STATE OF GUJARAT V. MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT (2005) 8 SCC 534

STATE OF GUJARAT V. MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT

(2005) 8 SCC 534

 

FACTS

The history of the impugned act dated back to 1954 and with a view to conserve the cattle wealth of the State of Bombay, the government enabled the Bombay Animal Preservation Act. The act prevented the slaughter of the cows and animals which were useful for milching, breeding or agricultural purposes. This Act was substituted by the Bombay Animal Preservation Act of 1954. The entire controversy began when a writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court challenging the validity of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat  Amendment) Act, 1994. Initially the act allowed the slaughter of bullocks only above the age of 16, however, the amendment ensured that the bullocks irrespective of their age couldn’t be slaughtered. Such an amendment was challenged before the hon'ble high court.

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. The hon'ble court examined the question of the relationship between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights and the difficulty such a relationship has caused.  The judicial view has veered round from irreconcilability to integration between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and, in some of the more recent cases, to giving primacy to the Directive Principles.  
2. Article 48 makes it obligatory on the state to endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and, in particular, to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. This hon'ble court has emphasised in Quareshi v State of Bihar that in Article 48, the directive for taking steps for preventing slaughter of certain specified categories of animals is quite explicit and positive. It is an aspect of organising animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. The Court had opined that the directive in Article 48 contemplates protection only of cows and calves, and other animals, which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk or doing work as draught cattle but not of cattle, which, though once milch or draught, cease to be so in course of time. Article 48 does not contemplate a ban on slaughter of all types of cattle or bulls or bullocks. The state is to prohibit the slaughter of milch and draught cattle only. 
3. The court observed in the current case that when prohibition is only with respect to the exercise of the right referable only in a particular area of activity or relating to particular matters, there is no total prohibition. Hence, when total prohibition is imposed on the slaughter of cow and her progeny the ban is total with regard to slaughter of one particular class of cattle and is not on total activity of butchers as they are left free to slaughter cattle other than those specified in impugned Act. 
4. Overruling the earlier view, the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat  upheld a total ban on the slaughter of the progeny of a cow. The words "calves and other milch and draught cattle '' were construed as a matter of description of a species and not with regard to age or function and only so as to distinguish such cattle from other cattle. However, this doesn’t mean that laws and policies, which permit such slaughter are unconstitutional. Therefore, the position remains that the directive principles and fundamental duties cannot in themselves serve to invalidate legislation or a policy. It was held that a total prohibition of slaughter if cows was held to be intra vires of the Constitution.