TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases. 2. In the year 1958 this Court had to consider the validity of certain provisions of three Acts : (1) The Bihar Preservation and Improvement Animals Act, (Bihar Act II of 1956); (2) The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act I of 1956); and (3) The Central Provinces and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949 (C.P. and Berar Act LII of 1949). 3. The Bihar Act put a total ban on the slaughter of all categories of animals of the species of bovine cattle. The U.P. Act put a total ban on the slaughter of cows and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves. The C.P. and Berar Act placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows, made of female calves of cows, bulls, bullocks, and heifers, and the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female, adults or calves) was permitted only under a certificate granted by the proper authorities. These three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principle of State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution. The petitioners who challenged the various provisions of the aforesaid Acts in 1958 were engaged in the butcher's trade and its subsidiary undertakings; they challenged the consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profession and trade. It is pointed out that the age up to which the animals referred to above cannot be slaughtered (20 or 25 years) has been put so high that the practical effect is that no animals can be slaughtered, and the amending or new legislation has put in other restrictions so arbitrary and unreasonable in nature that in effect they amount to a prohibition or destruction of the petitioner's right to carry on their trade and profession. The following allegations quoted from one of the petitions (Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959) give a general idea of the nature of the case which the petitioners have put forward : That there is good professional authority for the view that even in countries where animal husbandry is organised on a highly progressive and scientific basis, cattle seldom live beyond 15 or 16 years. 6. That there is also good authority to the effect that even pedigree breeding bulls are usually discarded at the age of 12 or 14 years. 7. That in India bulls and bullocks and she-buffaloes rarely live even up to the age of 15 years; drought bullocks begin to age after eight years. 8. That the raising of the age limit from 15 to 20 years is arbitrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the usefulness or longevity of live-stock for breeding and other purposes depends to a very great extent on (a) better animal husbandry facilities like feeding and management and (b) control of animal diseases, and as these facilities are now available in a greater measure, the legislature came to the conclusion that a bull or bullock or a she-buffalo below 25 years of age continues to remain useful; if a bull, bullock or she-buffalo is permanently incapacitated below that age the impugned provision permits its slaughter and therefore the legislation which is challenged conforms to the decision of this Court and does not violate any fundamental right. In Uttar Pradesh the age is 20 years as respects bulls or bullocks, with a further restriction to be referred to later. The reply of the respondent State is that bulls or bullocks do not become unfit at the age of 12 or 14 years as alleged by the petitioners; on the contrary, they continue to be useful and at no time they become entirely useless. It is then stated in the affidavit : As a matter of fact, the age up to which the animals can live and are serviceable depends upon the care and attention they receive and the quality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Section 3 of the Act as amended reads : S. 3 Prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull, bullock or she-buffalo : Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, calf, bull, bullock or she-buffalo : Provided that the prescribed authority may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, allow the slaughter of - (i) a bull or bullock which is over twenty-five years of age or which has become permanently incapable of breeding or of being used as a drought animal, as the case may be, and (ii) a she-buffalo which is over twenty-five years of age or which has become permanently incapable of breeding or yielding milk, if the permanent incapability has not been caused deliberately; Provided further that the State Government may be general or special order, and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, allow the slaughter of any such animal for any medicinal or research purposes. 16. The scheme of the section is that its substantive provision imposes a total ban on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer, the matter shall be referred to the Sub-divisional Animal Husbandry Officer or the District Animal Husbandry Officer, as the case may be, and the certificate shall be issued or refused according to the decision of the Sub-divisional Animal Husbandry Officer or the District Animal Husbandry Officer, as the case may be. (6) (a) any person aggrieved by an order refusing to grant a certificate under the proviso to section 3 may, within 15 days of the communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal - (i) where the order is passed by the District Animal Husbandry Officer under sub-rule (5) to the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry; (ii) where the order is passed by the Sub-divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, under sub-rule (5), to the District Animal Husbandry Officer and (iii) where the order is passed by the authority prescribed under sub-rule (1) to the Sub-divisional animal Husbandry Officer, if there is one; if not, to the District Animal Husbandry Officer; (b) The appeal shall not be decided against the appellant unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 17. The argument on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cattle Preservation and Development Committee, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, it is recommended by the Committee that the slaughter of animals over 14 years of age and unfit for work as also animals of any age permanently unable to work owing it injury or deformity, should be allowed. In the Report on the Marketing of Meat in India (published by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture) there is a reference to a draft Bill circulated by the Ministry of Agriculture (page 112 of the Report) which contains a clause that animals over 14 years of age and unfit for work may be slaughtered on a certificate from a Veterinary Officer. In the Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India, again published by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, occurs the following passage as to the price of animals with reference to their age : Young drought animals up to the age of 4 years - being raw and untrained - fetch comparatively low princes. Between 4 and 8 years of age, the animals are in the prime of their youth and render best service, and fetch maximum prices. From the 8th year onwards old age sets in, and a graded decline is observed in their capacity to work and consequently prices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said in Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1950]1SCR759 : The phrase 'reasonable restriction' connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word 'reasonable' implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Art. 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by clause (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality. 