport of the Expert Committee came to be made, the cost had
\ngone  up  from\twhat  they were\t in  1948  when\t the  Cattle
\nPreservation and Development Committee Report had been made.
\nThe  estimated cost, according to the Report of\t the  Expert
\nCommittee,  of\testablishing and running of  a\tGosadan\t for
\n2,000 heads of cattle is shown as: nonrecurring
\n678<\/span>
\nRs.  50,000,  and recurring Rs. 25,000 per  year.   On\tthis
\nbasis  the recurring cost alone will work out at  Rs.  12.50
\nper head of cattle per annum for preserving useless  cattle.
\nThe  figures given in the Gosamvardhan\tEnquiry\t Committee’s
\nReport are interesting.\t Taking the total number of cattle,%
\nin  Uttar Pradesh not used for breeding or work at  1,83,276
\nin  1951,  the State will require 91 Gosadans  each  with  a
\nhousing capacity for 2,000 heads of cattle.  Even taking one
\nacre  per  animal  instead  of\ttwo  acres  per\t animal\t  as
\nrecommended  by\t the Expert Committee Report,  91  Gosadan,s
\nwill require nearly 2,00,000 acres of land.  The cost of  91
\nGosadans  will be non-recurring Rs. 45,50,000 and  recurring
\nRs. 22,75,000 per annum.  It appears from the revised  model
\nfor Gosadans for 500: heads of cattle to be run by the State
\nGovernments set out in Appendix II to the Proceedings of the
\nFifth  Annual  General\tMeeting of the\tCentral\t Council  of
\nGosamvardhan  held at Now Delhi on February 21,\t 1957,\tthat
\nthe non-recurring cost will be Rs. 39,000 and the  recurring
\nrunning cost will be Rs. 12,000.  It is estimated that there
\nwill be an income of Rs. 2,500 from the sale of hides,\tetc.
\nAllowing  this,\t the net annual recurring cost will  be\t Rs.
\n9,500 for 500 heads of cattle which works out at Rs. 19\t per
\nhead of cattle per annum.  As regards Gosadans to be run  by
\nprivate institutions it is said in the same Appendix II that
\nthose  institutions  will be given a subsidy of Rs.  18\t per
\nhead  per annum out of which 75% would %,be  contributed  by
\nthe Centre and the remaining 25% by the State.\tThus for the
\npreservation of the useless cattle the country will pay\t Rs.
\n19  or\tRs. 18 per head of such useless\t cattle\t per  annum,
\nwhereas our total national expenditure on education (Central
\nand States including local bodies) in 1955-1956 was only Rs.
\n4-9 per capita as against Rs. 104.6 per capita in the United
\nKingdom\t and  Rs. 223.7 per capita in the United  States  of
\nAmerica and our target for 1957-1958 works out at Rs. 5\t per
\ncapita\tper annum.  It will be noticed that in none  of\t the
\nschemes\t is  even  a pice provided  for\t fodder.   The\tidea
\nevidently is that the cattle will be left there to fend\t for
\nthemselves on whatever grass or
\n679<\/span>
\nother green feed they can get by grazing.  If one  remembers
\nthat  though  green fodder may be available in\tthe  monsoon
\nmonths,\t there will be a dearth, of them in the dry  months,
\none  will at once see that the segregating of the cattle  in
\nthe concentration camp will only be to leave them to a\tfate
\nof slow death.\tThe very idea that these animals should\t eke
\nout their livelihood by grazing and that Gosadans should  be
\nlocated in out of the way places, appeared to the authors of
\nthe Memorandum on Human Nutrition vis-a-vis Animal Nutrition
\nat  p. 47, to belie the humanitarian considerations  on\t the
\nbasis of which the scheme was conceived.\n<\/p>\n
