1960 (11) TMI 120 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Age limit for slaughter of bulls, bullocks, and buffaloes.
2. Certification and procedural requirements for slaughter.
3. Double restrictions on age and permanent unfitness for slaughter.
4. Right of appeal and its implications.
5. Restrictions on the transport, sale, and possession of cattle for slaughter.
6. Burden of proof on the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Age Limit for Slaughter of Bulls, Bullocks, and Buffaloes:
The Supreme Court found that the age limit of 25 years for slaughter, as stipulated by the Bihar Act, was unreasonable. The Court reiterated its stance from Md. Hanif Quareshi's case, emphasizing that after the age of 15, bulls, bullocks, and buffaloes are no longer useful for breeding, draught, or other purposes. The Court held that the age limit imposed by the Bihar Act was an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' fundamental rights and declared it void.

2. Certification and Procedural Requirements for Slaughter:
The Court addressed the grievances regarding Rule 3, which required both the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer to concur for a slaughter certificate. The Court found this procedure to be cumbersome and costly, imposing disproportionate restrictions on the petitioners' rights. It was noted that the Veterinary Officer alone should suffice for certification, and the additional procedural requirements were deemed unnecessary and void.

3. Double Restrictions on Age and Permanent Unfitness for Slaughter:
The Uttar Pradesh Act imposed a double restriction, requiring the animal to be over 20 years of age and permanently unfit for work or breeding. The Court found this to be a demonstrably unreasonable restriction, as it effectively banned the slaughter of animals even if they were permanently unserviceable before reaching 20 years of age. This double restriction was held to be unconstitutional as it infringed on the petitioners' fundamental rights.

4. Right of Appeal and Its Implications:
The Court examined the provision that allowed any person aggrieved by the issuance of a slaughter certificate to appeal to the State Government. This provision was found to be impractical, as it could indefinitely delay the slaughter of the animal, effectively imposing a total ban. The Court held that this right of appeal was an unreasonable restriction and declared it void.

5. Restrictions on the Transport, Sale, and Possession of Cattle for Slaughter:
The Madhya Pradesh Act's provisions on the transport, sale, and possession of cattle for slaughter were scrutinized. Section 6, which prohibited the transport of agricultural cattle for slaughter outside the state, was found to be ancillary and valid. Sections 7 and 8, which prohibited the sale, purchase, and possession of cattle for slaughter, were also upheld as they effectuated the total ban on the slaughter of cows and calves. However, the Court found Section 5, which restricted the time for slaughter, to be unreasonable due to the right of appeal by any aggrieved person, similar to the Uttar Pradesh Act.

6. Burden of Proof on the Accused:
Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Act, which placed the burden of proof on the accused in cases of contravention of the Act, was challenged. The Court held that this provision was valid, as it only required the accused to prove their own knowledge or intention, not that of others.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the impugned provisions in the Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh Acts imposed unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The Court declared these provisions void and directed the respondent States not to enforce the Acts or the rules made thereunder to the extent they were declared void. The petitioners were awarded costs for the hearing in the Court.