2008 (3) TMI 662 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the closure of the municipal slaughter houses directly results in violation of their fundamental rights to do trade and business as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and it cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction merely because a particular community or a section of the society feels that for a particular period there should be closure of the municipal slaughter houses as that will be in consonance with the Jain ideology of Ahinsa (non-violence)?

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Right to Trade and Business under Article 19(1)(g).
2. Reasonableness of Restrictions under Article 19(6).
3. Alleged Discrimination and Violation of Article 14.
4. Impact on Right to Life under Article 21.
5. Validity of Municipal Corporation Resolutions under Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Fundamental Right to Trade and Business under Article 19(1)(g):
The respondents claimed that the closure of municipal slaughterhouses during the Paryushan festival violated their fundamental right to trade and business as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They argued that such closures, driven by the sentiments of the Jain community, were not reasonable restrictions and directly impacted their ability to conduct business in meat and livestock.

2. Reasonableness of Restrictions under Article 19(6):
The court examined whether the restrictions imposed by the municipal corporation were reasonable under Article 19(6). The court noted that the closure was only for nine days and not for a considerable period. This limited duration was considered a balanced approach, respecting the sentiments of the Jain community while not excessively burdening the butchers and meat traders. The court emphasized that a short-term closure did not constitute an unreasonable restriction.

3. Alleged Discrimination and Violation of Article 14:
The respondents argued that the resolutions were arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that the closures were aimed at appeasing the Jain community and did not serve the general public interest. The court, however, found that the resolutions were not discriminatory as they were intended to maintain communal harmony and respect the religious sentiments of the Jain community, which has a significant presence in Gujarat.

4. Impact on Right to Life under Article 21:
The respondents claimed that the closure of slaughterhouses infringed upon the right to life under Article 21, as it affected the right to food of their choice. The court acknowledged that the right to privacy, including the right to choose one's food, is part of Article 21. However, the court reasoned that the short-term closure did not force non-vegetarians to become vegetarians permanently and that meat could still be procured from other sources during the closure period.

5. Validity of Municipal Corporation Resolutions under Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949:
The resolutions were passed under Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which allows the municipal commissioner to fix the days and hours during which markets and slaughterhouses may be kept open. The court held that the resolutions did not violate the parent statute or any constitutional provisions. The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and the presumption of constitutionality for both statutes and delegated legislation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and upheld the validity of the municipal corporation's resolutions. The court concluded that the short-term closure of slaughterhouses during the Paryushan festival was a reasonable restriction, did not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 of the Constitution, and was in line with maintaining communal harmony and respecting religious sentiments in a multicultural society. The appeal was allowed, and the connected appeals were also resolved in favor of the municipal corporation, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →