2005 (10) TMI 540 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Section 2 of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994) which introduced certain amendments in Section 5 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (as applicable to the State of Gujarat) to be struck down as ultra vires ?

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994.
2. Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
3. Interpretation of "milch and draught cattle" in Article 48.
4. Significance of the Statement of Objects and Reasons in legislative enactments.
5. Whether the restriction includes total prohibition under Article 19(1)(g).
6. Public interest in the prohibition of cow progeny slaughter.
7. Applicability of the principle of stare decisis.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994:

The High Court of Gujarat declared Section 2 of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, which amended Section 5 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, as ultra vires the Constitution. The Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing this decision. The core issue was whether the amendments imposing a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks were constitutionally valid.

2. Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

The Supreme Court emphasized the evolving jurisprudence regarding the interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Initially, Directive Principles were considered subordinate to Fundamental Rights. However, post-Kesavananda Bharati, a harmonious interpretation was adopted, recognizing that Directive Principles are fundamental in governance and must guide the reasonableness of restrictions on Fundamental Rights. The Court reiterated that restrictions on Fundamental Rights aimed at securing Directive Principles are reasonable if they do not conflict with the essence of the Fundamental Rights.

3. Interpretation of "milch and draught cattle" in Article 48:

The Court interpreted the expression "milch and draught cattle" in Article 48 as a classification of cattle based on their inherent qualities, not limited to their current utility. This interpretation aligns with the broader objective of Article 48, which aims to preserve and improve the breeds of cattle, including cows and their progeny, irrespective of their age or immediate utility.

4. Significance of the Statement of Objects and Reasons:

The Statement of Objects and Reasons provides valuable insights into the legislative intent and the context of the enactment. The Court held that these statements are crucial for understanding the background, antecedent state of affairs, and the legislative judgment, which are essential in determining the reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the law.

5. Whether the restriction includes total prohibition under Article 19(1)(g):

The Court clarified that 'restriction' under Article 19(1)(g) includes 'prohibition.' A total prohibition can be reasonable if it serves a greater public interest and if a lesser alternative is inadequate. The prohibition on the slaughter of cow progeny was deemed a restriction, not a total prohibition, as it applied only to a specific class of cattle, leaving butchers free to slaughter other animals.

6. Public interest in the prohibition of cow progeny slaughter:

The Court examined extensive evidence, including affidavits, reports, and statistical data, demonstrating the continuing utility of cow progeny in agriculture, biogas production, and organic manure. The findings supported the legislative judgment that preserving cow progeny serves the broader public interest by contributing to the agricultural economy and environmental sustainability.

7. Applicability of the principle of stare decisis:

The principle of stare decisis, which promotes legal certainty and stability, was considered. However, the Court noted that this principle is not rigid and must adapt to changing social needs and judicial conscience. Given the changed factual circumstances and the evolving understanding of the public interest, the Court found it appropriate to revisit and depart from the earlier decisions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, was held to be intra vires the Constitution, and the writ petitions challenging the Act were dismissed. The Court upheld the legislative judgment that the prohibition on the slaughter of cow progeny is in the interest of the general public and does not violate the fundamental rights of butchers.

← Previous Next →