2006 (3) TMI 746 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the issuance of writ of Mandamus to compel total prohibition of cattle slaughter would only amount to judicial legislation and would encroach upon the powers of the Karnataka Legislature, as held by the High Court, which, in our view, was the right approach made by it? Whether the question of declaring total ban on slaughter of cattle cannot be permitted and section 5 of the Act cannot be said to be ultra vires of the Constitution?

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of permissions and licenses for establishing a slaughterhouse.
2. Suspension of construction by the Gram Panchayat.
3. Environmental impact and pollution control compliance.
4. Depletion of cattle population due to the slaughterhouse.
5. Compliance with the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977.
6. Constitutionality and policy regarding meat export.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Permissions and Licenses for Establishing a Slaughterhouse:
The company applied for various permissions to establish a slaughterhouse in Rudraram village, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh. The Gram Panchayat issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 24th March 1989. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) granted an NOC subject to conditions on effluents and air pollution. The Director of Animal Husbandry issued an NOC subject to compliance with the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977. The Central Government granted a Letter of Intent (LOI) for establishing the industrial undertaking, subject to several conditions including anti-mortem and post-mortem examinations, prohibition of cow slaughter, and pollution control measures.

2. Suspension of Construction by the Gram Panchayat:
During the construction of the slaughterhouse, the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice suspending the permission for construction under Section 131(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. The company challenged this order in the High Court, later withdrawing the writ petition and filing a revision petition before the State Government. The State Government allowed the revision, setting aside the Executive Officer's order and extending the construction period by one year. Subsequent writ petitions by organizations opposing the slaughterhouse were dismissed by the High Court, which directed the State Government to prepare a detailed report on environmental pollution and the impact on cattle wealth.

3. Environmental Impact and Pollution Control Compliance:
The Krishnan Committee was constituted to examine the environmental impact. The committee reported that pollution could be controlled with proper safeguards and supervision. However, it raised concerns about cattle depletion. The Central Government failed to act on the Krishnan Committee report initially. Later, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to review the report and submit findings. The Central Government's inter-Ministerial committee concluded that pollution control measures were adequate, and there was no significant depletion of cattle due to the slaughterhouse. The Supreme Court directed APPCB to rectify its consent order to comply with the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986, and monitor pollution levels.

4. Depletion of Cattle Population Due to the Slaughterhouse:
The Krishnan Committee and subsequent reports raised concerns about cattle depletion. The Central Government's report, based on data before and after the slaughterhouse's operation, indicated no significant depletion of buffalo population. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of monitoring cattle population and directed the company to file annual reports on cattle population in surrounding areas.

5. Compliance with the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977:
The company was required to comply with the Act, which prohibits the slaughter of cows and young calves and mandates certificates for slaughtering old and useless buffaloes. The Director of Animal Husbandry deputed officials to monitor compliance. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to ensure strict compliance with the Act and monitor the company's adherence.

6. Constitutionality and Policy Regarding Meat Export:
The appellants challenged the Central Government's meat export policy, arguing it violated constitutional provisions and directive principles. The Supreme Court upheld the policy, emphasizing the importance of foreign exchange from meat exports and the adequacy of cattle feed resources. The Court directed the Central Government to review the meat export policy in light of its potential impact on livestock and the economy.

Final Directions:
1. APPCB to rectify its consent order and monitor compliance with pollution standards.
2. The company to monitor and report pollution levels and cattle population.
3. The State Government to ensure compliance with the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977.
4. The Central Government to review the meat export policy considering its impact on livestock and the economy.

Separate Judgment for Karnataka High Court Appeals:
The Karnataka High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking total prohibition of cattle slaughter. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, directing the State Government to enforce existing laws and maintain institutions for cattle care. The Court emphasized that judicial legislation to impose a total ban on cattle slaughter would encroach upon legislative powers.

← Previous Next →