Supreme Court of India
ABDULSATIAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 255
- Decided
- 26 February 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the notification and the amendment act are within the constitutional powers of the State and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellants, who are engaged in the slaughter and sale of meat of bulls and bullocks, challenged a 1989 notification issued by the Gujarat government that prohibited such activities, invoking powers under the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958. The Gujarat High Court upheld the notification as a reasonable restriction, prompting the appellants to file a writ petition before the Supreme Court. The principal issue before the Court was whether the State could, under the Act, impose a ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks without violating the appellants' fundamental rights to carry on business and to life. Relying on earlier judgments, the Court examined the constitutional validity of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 and concluded that the State's power to regulate essential commodities and cattle is intra vires. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, setting aside the petitioners' challenge and upholding the restriction.
Issues considered
- Whether the notification issued under the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 restricting slaughter of bulls and bullocks is constitutionally valid.
- Whether the State's power under the Act extends to impose such a restriction without infringing the appellants' fundamental rights.
- Whether the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 is intra vires the Constitution.
Subjects
cattle slaughter restrictionessential commoditiesconstitutional validityfundamental rightsintra viresnotificationSupreme Courtappeal dismissed
Judgment
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 438
A ABDULSATIAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS.
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2002)
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
8
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act,
...
1958- s. 4 (1) (b) and (g); 4(2) and 5 (1)-Notification under-
Putting restriction on slaughter and selling of meat of bulls
c and bullocks - High Court upholding the Notification on the
ground that restriction was reasonable issued for the purpose
of reducing the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks - On
appeal, order of High Court upheld.
D
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat .
and Ors. 2005 (8) SCC 534; Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v.
State of A.P and Ors. 2006 (4) sec 162 - relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 593
of 2002
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.2001 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in W.P. S.C:A. No. 4343/1996.
Fakhruddin, W.A. Nomani, lmtiaz Ahmed and Naghma
lmtiaz (for Mis Equity Lex Associates) for the Appellants.
•
F Saurav Kirpal and Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court
G dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Appellants
are engaged in the business of slaughter and selling of meat of
bulls, bullocks and other animals. In the writ petition, they •
challenged the validity of Notification dated 11.12 .1989
published in Government Gazette dated 13 .12 .1989 by the State
H 438
ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. v. 439
STATE OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT, J.]
of Gujarat. The Notification was purported to have been issued A
in exercise of its powers conferred under clause (b) of sub
section (1) and clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 and
clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 5 of the Gujarat Essential
Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act
of 1958') as applicable to the State of Gujarat. B
2. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground
.k ..
that reasonable restriction was imposed for drastically reducing
the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the c
Notification was beyond the powers of the State government
and affected the fundamental rights of the appellants of carrying
on their business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls and
bullocks and other animals and also affected their right to life.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand D
.. submitted that the matter has been conclusively decided by
several judgments of this Court.
5. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab
Jamat & Ors. (2005 (8) SCC 534), it was inter-alia observed
as follows: E
"10. This was followed by the impugned legislation, the
Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act,
1994. The Bombay Act of 1954 referred to as "the principal
Act" was further amended by Section 2 of the amending F
"' Act which reads as•under:
"2. In the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act'), in Section
5-
'
G
(1) in sub-section (1-A), for clauses (c) and (cf), the
following clauses shall be substituted, namely-
... '(c) a bull;
( d ) a bullock.'
H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A (2) in sub-section (3)-
( i) in clause ( a ), sub-clauses ( ii) and ( iii) shall
be deleted;
(it) in clause ( b ), after the words 'calf of a cow', the
B words 'bull or bullock' shall be inserted."
Xx xx
142. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot accept the
view taken by the High Court. All the appeals are allowed.
c The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment)
Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vi res
the Constitution. All the writ petitions filed in the High Court
are directed to be dismissed."
D 6. Similarly in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A P
& Ors. (2006(4) sec 162) it was observed as follows:
"64. Before concluding this issue, let us deal with
Submission ( h ) made by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in
CA No. 3968 of 1994. On behalf of Akhil Bharat Goseva
E Sangh in Submission ( h ) it was urged that the decision
in Mohd. Hanif Quaresht v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC
731)would not help Al Kabeer in any way as the position
at present is completely different. In that decision, total
ban on slaughter of old cattle was struck down on the
F ground that there was scarcity of fodder resources, which
however, according to Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh, does
not exist any longer. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti
Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005(8) SCC 534) it has also
been held that in view of the position that exists now i.e
G adequate availability of cattle feed resources. the question
of striking down total ban on slaughter of old cattle for
scarcity of fodder resources would not arise at all. In ou~
view, this position cannot be disputed. However. 1n the •
present case, we are concerned with the A.P Act, 1977
H which does not impose a total ban on slaughter of a
ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. v. 441
STATE OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT, J.]
particular type of bovine animal, whereas in Mirzapur case A
(supra) this Court dealt with the provisions of the Bombay
Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 which
imposes a total ban on slaughter of cow and its progeny.
So far as the A. P. Act, 1977 is concerned, there is no total
ban on slaughter of buffaloes. Therefore, in our view, this B
submission of the Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh cannot at
.... all be accepted, as we are not concerned with the case of
striking down a particular provision which imposes an
absolute prohibition of slaughter of particular types of
bovine animals. In Mirzapurcase (supra), it was, however, c
not held that permitting slaughter of bovine cattle by itself
is unconstitutional. This being the position, we are not in
agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that
-Submission (h) can come to their assistance for the
purpose of banning of slaughter of buffaloes by Al Kabeer." D
• .. 7. Above being the position, this appeal is without merit,
deserves dismissal which we direct.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "cattle slaughter restriction"Sign in to search