{"id":72366,"date":"1994-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994"},"modified":"2018-04-09T08:20:33","modified_gmt":"2018-04-09T02:50:33","slug":"state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994","title":{"rendered":"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 464, \t\t 1995 SCC (1) 189<\/div>\n
Author: M S.B.<\/div>\n
Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF W.B.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASHUTOSH LAHIRI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/11\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR  464\t\t  1995 SCC  (1) 189\n JT 1994 (7)   697\t  1994 SCALE  (4)979\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMAJMUDAR,  J.- All these appeals by special leave arise\t out
\nof the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court
\nin Civil Rule No. 709 (W) of 1971 decided on 20-8-1982.\t The
\nappellants in these appeals are the State of West Bengal and
\nthe  other contesting respondents who were before  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t27  respondents herein had filed the  writ  petition
\nbefore the Calcutta High Court, challenging the validity  of
\nexemption  of slaughter of scheduled animal,  namely,  cows,
\nfrom  the  operation  of the West  Bengal  Animal  Slaughter
\nControl Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)  on
\nBakrI’d day.  The writ petitioners had obtained leave  under
\nOrder  1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure\t and  joined
\nRespondents 7 to 21 representing the Muslim community.\t The
\nwrit  petitioners contended before the High Court  that\t the
\nState of West Bengal Respondent 1 before the High Court\t had
\nwrongly invoked Section 12 of the Act when it exempted\tfrom
\nthe  operation of the Act, the slaughter of healthy cows  on
\nthe  occasion of BakrI’d on the ground that  such  exemption
\nwas required to be given for the religious purpose of Muslim
\ncommunity.   The Division Bench of the Calcutta\t High  Court
\nafter hearing the contesting parties took the view that such
\nslaughter of cows by members of Muslim community on  BakrI’d
\nday was not a requirement of Muslim religion and, therefore,
\nsuch  exemption was outside the scope of Section 12  of\t the
\nAct.  Consequently, the impugned
\n192<\/span>
\norder  was  dehors the statute.\t In that view  the  Division
\nBench  allowed\tthe petition and issued a  mandamus  to\t the
\nappellants,  State  of\tWest Bengal  Respondent\t 1  and\t its
\ndelegate  officers Respondents 2 to 16 in the writ  petition
\ncalling upon them to forbear from giving any exemption under
\nSection 12 of the Act in respect of slaughter of cows on the
\noccasion of BakrI’d day thereinafter.  The writ petitioner’s
\noral  application  for\tleave  under  Article  133  of\t the
\nConstitution was refused as according to the Division  Bench
\nit  had\t followed the Constitution Bench  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in Mohd.\tHanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar1, in coming
\nto the said conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
2.As noted earlier the State of West Bengal as well as other
\ncontesting  respondents of Muslim community  have  preferred
\nthese  appeals\tby way of special leave to appeal  from\t the
\naforesaid  judgment  of the Division Bench of  the  Calcutta
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.As all these appeals involve common questions of facts and
\nlaw, learned counsel for contesting parties addressed common
\narguments  in  all  these  appeals.   Consequently,  we\t are
\ndisposing of these appeals by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
4.Learned  counsel  for\t the  appellants  in  these  appeals
\nvehemently  contended  that the view of the  High  Court  is
\nerroneous and does not correctly interpret Section 12 of the
\nAct.  It must be held that such exemption can be granted for
\nfulfilling any religious purpose and such purpose may not be
\nan obligatory purpose.\tThat even if it is open to a  Muslim
\nto  offer sacrifice of a goat or a camel or a cow  and\twhen
\nsuch  a sacrifice should be of a healthy animal then it\t was
\nperfectly  open\t to the State to grant\texemption  from\t the
\noperation of the Act so far as slaughtering of a healthy cow
\non  BakrI’d day was concerned.\tIt was also  contended\tthat
\nthe  High Court had misread the judgment in  Quareshi  case1
\nas this case had interpreted Article 25 of the\tConstitution
\nof  India  and in that light it was held that  slaughter  of
\ncows  could  not  be considered to be a\t part  of  essential
\nreligious  requirement.\t So far as Section 12 of the Act  is
\nconcerned it does not talk of an essential religious purpose
\nbut talks of any religious purpose which may include even an
\noptional  purpose.   Mr Tarkunde,  learned  Senior  Counsel,
\nappearing  for\tone of the appellants  vehemently  contended
\nthat  for operation of Section 12 it is not  necessary\tthat
\nthe religious purpose must be a mandatory purpose but  would
\ncover even an optional purpose as contemplated by the Muslim
\nreligion,  like slaughter of healthy cow on BakrI’d.   Hence
\nsuch  a purpose would be covered by the sweep of Section  12
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
5.On  the other hand learned counsel for the  original\twrit
\npetitioners,  respondents in these appeals,  contended\tthat
\nthe  Act is meant for controlling the slaughter\t of  animals
\nincluding the cows and buffaloes and this is with the object
\nof increasing the supply of milk and avoiding the wastage of
\nanimal\tpower  necessary  for  improvement  of\tagriculture.