Theory\tapart,\tthe Gosadan scheme has ‘been tried  and\t the
\nresult is not at all encouraging.  The First Five Year Plan,
\nobviously  as  an  experimental measure,  provided  for\t the
\nestablishment  of 160 Gosadans each housing 2,000  heads  of
\ncattle,\t at  a cost of about Rs.  97,00,000.   The  Planning
\nCommission  recognised that these measures would touch\tonly
\nthe  fringe of the problem and the success of  the  movement
\nwould  depend  on the amount of public\tsupport,  especially
\nfrom  charitable institutions that it received.\t  The  sheer
\nweight of the figures of expenses compelled the Gosamvardhan
\nEnquiry\t Committee  to recognise that if  the  unwanted\t and
\nuneconomic  cows  and their progeny have to  be\t effectively
\nsaved from slaughter, the responsibility had to be shared by
\nthe  individual,  the community and so on, for it  would  be
\nutterly\t  impracticable\t to  expect  that  the\t burden\t  of
\ncollection  of such animals from villages  and\ttransporting
\nthem to the Gosadans would be within the exclusive means and
\ncompetence of the State.  That Committee certainly  expected
\nthe  State to share a particular portion of the\t expenditure
\nwhich legitimately fell in its sphere of responsibility, but
\nthe  Committee felt, and said so in so many words,  that  by
\nfar  the  most\tsubstantial portion  of\t the  responsibility
\nshould\trest on the owners and the community itself  for  it
\nwas but equitable to expect that if the cow had to be really
\nsaved  from  slaughter the cost on this\t account  should  be
\nequitably borne by the people and the State.  This
\n680<\/span>
\npart  of  the Report of the Gosamvardhan  Enquiry  Committee
\nreads  like wishful thinking and amounts to only hoping\t for
\nthe  best.   When the conscience of the\t individual  or\t the
\ncommunity  did not prevent the Hindu owner from selling\t his
\ndry cow to the butcher for a paltry sum of Rs. 30 to Rs.  40
\nper  head,  when the Hindu sentiment for  the  divinity\t and
\nsanctity  attributed  to  the cow has to be  propped  up  by
\nlegislative compulsion, when according to its own Report  at
\np.  41\tthe Dharmada and Brit collected by the\tHindu  busi-
\nnessmen\t on each commercial transaction ostensibly  for\t the
\nbenefit of the cow is not made available in full and finally
\nwhen  Goshalas have had to be closed down for want of  funds
\nand public support, when the country cannot spend more\tthan
\nRs.  5 per capita per annum on the education of the  people,
\nit seems to be somewhat illogical and extravagant, bordering
\non  incongruity,  to  frame a scheme  for  establishment  of
\nGosadans  for preserving useless cattle at a cost of Rs.  19
\nor  Rs.\t 18  per  head per annum and  which  will,  for\t its
\nsuccess,  admittedly have to depend on the same elusive\t and
\nillusory  public  support or 75% subsidy  from\tthe  Central
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
What  has been the result of the experiment?   According  to
\nthe Report of the Expert Committee since the First Five Year
\nPlan  only  17\tGosadans had been started  in  Bihar,  Uttar
\nPradesh,  Pepsu,  Coorg,  Bhopal,  Kutch,  Vindhya  Pradesh,
\nTripura and Saurashtra put together.  Not even one of  these
\n17  establishments is fully stocked.  There are\t only  about
\n5,293  animals\tin  these 17  Gosadans\tinstead\t of  34,000.
