9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1565 - HC - Indian LawsConstitutional Validity of various provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (Animal Preservation Act) as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation(Amendment) Act, 1995 - existing prohibition on the slaughter of cows, a complete prohibition was imposed on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State - ban was imposed on possessing the flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered within and outside the State. HELD THAT - The conclusions are as under (a) We uphold the constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 5 of the Animal Preservation Act made by the impugned Amendment Act; (b) We uphold the constitutional validity of Sections 5A and 5B; (c) We uphold the constitutional validity of Section 5C. However, the possession contemplated by Section 5C shall be conscious possession. It will be a possession with the knowledge that the flesh is of cow, bull or bullock which is slaughtered in contravention of Section 5 of the Animal Preservation Act; (d) We hold that right of privacy is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We hold that Section 5D infringes the right of privacy which is part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is liable to be struck down; (e) Accordingly, reference to Section 5D in clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 is liable to be struck down. Similarly, a reference to Section 5D in Section 9A is liable to struck down; (f) The provisions of Section 9B are held to be unconstitutional being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, Section 9B is liable to be struck down; (g) We hold that all other Sections which were subject matter of challenge are legal and valid. Petition is disposed off with the following order (a) We hereby hold and declare that Section 5, Section 5A, Section 5B, Section 5C, Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8, Section 9 and Section 9A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 as amended/inserted by the Maharashtra Act No. V of 2015 are constitutional, valid and legal; (b) However, we hold that the possession in terms of the Section 5C of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 shall be conscious possession ; (c) Section 5D of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 is struck down on the ground that the same infringes the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (d) Accordingly, wherever there is a reference to Section 5D in other Sections of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, the same stands deleted; (e) Section 9Bof the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 is struck down as it infringes the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (f) The prayers which are not specifically granted shall be deemed to be rejected; (g) The Rule is partly made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs; (h) All the Pending Chamber Summonses, Notices of Motion and the Civil Applications are disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the amendment to Section 5 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. 2. Validity of Sections 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. 3. Validity of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. 4. Validity of Section 9B of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. 5. Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, and 29 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: 1. Validity of the Amendment to Section 5: - Challenge: The amendment to Section 5, which imposes a complete ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, was challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 25, and 29. - Court's Findings: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, which upheld a similar ban in Gujarat. The court noted that the economy of Maharashtra is predominantly agricultural, and the preservation of bulls and bullocks is essential for agriculture, manure, and bio-gas production. The court held that the restriction is reasonable and in public interest, aligning with Articles 48 and 51A(g) of the Constitution. Thus, the amendment to Section 5 was upheld as constitutional. 2. Validity of Sections 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D: - Section 5A: Prohibits the transport of cows, bulls, or bullocks for slaughter outside the state. The court found this provision to be in furtherance of the objective of preserving these animals within the state and upheld its validity. - Section 5B: Prohibits the sale or disposal of cows, bulls, or bullocks for slaughter. The court upheld this provision as it ensures the effective implementation of the ban on slaughter. - Section 5C: Prohibits possession of flesh of cows, bulls, or bullocks slaughtered within the state. The court interpreted this as "conscious possession" and upheld its validity, emphasizing that the initial burden of proof lies on the prosecution. - Section 5D: Prohibits possession of flesh of cows, bulls, or bullocks slaughtered outside the state. The court found this provision to be an infringement of the right to privacy under Article 21 and struck it down as unconstitutional. 3. Validity of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8: - Challenge: These sub-sections provide for search and seizure operations to ensure compliance with Sections 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D. - Court's Findings: The court upheld these provisions, noting that they are necessary for the effective implementation of the ban on slaughter. However, references to Section 5D were struck down following the invalidation of Section 5D. 4. Validity of Section 9B: - Challenge: Section 9B places the burden of proof on the accused to show that the possession, transport, or sale of cow, bull, or bullock flesh was not in contravention of the Act. - Court's Findings: The court found this provision to be unconstitutional as it violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21. The court noted that the burden of proving innocence should not be on the accused, especially when it involves proving a negative fact. 5. Alleged Infringement of Fundamental Rights: - Article 14: The court found that the restrictions imposed by the Act are not arbitrary and are in public interest, thus not violating Article 14. - Article 19(1)(g): The court held that the restrictions on trade and business imposed by the Act are reasonable and in public interest, thus not violating Article 19(1)(g). - Article 21: The court upheld the right to privacy as part of personal liberty under Article 21 and struck down Section 5D for violating this right. - Article 25: The court found that the slaughter of cows, bulls, and bullocks is not an essential part of Muslim religious practice, thus the ban does not violate Article 25. - Article 29: The court found no violation of Article 29, as the Petitioners failed to establish that the slaughter of these animals is an essential part of their culture. Conclusion: - The amendment to Section 5 and Sections 5A, 5B, and 5C of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act were upheld as constitutional. - Section 5D and Section 9B were struck down as unconstitutional for violating Article 21. - Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8 were upheld, with references to Section 5D being struck down.
|