\nUnder Section 4 of the Act only animals fit for slaughtering
\ncan be slaughtered.  For that a certificate is
\n1 AIR 1958 SC 731 : 1959 SCR 629
\n193<\/span>
\nrequired to be issued by the authorities concerned.  But  so
\nfar  as healthy animals like cows are concerned there  is  a
\ncomplete ban on slaughtering them.  Section 12 seeks to lift
\nthe  ban  in  connection  with\tsuch  animals  only  on\t the
\nfulfilment of the condition precedent, namely, such  lifting
\nof  the ban being necessary for any religious, medicinal  or
\nresearch  purpose.  As this is an exception to\tthe  general
\nprotection  against  slaughtering  of  healthy\tanimals\t  as
\nenvisaged by the Act, such exemption or exception should  be
\nstrictly construed and cannot be lightly granted or  lightly
\nresorted to for any optional religious purpose which may not
\nbe   absolutely\t necessary.   In  this\tconnection  it\t was
\nsubmitted by learned counsel for the respondents that as per
\nthe  appellants, in order to earn religious merit  a  Muslim
\ncan offer sacrifice of a goat or alternatively of a  healthy
\ncow if 7 Muslims together decided to do so and spend for  it
\nor  even  a  camel can be sacrificed  by  them\ton  BakrI’d.
\nTherefore, it is not essential for Muslims to earn religious
\nmerit  by  insisting  on sacrificing only  healthy  cows  on
\nBakrI’d.    Consequently,  the\tState  will  not  have\t any
\nJurisdiction  or power to invoke Section 12  for  fulfilling
\nsuch  optional religious practice of Muslim  community.\t  It
\nwas  further contended that the Constitution Bench  judgment
\nin Quareshi case1 has clearly ruled that slaughter of cow on
\nBakrI’d\t day cannot be considered to be a part of  essential
\nreligious practice and that is the reason why protection  of
\nArticle\t 25  is not available for enabling  slaughtering  of
\ncows on BakrI’d day.  If that is so, on that very basis\t the
\nState’s action under Section 12 of the Act has to be  judged
\notherwise  what\t is  held  to  be  non-essential   religious
\nrequirement  by the Constitution Bench of this Court,  would
\nbe  treated  as\t essential  religious  requirement  for\t the
\npurpose of Section 12 of the Act.  That would run counter to
\nthe very ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench  of
\nthis Court.  Therefore, according to the learned counsel for
\nthe  respondent writ petitioners, the Division Bench of\t the
\nHigh Court was perfectly justified in following the decision
\nof the Constitution Bench of this Court in Quareshi case1.\n<\/p>\n
6.We  have  given  our anxious consideration  to  the  rival
\ncontentions.   In  our\tview the decision  rendered  by\t the
\nDivision  Bench\t of  Calcutta High  Court  under  appeal  is
\nunexceptionable and calls for no interference.\tWe must keep
\nin  view the scheme of the Act for deciding the question  in
\ncontroversy.\n<\/p>\n
7.As the preamble of the Act shows it was enacted to control
\nthe  slaughter of certain animals as it was expedient to  do
\nso  with a view to increase the supply of milk and to  avoid
\nthe  wastage  of animal power necessary for  improvement  of
\nagriculture.   Section 2 lays down that the Act\t applies  to
\nanimals specified in the schedule.  The schedule to the\t Act
\ncovers\tbulls,\tbullocks,  cows,  calves,  male\t and  female
\nbuffaloes, buffalo calves and castrated buffaloes.   Section
\n4  of  the  Act deals with prohibition\tof  slaughtering  of
\nanimals\t without  certificate  from  authorities  concerned.