\nAccording  to the Gosamvardhan Enquiry\tCommittee’s  Report,
\nonly  two  Gosadans had been established up to the  date  of
\nthat Report in Uttar Pradesh.  The Second Five Year Plan (p.\n<\/p>\n
283) shows that out of the 160 Gosadans for which  provision
\nhad been made in the First Five Year Plan, only 22  Gosadans
\nhad  been established.\tAccording to the Facts\tand  Figures
\nabout\tBihar,\t1955,  p.  88,\tthree  Gosadans\t  had\tbeen
\nestablished  at\t Berwadih, Nirmali and Monghyr\twhere  there
\nwere  about 700 uneconomic animals at that time\t instead  of
\n6,000  which  should have been there as\t per  the  estimated
\ncapacity for each Gosadan.\n<\/p>\n
681<\/span><\/p>\n
What,  in  the\tview  of  the  several\tcommittees,  is\t the
\nconclusion ? According to the Memorandum on Human  Nutrition
\nVis-a-vis  Animal  Nutrition  in India, p.  4,\tthe  present
\nscheme\tof  establishing Gosadans for  segregating  old\t and
\nuseless\t animals  can serve only a limited, purpose  and  if
\nextended  countrywide,\tit is likely to hinder\trather\tthan
\nhelp  the problem of disposing of, the surplus animals.\t  At
\np.  47\tthe authors of this Memorandum appear to  have\tfelt
\nthat  in  advocating, the adoption of Gosadan  Scheme  on  a
\ncountrywide,  basis, sufficient consideration had  not\tbeen
\ngiven  to  its practical aspects.  It is  pointed  out\tthat
\naccording  to  the  present estimate  the  total  number  of
\nuseless\t animals  is four times the number the\tSecond\tFive\n<\/p>\n
-Year  Plan  had  estimated and\t that  consequently,  having
\nregard\tto  the\t huge  size of\tour  cattle  population\t the
\nexisting   number  of  the  useless  section  would   remain
\nunchanged  for\tmany  years to come and that a\tsum  of\t Rs.
\n3,04,00,000 will be required only for pounding such animals.
\nThe   Expert  Committee’s  Report  is  quite  definite\t and
\nemphatic.   Paragraph  133 of that Report at P.\t 62  clearly
\nexpresses the opinion that Gosadans do not offer a  solution
\nto  the problem.  To house and maintain all  these  animals,
\nthousands  of  Gosadans on lakhs of acres of land  would  be
\nneeded.\t  In addition to the huge nonrecurring\texpenses,  a
\nvery  high  recurring annual expenditure would\thave  to  be
\nincurred.,  In view of this and in view of  the\t indifferent
\nresponse from the States in setting up Gosadans, the  Expert
\nCommittee came to the conclusion that the Gosadan scheme was
\nnot likely to offer any solution for the problem of  useless
\ncattle\tand that it would be far more desirable\t to  utilise
\nthe  limited  resources\t of  the  country  to  increase\t the
\nefficiency of the useful cattle.\n<\/p>\n
The  Report  of\t the  Cattle  Preservation  and\t Development
\nCommittee  did not recommend the immediate total ban on\t the
\nslaughter of all cattle.  They recommended the establishment
\nof  concentration  camps, later\t on  euphemistically  called
\nGosadans,  and though total ban was the ultimate  objective,
\nit  did\t not,  for the moment,\tprohibit  the  slaughter  of
\nanimals over the age of 14 years and of animals of any age
\n682<\/span>
\npermanently  unfit  for work or breeding owing, to  age\t or,
\ndeformity.   In para. 134 of the Expert\t Committee’s  Report
\nat,  p. 63 it, is stated clearly that the total ban  on\t the
\nslaughter  of all cattle would not be in the best  interests
\nof the country as it is merely a negative and not a positive
\napproach to the problem.  They consider that a\tconstructive
\napproach  to  the  problem will be, to see  that  no  useful
\nanimal is slaughtered and that the country’s. resources\t are
\nfully harnessed to produce better and more efficient cattle.
