1994 (11) TMI 435 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of exemption of cow slaughter on BakrI'd day u/s 12 of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950.
2. Interpretation of "religious purpose" under Section 12 of the Act.
3. Locus standi of the writ petitioners.

Summary:

1. Validity of Exemption of Cow Slaughter on BakrI'd Day u/s 12 of the Act:
The writ petitioners challenged the exemption granted by the State of West Bengal for the slaughter of healthy cows on BakrI'd day, arguing it was outside the scope of Section 12 of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that such slaughter was not a requirement of the Muslim religion and thus the exemption was invalid. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the exemption power u/s 12 must be strictly construed and can only be invoked for essential religious, medicinal, or research purposes.

2. Interpretation of "Religious Purpose" under Section 12 of the Act:
The appellants contended that the term "religious purpose" in Section 12 should include optional religious practices. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the exemption can only be granted for essential religious purposes. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, which held that cow slaughter on BakrI'd is not an essential religious practice for Muslims. Thus, the State cannot grant exemptions for non-essential religious practices under Section 12.

3. Locus Standi of the Writ Petitioners:
The High Court recognized the writ petitioners' locus standi, considering the petition as public interest litigation. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the petitioners represented a segment of society aggrieved by the exemption and had no personal interest but a general cause to project. The Court found no fault with the High Court's decision on this matter.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeals and vacating interim reliefs. The Court reiterated that exemptions u/s 12 of the Act must be strictly construed and can only be granted for essential religious, medicinal, or research purposes. The writ petitioners had sufficient locus standi to move the petition as a public interest litigation.