1960 (11) TMI 137 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959.
2. Validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958.
3. Validity of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959

Section 3 of the Act:
- Provision: Prohibits the slaughter of cows, calves, bulls, bullocks, or she-buffaloes unless they are over 25 years old or permanently incapable of breeding or being used as drought animals.
- Petitioners' Argument: The age limit of 25 years is arbitrary and unreasonable, infringing their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
- Respondent's Argument: The age limit is justified due to improved animal husbandry and disease control facilities.
- Court's Finding: The age of 25 years is unreasonable. Expert opinions indicate that bulls, bullocks, and she-buffaloes are generally not useful beyond 14-15 years. Thus, the provision imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' rights.
- Rule 3 of the Rules: The rule requires concurrence between the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer for issuing a certificate for slaughter, which is impractical and imposes disproportionate restrictions.
- Court's Decision: Section 3 of the Act and Rule 3 are declared void to the extent they impose unreasonable restrictions.

2. Validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958

Section 3 of the Act:
- Provision: Prohibits the slaughter of bulls or bullocks unless they are over 20 years old and permanently unfit for breeding or agricultural operations.
- Petitioners' Argument: The age limit of 20 years is excessively high, and the dual requirement of age and unfitness is unreasonable.
- Respondent's Argument: The age limit is based on the belief that bulls and bullocks remain useful up to 20 years.
- Court's Finding: The dual requirement of age and unfitness is unreasonable and imposes excessive restrictions. The provision effectively bans the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, even after they have ceased to be useful.
- Court's Decision: Section 3 is declared void to the extent it imposes unreasonable restrictions.

3. Validity of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959

Section 4 of the Act:
- Provision: Prohibits the slaughter of agricultural cattle unless they are over 20 years old and unfit for work or breeding, or permanently incapacitated.
- Petitioners' Argument: The age limit of 20 years is excessive, and the dual requirement of age and unfitness is unreasonable.
- Respondent's Argument: The age limit is justified due to the specific conditions in Madhya Pradesh.
- Court's Finding: The dual requirement of age and unfitness is unreasonable and imposes excessive restrictions. The provision effectively bans the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, and buffaloes, even after they have ceased to be useful.
- Section 5: Imposes a restriction on the time for slaughter, allowing any person aggrieved by the order to appeal, which can unduly delay the process.
- Court's Decision: Sections 4 and 5 are declared void to the extent they impose unreasonable restrictions.

Other Provisions:
- Section 6: Restricts the transport of agricultural cattle for slaughter, which is ancillary and not objectionable.
- Section 7: Prohibits the sale or purchase of cows and calves for slaughter, which is valid as it effectuates the ban on slaughter.
- Section 8: Prohibits possession of flesh of agricultural cattle slaughtered in contravention of the Act, which is ancillary and valid.
- Sections 10 and 11: Impose penalties for contravention of the Act, which are valid.
- Section 12: Places the burden of proof on the accused, which is valid as it pertains to the knowledge of the person accused.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, declaring the impugned provisions in the Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh Acts void to the extent they impose unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners' fundamental rights. The respondent States are directed not to enforce the Acts or the rules made thereunder in so far as they have been declared void. The petitioners are entitled to their costs.