\nNeither\t the First Five Year Plan nor -the Second Five\tYear
\nPlan  accepted the idea of a total ban on the  slaughter  of
\ncattle.\t  Indeed, according to the Second Five Year Plan,  a
\ntotal  ban will help the tendency for the number of  surplus
\ncattle\tto increase and, in their view, a total ban  on\t the
\nslaughter  of all cows, calves and other milch\tand  draught
\ncattle\twill  defeat  the  very\t object\t of  the   directive
\nprinciples embodied in Art. 48 of the Constitution.  We find
\nfrom para. 6 on p. 283 of the Second Five Year Plan that the
\nGosadan\t scheme\t did  not make\tany,  real  or\tsatisfactory
\nprogress and that altogether 22 Gosadans housing only  8,000
\ncattle had been established by the States up to the date  of
\nthat  document\tand  even  then\t many  of  the\tStates\t had
\nencountered difficulty in, securing the areas of land needed
\nfor  their; operations.\t The Planning Commission  considered
\nthat  it  would be impossible to establish enough  of  these
\nGosadans  and they reached the conclusion that\tin  defining
\nthe scope. of the ban on the slaughter of cattle the  States
\nshould\ttake  a,  realistic view  of  the  fodder  resources
\navailable  in the country. and the extent to which they\t can
\nget the. co-operation of voluntary organisations to bear the
\nmain  responsibility  for,  maintaining\t unserviceable,\t and
\nunproductive  cattle with a measure of assistance  from\t the
\nGoverment land general support from; the people., As already
\nstated,’  the,\tMemorandum  on\tHuman  Nutrition  vis-a-vis,
\nAnimal.\t  Nutrition  at\t p. 4 expressed the  view  that\t the
\nGosadan\t scheme\t can, serve only a limited purpose  and,  if
\nextended countrywide was likely, to hinder, rather than help
\nthe  problem  of disposing of the, surplus  animals,  appart
\nFrom the huge initial cost.  A, large, concentration of
\n683<\/span>
\nuseless\t animals  within a restricted area, the\t authors  of
\nthat  Memorandum  feared, might lead  to  considerable\tsoil
\nerosion\t due  to  overgrazing  and  there  might  be   every
\npossibility  of contagious and parasitic diseases  spreading
\nfrom these animals to the surrounding area.  It is only\t the
\nGosamvardan  Enquiry  Committee\t which\thad  recommended  an
\nimmediate  total  ban  on  the\tslaughter  of  all   cattle,
\nirrespective  of age or sex.  It should, however,  be  noted
\nthat even that Committee did not recommend such a total\t ban
\nas  a measure independent of all other considerations.\t Its
\nrecommendation\tin this behalf was linked up with and was  a
\npart  of  a  scheme which depended, for its  success,  on  a
\nvariety of imponderable matters, like public enthusiasm\t and
\nsupport for the establishment and maintenance of Gosadans in
\na  high\t state of working, efficiency, the capacity  of\t the
\nState to bring more lands under cultivation, reclamation  of
\nthe  jungle lands and the like.\t It may be noted  also\tthat
\nalthough in some of the States total ban has been imposed on
\nthe  slaughter of cattle, many of the States have  not\tcon-
\nsidered it necessary to impose such a blanket ban.  Thus the
\nAssam  Cattle  Protection  Act,\t 1950,\tthe  Bombay   Animal
\nPreservation  Act,  1948, the West Bengal  Animal  Slaughter
\nControl\t Act, 1950, the Hyderabad Slaughter of\tAnimal\tAct,
\n1950, the Travancore-Cochin Notification permit slaughter of
\ncattle and buffaloes over specified years of age.  Even\t the
\nMadhya\tPradesh Act, as criminally enacted, did not place  a
\ntotal ban on the slaughter of all cattle.\n<\/p>\n
In earlier times there being enough of pastures and  smaller
\nhuman  and  cattle population and restricted needs,  it\t was
\npossible  to  rear large and valuable herds and\t organise  a
\nsystem\t of   balanced\teconomy\t as  far   as\tagricultural
\ndevelopment  was  concerned.  Thus, while  the\tcountry\t was
\nproducing  enough  grain for the requirement  of  the  human
\npopulation   there  was\t an  adequate  area  available\t for
\nplentiful grazing of animals, which, supplemented by  fodder
\navailable   from   agricultural\t production,   assisted\t  in
\ndeveloping  the\t types of quality animals required  for\t the
\nneeds of the
\n87<\/span>
\n384<\/span>
\ntimes  and the area in question (Report of the\tGosamvardhan
\nEnquiry\t Committee).  The position has considerably  changed
\nsince  then.   There  has been a  large\t increase  in  human