\nSection\t 4(1) provides that notwithstanding anything in\t any
\nother law for the time being in force or in any usage to the
\ncontrary, no person shall slaughter any animal unless he has
\nobtained  in respect thereof a certificate under  subsection
\n(2) or sub-section (3) that the animal is fit for slaughter.
\nAs per sub-\n<\/p>\n
194<\/span><\/p>\n
section\t (2) a certificate is required to be issued  by\t the
\nauthorities  concerned that the animal is over 14  years  of
\nage and is unfit for work or breeding or that the animal has
\nbecome\tpermanently incapacitated from work or breeding\t due
\nto  age, injury, deformity or any incurable  disease.\tSub-
\nsection (3) deals with a case where there is a difference of
\nopinion\t  between  the\tauthorities  concerned\tfrom   which
\ninitially a certificate is to be obtained.  As per Section 5
\neven if there is a certificate enabling a person to get\t the
\nanimal\tconcerned slaughtered he cannot slaughter it in\t any
\nplace  other than the place prescribed in that\tbehalf.\t  As
\nper  Section 7 whoever contravenes the provision of the\t Act
\nshall  be punishable with imprisonment for a term which\t may
\nextend\tto six months or with fine which may extend  to\t one
\nthousand rupees or with both.  Section 8 makes the  offences
\ncognizable  under the Act.  Section 9 prescribes  punishment
\nfor abetment of offences or even attempts to commit any such
\noffence under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.The  aforesaid  relevant provisions clearly  indicate\t the
\nlegislative intention that healthy cows which are not fit to
\nbe  slaughtered cannot be slaughtered at all.  That  is\t the
\nthrust\tof  Section 4 of the Act.  In other words  there  is
\ntotal  ban  against slaughtering of healthy cows  and  other
\nanimals\t mentioned  in the schedule under Section 2  of\t the
\nAct.   This  is\t the  very essence of  the  Act\t and  it  is
\nnecessary  to  subserve\t the  purpose of  the  Act  i.e.  to
\nincrease the supply of milk and avoid the wastage of  animal
\npower necessary for improvement of agriculture.\t Keeping  in
\nview  these  essential\tfeatures  of the  Act,\twe  have  to
\nconstrue  Section  12  which  deals  with  power  to   grant
\nexemption  from the Act.  As we have noted earlier the\tsaid
\nsection\t enables the State Government by general or  special
\norder and subject to such conditions as it may think fit  to
\nimpose,\t to exempt from the operation of this Act  slaughter
\nof  any\t animal\t for any religious,  medicinal\tor  research
\npurpose.   Now it becomes clear that when there is  a  total
\nban  under  the Act so far as slaughtering of  healthy\tcows
\nwhich  are not fit to be slaughtered as per Section 4(1)  is
\nconcerned,  if that ban is to be lifted even for a  day,  it
\nhas  to be shown that such lifting of ban is  necessary\t for
\nsubserving  any\t religious, medicinal or  research  purpose.
\nThe  Constitution  Bench  decision of this  Court  in  Mohd.
\nHanif  Quareshi\t case1\tat  (SCR) page\t650  of\t the  report
\nspeaking  through Das, C.J. referred to the observations  in
\nHamilton’s  translation\t of Hedaya, Book XLIII at  page\t 592
\nthat  it is the duty of every free Mussalman arrived at\t the
\nage of maturity, to offer a sacrifice on the I’d Kurban,  or
\nfestival of the sacrifice, provided he be then possessed  of
\nNisab and be not a traveller.  The sacrifice established for
\none  person is a goat and that for seven a cow or  a  camel.
