Case note by Silent Assassins
State of Gujarat V Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jannat and others
Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Date: 26 October 2005
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I., B.N. Agarwal, Arun Kumar, G.P. Mathur, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyam, JJ and A.K. Mathur.
Introduction
This is a case challenging certain amendments introduced in section 5 of Bombay animal preservation act, 1954(as applicable to the state of Gujarat). It’s a public interest case based on constitutional law. The Gujarat high court struck down the said provision as ultra-vires to the constitution as opposed to the fundamental rights (article-19) and directive principle. This amendment was introduced to prevent slaughtering of animals without obtaining in writing from the competent authority appointed for the area that the animal is fit for slaughter.
Facts
The constitutional validity of the above said legislation, that is, the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 was put in issue by four writ petitions filed in the High Court which were heard and disposed of by a common judgment dated April 16, 1998.
Two of the writ petitions were filed by individuals who were butchers by profession, and are known as Kureshis. Two writ petitions were filed by the representative bodies of Kureshis.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and struck down the impugned legislation as ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court held that the Amendment Act imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights and therefore ultra vires to the constitution.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, the State of Gujarat and Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh have filed these appeals. Shree Ahimsa Army Manav Kalyan Jeev Daya Charitable Trust, a Public Trust has filed an appeal by special leave, seeking leave of this Court to file the appeal, which has been granted.
On 17 February 2005, a three-Judge bench before which the appeals came up for hearing referred the case to a five Judge bench.
On 19 July 2005 the five Judge bench which heard the matter referred it to a Bench of seven Judges.
Decision
The majority is of the opinion that the Bombay Animal Preservation Act of 1954 S. 5 (Gujarat) prohibiting slaughter of cow and her progeny passed as per the directive principles is not inconsistent with the fundamental rights. The ratio being that a restriction placed on any fundamental right, aimed at securing Directive principles will be held reasonable and hence intra vires . They thus overruled the decision of the High Court
The dissenting opinion is of the view that the change in technology, logic, reason or economic needs has not lead is not a substantial factor to change the ground realities so as to totally do away with slaughtering of cows and bulls. He backs his decision by the doctrine of Stare decisis.
Analysis
We feel that the reasoning used by the majority to arrive at their decision is logically sound. The decision of the majority was arrived at after doing a cost benefit analysis. The hon’ble judges have interpreted the articles of the Constitution in a fair and reasonable way. The case laws and authority used by the majority judges are consistent with their reasoning.
The ban is not on total activity of the butcher, they are free to slaughter cattle other than those specified in the act hence the ban does not have a major effect on the butchers. Therefore the ban is a reasonable restriction on the article 19(6) of the constitution.
The court further states that bulls and bullocks do not cease to be productive and become ‘useless’ after the age of fifteen years. Their excreta and urine is extremely useful for the production of biogas and manure. Thus they cannot be slaughtered just because they have become less useful. This reason is further strengthened by Article 51A (g) of the Constitution. It will be an ingratitude act to call a cattle ‘useless’ in its old age and slaughter it.
Cows, bulls and bullocks are the backbone of Indian agriculture and thus the economy of the nation. Taking the economic and social needs of the nation as well as public interest into account the ban is a reasonable restriction on the article 19(6).
We reiterate the fact that the majority opinion has been rationally and logically reasoned.
However, we believe that the dissenting opinion is flawed because it provides the doctrine of stare decisis as its rationale and the learned judge has ignored public interest, relevant societal norms and economic needs in the course of deciding the case. His main contention for the same is that we should stick to the existing principles of law and not amend it to fulfil the best interest of the people and the nation.
Our Decision
We would like to opine with the opinion of the majority because their reasoning was logical and convincing. We feel that the decision given by the High court is wrong and the ban is intra vires to the constitution and is reasonable.
Conclusion
This case is a public interest case which questions the constitutional validity of the Bombay animal Preservation Act (1954). It questions whether it is reasonable to restrict the fundamental rights while implementing the directive principles. We conclude by saying that the statement of objects and reasons tilts the balance in favour of the constitutional validity of the impugned enactment.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. AIR 2006 SC 212(1)
[ 2 ]. “Beyond the powers”, i.e., beyond the scope of power allowed or granted by law or corporate charter. Black’s law dictionary, ninth edition, Bryan A. Garner, pg.1662
[ 3 ]. Ibid
[ 4 ]. Supra note 1; Para 14
[ 5 ]. Supra note 1; Para 15
[ 6 ]. Supra note 1; Para 16
[ 7 ]. Supra note 1;Para 144
[ 8 ]. “Within the powers” i.e., action taken within one’s scope of authority. Black’s law dictionary, ninth edition, Bryan A. Garner, pg.899
[ 9 ]. The doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions. Black’s law dictionary, ninth edition, Bryan A. Garner, pg.1537
[ 10 ]. INDIA CONST. art.-19 (6): All citizens shall have the right-To practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
[ 11 ]. Supra note 1 ; Para 81, 82
[ 12 ]. INDIA CONST. art.-51 A (g): the State and every citizen of India must have compassion for living creatures.
[ 13 ]. Supra note 1 ; Para 106, 107
[ 14 ]. Supra note 2
[ 15 ]. Supra note 8