\npopulation  and\t famines and epidemics having  been  largely
\nbrought\t under\tcontrol, there has been an increase  in\t the
\nanimal\tpopulation  also.  Already there  is  a\t competition
\nbetween\t man  and the animal for the  available\t land.\t The
\ngrowing human population needs more food for which more land
\nis  required.  The refugee problem has yet to be solved\t and
\nsufficient  land has to be found for settling  the  refugees
\ntherein.    With   organised   facilities   for\t  artificial
\nfertilisers  and the introduction of scientific\t methods  of
\ncultivation agricultural production is expected to  increase
\nand the problem of food for human consumption may be capable
\nof a satisfactory solution.  But as regards the cattle\tfeed
\nthe gap between the requirement and the available quantities
\nis so wide that there is little possibility, in any foresee-
\nable  future, of the country producing enough to  feed\tthem
\nadequately.\n<\/p>\n
To  summarise:\tThe  country is in  short  supply  of  milch
\ncattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks.  If the  nation
\nis  to\tmaintain itself in health and  nourishment  and\t get
\nadequate  food,\t our cattle must be improved.  In  order  to
\nachieve\t this  objective  our  cattle  population  fit\t for
\nbreeding  and work must be properly fed and whatever  cattle
\nfood is now at our disposal and whatever more we can produce
\nmust  be  made available to the useful cattle which  are  in
\npresenti  or will in futuro be capable of yielding  milk  or
\ndoing  work.  The maintenance of useless cattle\t involves  a
\nwasteful  drain\t on the nation’s cattle feed.\tTo  maintain
\nthem  is  to deprive the useful cattle of  the\tmuch  needed
\nnourishment.  The presence of so many useless animals  tends
\nto  deteriorate\t the breed.  Total ban on the  slaughter  of
\ncattle, useful or otherwise, is calculated to bring about  a
\nserious dislocation, though not a complete stoppage, of\t the
\nbusiness of a considerable section of the people who are  by
\noccupation  butchers  (Kasais), hide merchants\tand  so\t on.
\nSuch  a ban will also deprive a large section of the  people
\nof what may
\n685<\/span>
\nbe their staple food.  At any rate, they will have to forego
\nthe  little protein food which may be within their means  to
\ntake  once  or twice in the week.  Preservation\t of  useless
\ncattle\tby  establishment of Gosadans is  not,\tfor  reasons
\nalready indicated, a practical proposition.  Preservation of
\nthese useless animals by sending them to concentration camps
\nto fend for themselves is to leave them to a process of slow
\ndeath  and does no good to them.  On the contrary, it  hurts
\nthe best interests of the nation in that the useless  cattle
\ndeprive\t the useful ones of a good part of the cattle  food,
\ndeteriorate  the breed and eventually affect the  production
\nof  milk  and breeding bulls and working  bullocks,  besides
\ninvolving an enormous expense which could be better utilised
\nfor more urgent national needs.\n<\/p>\n
We are not unmindful of the fact that beef and buffalo flesh
\nfrom  calves  under  one  year of  age.\t heifers  and  young
\ncastrated  stock yielding meat of a superior  quality  fetch
\ncomparatively  higher prices in the market  and,  therefore,
\nthe tendency of the butchers naturally is to slaughter young
\ncalves.\t  This\tcircumstance clearly warns us  that  calves,
\nheifers and young castrated stock (cattle and buffalo) which
\nwill  in  future supply us milk and power  for\tpurposes  of
\nagriculture require protection.\t We also do not fail to bear
\nin  mind  that for very good and cogent\t reasons  cows\talso
\nrequire\t protection.  Cows give us milk and her progeny\t for
\nfuture\tservice.  Unfortunately, however, the  average\tmilk
\nyield  of a cow, as already stated, is very much  less\tthan
\nthat   of  a  she-buffalo.   As\t the  Gosamvardhan   Enquiry
\nCommittee’s  Report points out, despite all  the  veneration
\nprofessed  for\tthe cow, when it comes to  the\tquestion  of
\nfeeding, the she-buffalo always receives favoured  treatment
\nand the cow has to be satisfied with whatever remains  after
\nfeeding the she-buffaloes, bullocks, and calves in order  of
\npriority.  The growth of cities and heavy demand for milk in
\nthe  urban areas have contributed to the slaughter  of\tgood
\nstock.\t For want of space no freshly calved animal  can  be
\nbrought\t in  without getting rid of one that had  gone\tdry.