\nIt is, therefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a\tgoat
\nfor  one person or a cow or a camel for seven  persons.\t  It
\ndoes  not  appear  to  be  obligatory  that  a\tperson\tmust
\nsacrifice  a  cow.  Once the religious\tpurpose\t of  Muslims
\nconsists of making sacrifice of any animal which should be a
\nhealthy animal, on BakrI’d, then slaughtering of cow is\t not
\nthe  only  way\tof  carrying out  that\tsacrifice.   It\t is,
\ntherefore, obviously not an essential religious purpose\t but
\nan  optional  one.  In this connection Mr Tarkunde  for\t the
\nappellants submitted that even optional purpose would be
\n195<\/span>
\ncovered\t by the term “any religious purpose” as employed  by
\nSection 12 and should not be an essential religious purpose.
\nWe  cannot  accept  this view for  the\tsimple\treason\tthat
\nSection\t 12  seeks  to\tlift  the  ban\tin  connection\twith
\nslaughter  of  such  animals  on  certain  conditions.\t For
\nlifting\t the ban it should be shown that it is essential  or
\nnecessary for a Muslim to sacrifice a healthy cow on BakrI’d
\nday and if such is the requirement of religious purpose then
\nit  may\t enable the State in its wisdom to lift the  ban  at
\nleast on BakrI’d day.  But that is not the position.  It  is
\nwell  settled that an exceptional provision which  seeks  to
\navoid  the  operation of main thrust of the Act\t has  to  be
\nstrictly construed.  In this connection it is profitable  to
\nrefer  to the decisions of this Court in the cases Union  of
\nIndia v. Wood Paper Ltd.2 and Novopan India Ltd.<\/a> v. C.C.E. &
\nCustoms3.   If any optional religious purpose  enabling\t the
\nMuslim\tto  sacrifice a healthy cow on BakrI’d is  made\t the
\nsubject-matter\tof an exemption under Section 12 of the\t Act
\nthen such exemption would get granted for a purpose which is
\nnot an essential one and to that extent the exemption  would
\nbe treated to have been lightly or cursorily granted.\tSuch
\nis  not\t the  scope  and ambit\tof  Section  12.   We  must,
\ntherefore,  hold  that\tbefore the State  can  exercise\t the
\nexemption   power  under  Section  12  in  connection\twith
\nslaughter of any healthy animal covered by the Act, it\tmust
\nbe shown that such exemption is necessary to be granted\t for
\nsubserving  an\tessential religious, medicinal\tor  research
\npurpose.  If granting of such exemption is not essential  or
\nnecessary for effectuating such a purpose no such  exemption
\ncan  be\t granted  so as to bypass the  thrust  of  the\tmain
\nprovisions of the Act.\tWe, therefore, reject the contention
\nof  the learned counsel for the appellants that even for  an
\noptional religious purpose exemption can be validly  granted
\nunder  Section 12.  In this connection it is also  necessary
\nto consider Quareshi case1 which was heavily relied upon  by
\nthe High Court.\t The total ban on slaughter of cows even  on
\nBakrI’d\t day  as imposed by Bihar  Legislature\tunder  Bihar
\nPreservation  and  Improvement\tof  Animals  Act,  1955\t was
\nattacked  as  violative\t of the\t fundamental  right  of\t the
\npetitioners under Article 25 of the Constitution.  Repelling
\nthis contention the Constitution Bench held that even though
\nArticle 25(1) granted to all persons the freedom to profess,
\npractise  and  propagate religion, as slaughter of  cows  on
\nBakrI’d was not an essential religious practice for Muslims,
\ntotal  ban on cow’s slaughter on all days including  BakrI’d
\nday  would  not be violative of Article 25(1).\tAs  we\thave
\nnoted  earlier the Constitution Bench speaking\tthrough\t Das
\nC.J., held that it was optional for the Muslims to sacrifice
\na cow on behalf of seven persons on BakrI’d but it does\t not
\nappear to be obligatory that a person must sacrifice a\tcow.
\nIt  was further observed by the Constitution Bench that\t the
\nvery  fact of an option seemed to run counter to the  notion
\nof an obligatory duty.\tOne submission was also noted that a
\nperson\twith six other members of his family may  afford  to
\nsacrifice  a cow but may not be able to afford to  sacrifice
\nseven  goats, and it was observed that in such a case  there
\nmay  be\t an  economic  compulsion  although  there  was\t  no
\nreligious compulsion.  In this
\n2 (1990) 4 SCC 256: 1990 SCC (Tax) 422: JT (1991) 1 SC 151
\n3 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606: JT (1994) 6 SC 80
\n196<\/span>
\nconnection,  Das C.J. referred to the historical  background
\nregarding   cow\t slaughtering  from  the  times\t of   Mughal
\nemperors.    Mughal   Emperor  Babur  saw  the\t wisdom\t  of
\nprohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious
\nsacrifice  and\tdirected  his son Humayun  to  follow  this.