21. As to r. 3 the grievances of the petitioners are these. Under the rule the prescribed authority for the purpose of section 3 of the Act consists of the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer of a District Board, Municipality etc. Unless both of them concur, no certificate for slaughter can be granted. It is pointed out that the Chairman or Chief Officer would be a layman not in a position to judge the age or usefulness of cattle. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was not permissible was put at 15 years; but the Select Committee increased it to 20 years. It will probably be best, for clearness sake, to set forth not the whole provisions of the Act, for that would be too lengthy, but those which form most directly the subject-matter on which the controversy turns. Section 3 of the Act reads (omitting portions not relevant for our purpose) - S. 3(1) Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter - (a)................................................................... (b) a bull or bullock, unless be has obtained in respect thereof a certificate in writing, from the competent authority of the area in which the bull or bullock is to be slaughtered, certifying that it is fit for slaughter... (2) No bull or bullock, in respect of which a certificate has been issued under sub-section (1)(b) shall be slaughtered at any place other than the place indicated in the certificate or within twenty days of the date of issue of the certificate. (3) A certificate under sub-section (1)(b) shall be issued by the competent authority, only after it has, for reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and not merely for drought purposes. The result of this double restriction, it is stated, is that even if the animal is permanently unserviceable and unfit at an earlier age, it cannot be slaughtered unless it is over twenty years in age. Before a certificate can be given, the animal must fulfil two conditions as to (1) age and (2) permanent unfitness. We consider this to be a demonstrably unreasonable restriction. In Md. Hanif Quareshi's case [1950] S.C.R. 629 this Court had said that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks after they had ceased to be capable of breeding or working as drought animals was not in the interests of the general public. Yet this is exactly what the impugned provision does by imposing a double restriction. It lays down that even if the animal is permanently unserviceable, no certificate can be given unless it is more than 20 years in age. The restriction will in effect put an end to the trade of the petitioners. 25. Thirdly, the impugned provision provides (1) that the animal shall not be slaughtered within 20 days of the date of the issue of the certificate and (2) that any person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or an incurable disease; and (b) the cattle is not suffering from any disease which makes its meat unwholesome for human consumption. (3) The Competent Authority shall, before issuing or refusing to issue a certificate under this section record its order in writing. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority under this section, may, within ten days of the date of the order, prefer an appeal against such order to the Collector of the district of such other officer as may, by notification, be authorised in this behalf by to State Government, and the Collector or such other officer may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit. (4) Subject to the orders passed in appeal, if any, under sub-section (3), the order of the Competent Authority shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. 26. Section 5 places a restriction as to the place and time for slaughter and the objection taken before us relates to the time rather than to the place of slaughter. It says in effect that no cattle in respect of which a certificate has been issued under section 4 shall be slaughtered within ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding due to age, injury, deformity or an incurable disease. It is a little difficult to understand why the two parts are juxtaposed in the section. In any view the restriction that the animal must be over 20 years of age and also unfit for work or breeding is an excessive or unreasonable restriction as we have pointed out with regard to a similar provision in the Uttar Pradesh Act. The second part of the clause would not be open to any objection, if it stood by itself. If, however, it has to be combined with the age-limit mentioned in the first part of the clause, it will again be open to the same objection; if the animal is to be over 20 years of age and also permanently incapacitated from work or breeding etc., then the age-limit is really meaningless. Then, the expression 'due to age' in the second part of the clause also lose its meaning. It seems to us that clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act as drafted is bad because it imposes a disproportionate restriction on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes it is a restriction excessive in nature and not in the interests of the general public. The test laid down is not merely permanent in capacity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... biting slaughter of cattle in contravention of the Act. 34. Section 7 relates to the prohibition of sale, purchase etc., of cows and calves and inasmuch as a total ban on the slaughter of cows and calves is valid, no objection can be taken to section 7 of the Act. It merely seeks to effectuate the total ban on the slaughter of cows and calves (both of cows and she-buffaloes). Section 8 is also ancillary in character and if the other provisions are valid no objection can be taken to the provisions of section 8. Sections 10 and 11 impose penalties and their validity cannot be seriously disputed. 35. However, we must say a few words about section 12 of the Act which has also been challenged before us. Section 12 is in these terms : S. 12. In any trial for an offence punishable under section 11 for contravention of the provision of section 5, 6, or 7 of this Act is burden of proving that the slaughter, transport or sale of agricultural cattle was not in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be on the accused. 36. The argument is that section 12 infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner inasmuch as it puts the burden of proof on an accused person not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rally used. It is pointed out that acts innocent in themselves may be prohibited and the restrictions in that regard would been reasonable, if the same were necessary to secure efficient enforcement of valid provisions. For example, it is open to the legislature, if it feels it necessary, in order to reduce the possibilities of evasion to a minimum, to enact provisions which would give effect to the main object of the legislation. We have not ignored this aspect and have kept in mind the undisputed right of the legislature to decide what provisions are necessary to give effect to the main object of the legislation. In these cases that petitioners have complained that the main object of the impugned provisions is not the prohibition of slaughter of animals which are still useful; the impugned provisions as they are worded really put a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes and for all practical purposes they put a stop to the profession and trade of the petitioners. We have held that this complaint is justified in respect of the main provisions in the three Acts. 40. We, therefore, allow the three writ petitions and direct, as we directed in Md. Hanif Quaresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