\nSalvage facilities not being available or, if available,
\n686<\/span>
\nbeing  uneconomical,  the  professional\t gowalas,  who\t are
\nmostly,\t if  not  wholly, Hindus, find\tit  uneconomical  to
\nmaintain  the cow after she goes dry and  consequently\tsell
\nher  to\t the butcher for slaughter at Rs. 30 to Rs.  50\t per
\nhead,  irrespective of her age and  potential  productivity,
\nand  import a fresh cow.  The veneration professed  for\t the
\nsanctity  attached  to the cow does not\t prevent  them\tfrom
\ndoing  so.   In\t big towns  the\t municipal  regulations\t are
\nstringent  and slaughter is permitted only of  unserviceable
\nand  unproductive  animals.   Instances\t are  not  uncommon,
\nhowever,  that\tto get an animal passed for  slaughter,\t the
\nteeth  or  the\trings  round the horns\tof  the\t animal\t are
\ntampered  with and sometimes a cow is even maimed  in  order
\nthat  she may be passed by the veterinary inspector  as\t fit
\nfor  slaughter.\t Cows, which are rejected by the  inspector,
\nare taken out of the limits of the cities and slaughtered in
\nthe rural areas.  As slaughter is not confined to registered
\nslaughter  houses,  the number of useful animals  which\t are
\nslaughtered cannot be given accurately.\t It is estimated  in
\nthe  Report  of the Expert Committee at p. 2 that  at  least
\n50,000\thigh yielding cows and she-buffaloes from cities  of
\nBombay,\t Calcutta  and Madras alone are\t sent  annually\t for
\npermature slaughter and are lost to the country.  The causes
\nof  slaughter of useful cattle are enumerated at pp.  2,  3,
\nand  9 of that Report, namely, lack of space in\t the  cities
\nand suburban areas, long dry period, want of arrangement for
\nbreeding  bulls\t at the proper time, the anxiety to  get  as
\nmuch  milk  out of the cow as possible, -the  high  cost  of
\nmaintenance  of cows in the cities and the  difficulties  in
\nthe matter of obtaining adequate fodder.  For these  reasons
\nmany animals are sent to the slaughter houses through  sheer
\neconomic pressure and are replaced by fresh animals imported
\nfrom breeding areas.  The danger of such premature slaughter
\nis  greater for the cow, for being an animal with  a  scanty
\nyield  of  milk it does not pay the owner  to  maintain\t her
\nthrough the long dry period and hence there is an inducement
\nfor  adopting even cruel practices to get her passed by\t the
\ninspectors.  But a dry she-buffalo is well worth  preserving
\nand maintaining
\n687<\/span>
\nin  expectation\t of  rich  return  at  the  next  lactation.