\nSimilarly,  Emperors Akbar, Jehangir and Ahmad Shah,  it  is
\nsaid,  prohibited  cow\tslaughter.  In\tthe  light  of\tthis
\nhistorical  background\tit was held that total\tban  on\t cow
\nslaughter did not offend Article 25(1) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
9.In view of this settled legal position it becomes  obvious
\nthat if there is no fundamental right of a Muslim to  insist
\non  slaughter of healthy cow on BakrI’d day, it cannot be  a
\nvalid  ground  for exemption by the State under\t Section  12
\nwhich  would  in turn enable slaughtering of  such  cows  on
\nBakrI’d.    The\t contention  of\t learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants that Article 25(1) of the Constitution deals with
\nessential  religious practices while Section 12 of  the\t Act
\nmay   cover  even  optional  religious\tpractices   is\t not
\nacceptable.   No  such meaning can be assigned\tto  such  an
\nexemption clause which seeks to whittle down and dilute\t the
\nmain  provision of the Act, namely, Section 4 which  is\t the
\nvery  heart  of the Act.  If the appellants’  contention  is
\naccepted then the State can exempt from the operation of the
\nAct,  the slaughter of healthy cows even  for  non-essential
\nreligious, medicinal or research purpose, as we have to give
\nthe  same meaning to the three purposes, namely,  religious,
\nmedicinal  or research purpose, as envisaged by Section\t 12.
\nIt becomes obvious that if for fructifying any medicinal  or
\nresearch purpose it is not necessary or essential to  permit
\nslaughter  of healthy cow, then there would be\tno  occasion
\nfor the State to invoke exemption power under Section 12  of
\nthe  Act  for such a purpose.  Similarly it has to  be\theld
\nthat if it is not necessary or essential to permit slaughter
\nof  a  healthy\tcow for any religious purpose  it  would  be
\nequally not open to the State to invoke its exemption  power
\nunder  Section\t12  for\t such  a  religious  purpose.\t We,
\ntherefore,  entirely concur with the view of the High  Court
\nthat  slaughtering  of\thealthy\t cows  on  BakrI’d  is\t not
\nessential or required for religious purpose of Muslims or in
\nother words it is not a part of religious requirement for  a
\nMuslim that a cow must be necessarily sacrificed for earning
\nreligious merit on BakrI’d.\n<\/p>\n
10.We  may also mention one submission of Mr  Tarkunde\tthat
\nIndia  is a secular democratic country and,  therefore,\t the
\nState has to respect the wishes of minority.  In the appeals
\nat hand we are concerned with the short question whether  in
\nthe  light  of clear wording of Section 12,  the  State\t can
\nexempt from the operation of the Act slaughtering of healthy
\ncows  on BakrI’d.  For deciding this, ours being  a  secular
\ncountry\t would not be relevant.\t Mr Tarkunde next  submitted
\nthat as per Gujarat Rules slaughtering of cows on BakrI’d is
\nconsidered a bona fide religious purpose.  Even this  aspect
\nis not relevant for deciding the parameters of Section 12 of
\nthe West Bengal Act, even if that be the position in Gujarat
\npresently, which is not so according to the learned  counsel
\nfor the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
11.We  may  also deal with the effort made  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for the appellants to distinguish Quareshi case1  on
\nthe ground that for interpreting
\n197<\/span>
\nthe term ‘religious’ under Articles 25 and 26, a  restricted
\nmeaning\t was  given  for balancing  the\t secular  nature  of
\ndemocracy on the one hand and the interest of the individual
\nso far as right to practise any religion is concerned on the
\nother.\tIn this connection, our attention was invited to the
\ndecisions of this Court in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj
\nv. State of Rajasthan4 and Durgah Committee v. Syed  Hussain
\nAli5.  These decisions are of no avail to the appellants  as
\ntherein\t while\tdealing\t with the question  of\tvalidity  of
\ncertain\t enactments,  scope  of Articles 25 and\t 26  of\t the
\nConstitution  was  spelt out and nothing has  been  held  in
\nthese  decisions  which is contrary to what was\t decided  in
\nQuareshi  case1, which we have noted in detail.\t The  effort
\nmade  by  teamed counsel for the appellants to get  any\t and
\nevery religious practice covered by Section 12 also is of no
\navail  for the simple reason that in the context of  Section
\n12  the religious practice must be such which  requires\t the
\ninvocation of exemption provision under Section 12 so as  to
\nbypass\tthe main thrust of Section 4. For such\tan  exercise
\nnon-essential religious practices cannot be made the  basis.
