9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the M.P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991. 2. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. Compliance with Article 48 of the Constitution. 4. Economic impact of banning the slaughter of bulls and bullocks. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the M.P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991: The primary issue in this appeal is the challenge to the validity of the M.P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991. The Amending Act imposed a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant, engaged in the butcher's trade, argued that this ban was unreasonable and not in public interest, citing that bulls and bullocks unfit for breeding, draught, or milch purposes were slaughtered only after certification by the Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur. The respondents justified the Amending Act by emphasizing the need to preserve agricultural animals, arguing that even old and incapacitated animals could be useful for producing bio-gas and organic fertilizers. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: The appellant contended that the Amending Act violated his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The appellant argued that the restrictions imposed by the Amending Act were unreasonable and not in the public interest. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had upheld the validity of the Amending Act, stating that bulls and bullocks were useful animals and that the ban on their slaughter was in consonance with social interest. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, reiterated the consistent view that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks that had become old and useless amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the butchers. 3. Compliance with Article 48 of the Constitution: The respondents argued that the Amending Act was aimed at implementing the object of Article 48 of the Constitution, which directs the State to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds of cattle and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. The Supreme Court, however, observed that the protection recommended by Article 48 is confined to cows and calves and to those animals which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk or doing work as draught cattle. It does not extend to cattle that have ceased to be useful. Therefore, the Court concluded that an absolute ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks was not necessary for complying with Article 48. 4. Economic Impact of Banning the Slaughter of Bulls and Bullocks: The appellant argued that the presence of a large number of old and useless animals would have a deleterious effect on the agricultural economy of the State, leading to a shortage of fodder and pressure on the scant food and fodder available. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that even old bulls and bullocks were useful for producing bio-gas and organic fertilizers. The Supreme Court noted that no conclusive material was placed on record to show that the restriction now placed was reasonable. The Court emphasized that compelling the retention of old and infirm cattle, by not permitting their sale for slaughter, would not be in public interest. It was also observed that the economic disadvantage of feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle outweighed any potential benefits. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the inclusion of bulls and bullocks in Sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959, as brought about by the Amending Act of 1991, imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the appellant. Consequently, this sub-clause was held to be ultra vires. The effect of this decision is that there would be a total ban on the slaughter of cows, calves of cows, and calves of she-buffaloes, while the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, along with other agricultural cattle, would fall under Sub-clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act, allowing their slaughter after obtaining the required certificate. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to costs.
|