\nBesides,  buffaloes for slaughter will not fetch as  good  a
\nprice  as  cows would do.  Likewise there will not  be\tmuch
\ninducement to the agriculturist or other owner to part\twith
\nthe breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle and. buffalo)
\nas long as they are serviceable.  For their sheer usefulness
\nand  their high market value as breeding or working  animals
\nthe breeding bulls and working bullocks, as long as they are
\nfit,  are, to the agriculturists, worth more than the  price
\nof their flesh in gold.\t There can hardly be any  inducement
\nfor  maiming  valuable animals which, as breeding  bulls  or
\nworking\t  animals,   can  at  any  time\t  fetch\t  from\t the
\nagriculturists a price higher than what the maimed ones will
\nfetch  from  the butchers.  The breeding bulls\tand  working
\nbullocks  (cattle and buffaloes) do not, therefore,  require
\nas much protection as cows and calves do.\n<\/p>\n
The  next question is as to what should be the scope of\t the
\nban  on\t the  slaughter of animals.  One view  is  that\t the
\nslaughter  of  all  animals (cattle and\t buffaloes)  of\t all
\ncategories should be regulated by the State and that animals
\nbelow  a  specified age or not suffering from  some  natural
\ndeformity should not be allowed to be slaughtered.   Drastic
\nand  stringent\tregulations have been imposed  by  municipal
\nlaws and have been tried but experience shows that they\t are
\nnot  sufficient\t at least to protect the cow.  It  has\tbeen
\nfound  to be extremely difficult to enforce the\t regulations
\nfor inadequacy of staff and veterinary inspectors, little or
\nno  check  on the veterinary inspectors who succumb  to\t the
\npressure or inducements of the butchers and pass animals not
\nreally useless as and for useless and aged animals.  A large
\npercentage  of\tthe  animals  not  fit\tfor  slaughter\t are
\nslaughtered  surreptitiously outside the  municipal  limits.
\nFor   reasons  of  economy  rapacious  gowalas\tor   callous
\nagriculturists find it uneconomical to maintain the dry\t cow
\nand even resort to cruel practices and maim the cow in order
\nto  get\t her passed for slaughter.  As already\tstated,\t the
\nshe-buffalo  and  the breeding bulls  and  working  bullocks
\n(both cattle and buffaloes) for their value, present and
\n688<\/span>
\nfuture,\t do not ruin the same amount of danger as a dry\t cow
\ndoes.  Regulation of slaughter of animals above a  specified
\nage may not be quite adequate protection for the cow but may
\nbe  quite  sufficient  for the breeding\t bulls\tand  working
\nbullocks and the she-buffaloes.\t These considerations induce
\nus  to\tmake  an exception even in favour  of  the  old\t and
\ndecrepit cows.\tThe counsel for the petitioners, be it\tsaid
\nto their credit, did not contend otherwise.
\nAfter  giving our most careful and anxious consideration  to
\nthe pros and cons of the problem as indicated and  discussed
\nabove  and keeping in view the presumption in favour of\t the
\nvalidity  of  the  legislation and  without  any  the  least
\ndisrespect to the opinions of the legislatures concerned  we
\nfeel that in discharging the ultimate responsibility cast on
\nus  by\tthe Constitution we must approach  and\tanalyse\t the
\nproblem\t in an objective and realistic manner and then\tmake
\nour pronouncement on the reasonableness of the\trestrictions
\nimposed\t by  the impugned enactments.\tSo  approaching\t and
\nanalysing  the problem, we have reached the  conclusion\t (i)
\nthat  a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all  ages\t and
\ncalves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female,
\nis quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with\t the
\ndirective principles laid down in Art. 48, (ii) that a total
\nban  on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls  or
\nworking\t bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as  long  as
\nthey  are as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable\t and
\nvalid  and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter  of\tshe-
\nbuffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they
\ncease  to  be  capable of yielding milk or  of\tbreeding  or
\nworking as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable
\nin the interest of the general public.\n<\/p>\n
We  now\t proceed to test each of the impugned  Acts  in\t the
\nlight  of the aforesaid conclusions we have arrived  at\t The
\nBihar  Act, in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of\tcows
\nof all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male
\nand  female, is valid.\tThe Bihar Act makes  no\t distinction
\nbetween\t she-buffaloes,\t bulls\tand  bullocks  (cattle\t and
\nbuffaloes) which are
\nuseful\tas  milch or breeding or draught animals  and  those
\nwhich  are not and indiscriminately prohibits  slaughter  of
\nshe-buffaloes,\tbulls  and  bullocks  (cattle  and  buffalo)
\nirrespective  of their age or usefulness.  In our  view\t the
\nban  on\t slaughter  of\tshe-buffaloes,\tbreeding  bulls\t and
\nworking\t bullocks (cattle. and buffalo) which are useful  is
\nreasonable  but of those which are not useful is not  valid.