\nReliance  placed  on the decision of this Court\t in  Hazarat
\nPirmahomed Shah Saheb Roza Committee v. C.LT6 also is of  no
\nassistance  as the same refers to Section 11 of\t the  Income
\nTax Act, the scheme of which is entirely different from that
\nof  the Act.  Even if we agree with learned counsel for\t the
\nappellants that slaughter of a healthy cow on BakrI’d is for
\na  religious  purpose, so long as it is not shown to  be  an
\nessential  religious  purpose as discussed  by\tus  earlier,
\nSection\t 12  of\t the Act cannot be pressed  in\tservice\t for
\nbuttressing such a non-essential religious purpose.\n<\/p>\n
12.Before  parting  we\tmay  mention  that  one\t preliminary
\nobjection  was\traised\tbefore\tthe  High  Court  about\t the
\npetitioners’  locus standi to move the writ  petition.\t The
\nHigh Court held that it was a public interest litigation and
\nthe  writ petitioners have sufficient locus standi  to\tmove
\nthe  petition.\t That  finding of the  High  Court  was\t not
\nchallenged by any of the appellants.  In our view rightly so
\nas  the\t writ petitioners representing a  Hindu\t segment  of
\nsociety had felt aggrieved by the impugned exemption granted
\nby  the State.\tThey had no personal interest but a  general
\ncause  to project.  Consequently, they had sufficient  locus
\nstandi\tto move the petition.  Rule 7 framed under the\tAct,
\nprovides that provisions of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter
\nControl\t Act, 1950, shall not apply to the slaughter of\t any
\nanimal for religious, medicinal or research purpose  subject
\nto  the\t condition that such slaughter does not\t affect\t the
\nreligious  sentiment  of  the neighbours of  the  person  or
\npersons\t performing  such slaughter and\t that  the  previous
\npermission of the State Government or any officer authorised
\nby  it\tis obtained before the slaughter.  The case  of\t the
\noriginal writ petitioners before the High Court was based on
\nreligious  sentiments  and, therefore, they had\t moved\tthis
\npublic\tinterest  litigation.  In  these  circumstances,  no
\nfault could
\n4 (1964) 1 SCR 561 AIR 1963 SC 1638
\n5 (1962) 1 SCR 383 AIR 1961 SC 1402
\n6 (1967) 63 ITR 490 (SC)
\n198<\/span>
\nbe  found  with the decision of the High  Court\t recognising
\nlocus standi of the original petitioners to move this public
\ninterest litigation which we have found to be well justified
\non merits.\n<\/p>\n
13.In the result, we confirm the decision of the High  Court
\nand dismiss these appeals.  Interim reliefs granted  earlier
\nduring the pendency of the appeals shall stand vacated.\t  In
\nthe  facts and circumstances of the case, there will  be  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
199<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 464, 1995 SCC (1) 189 Author: M S.B. Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF W.B. Vs. RESPONDENT: ASHUTOSH LAHIRI DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/11\/1994 BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J) […]<\/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-72366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-09T02:50:33+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-09T02:50:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3729,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994\",\"name\":\"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-09T02:50:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-09T02:50:33+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994","datePublished":"1994-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-09T02:50:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994"},"wordCount":3729,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994","name":"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-09T02:50:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-ashutosh-lahiri-on-16-november-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of W.B vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 16 November, 1994"}]},{"@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\/72366","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=72366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}