\nThe  question  as to when a she-buffalo,  breeding  bull  or
\nworking bullock (cattle and buffalo) ceases to be useful and
\nbecomes\t  useless   and\t unserviceable\tis  a\tmatter\t for
\nlegislative  determination.   There is no provision  in\t the
\nBihar Act in that behalf.  Nor has our attention been  drawn
\nto any rule which may throw any light on the point.  It\t is,
\ntherefore,   not   possible  to\t apply\t the   doctrine\t  of
\nseverability  and  uphold the ban on the slaughter  of\tshe-
\nbuffaloes,  breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle\t and
\nbuffalo)  which are useful as milch or breeding\t or  working
\nanimals\t and strike down the ban on the slaughter  of  those
\nwhich  are  useless.   The  entire  provision  banning\t the
\nslaughter  of  she-buffaloes, breeding\tbulls,\tand  working
\nbullocks  (cattle and buffalo) has, therefore, to be  struck
\ndown.\tThe  result is that we uphold and declare  that\t the
\nBihar Act in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of
\nall  ages and calves of cows and calves of  buffaloes,\tmale
\nand  female, is constitutionally valid and we hold that,  in
\nso  far\t as  it\t totally prohibits  the\t slaughter  of\tshe-
\nbuffaloes,  breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle\t and
\nbuffalo), without prescribing any test or requirement as  to
\ntheir  age  or usefulness, it infringes the  rights  of\t the
\npetitioners  under  Art. 19 (1) (g) and is  to\tthat  extent
\nvoid.\n<\/p>\n
As regards the U. P. Act we uphold and declare, for  reasons
\nalready stated, that it is constitutionally valid in so\t far
\nas it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves
\nof  cows, male and female, but we hold that in so far as  it
\npurports to totally prohibit the slaughter of breeding bulls
\nand  working  bullocks\twithout\t prescribing  any  test\t  or
\nrequirement  as\t to  their age\tor  usefulness,\t it  offends
\nagainst Art. 19 (1) (g) and is to that extent void.\n<\/p>\n
690<\/span><\/p>\n
As  regards the Madhya Pradesh Act we likewise declare\tthat
\nit  is constitutionally valid in so far as it prohibits\t the
\nslaughter  of cows of all ages and calves of cows, male\t and
\nfemale,\t but  that  it\tis void in  so\tfar  as\t it  totally
\nprohibits  the\tslaughter  of breeding\tbulls  and  working-
\nbullocks  without prescribing any test or requirement as  to
\ntheir age or usefulness.  We also hold that the Act is valid
\nin  so\tfar as it regulates the slaughter of  other  animals
\nunder  certificates  granted by\t the  authorities  mentioned
\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t premises  we direct the respondent  States  not  to
\nenforce\t their respective Acts in so far as they  have\tjust
\nbeen  declared\tvoid by us.  The parties will bear  and\t pay
\ntheir own costs of these applications.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions partly allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected … on 23 April, 1958 Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629 Author: S R Das Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Das, S.K., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Bose, Vivian PETITIONER: MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE […]<\/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-69326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on 23 April, 1958 - 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\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on 23 April, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958\" \/>\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=\"1958-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-11T13:45:54+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=\"111 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected … on 23 April, 1958\",\"datePublished\":\"1958-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-11T13:45:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958\"},\"wordCount\":20943,\"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\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on 23 April, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1958-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-11T13:45:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected … on 23 April, 1958\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on 23 April, 1958 - 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\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on 23 April, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1958-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-11T13:45:54+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":"111 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected … on 23 April, 1958","datePublished":"1958-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-11T13:45:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958"},"wordCount":20943,"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\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958","name":"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on 23 April, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1958-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-11T13:45:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-hanif-quareshi-others-vs-the-state-of-biharand-connected-on-23-april-1958#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected … on 23 April, 1958"}]},{"@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\/69326","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=69326"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69326\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}