Abdul Hakim Quraishi And Others vs The State Of Bihar (And Connected...

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 23 November 1960

Coram: S.K. Das, Syed Jaffer Imam, J.L. Kapur, A.K. Sarkar

In this matter the Court recorded that the petition bore the title Abdul Hakim Quraishi and Others versus the State of Bihar and Connected Parties and that the judgment was delivered on 23 November 1960. The bench hearing the case consisted of Justice S.K. Das, Justice Syed Jaffer Imam, Justice J.L. Kapur and Justice A.K. Sarkar. The petitioners were identified as Abdul Hakim Quraishi and several others who challenged the actions of the State of Bihar as respondents, together with other connected parties. The judgment was reported in the official law reports with the citations 1961 AIR 448 and 1961 SCR (2) 610, and it was subsequently referenced in several later reports, including RF 1962 SC 1371, RF 1970 SC 93, RF 1986 SC 1205 and RF 1986 SC 1213. The principal issue before the Court concerned the constitutionality of statutory provisions that prohibited the slaughter of cattle below a certain age—specifically whether a ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she‑buffaloes younger than twenty or twenty‑five years was a reasonable restriction in the public interest.

The Court noted that the dispute arose in the context of three legislative enactments. The first was the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Bihar 1 of 1959), its Section 3 dealing with the prohibition of slaughter, and the accompanying Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Rules, 1960, Rule 3. The second was the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958 (U.P. 33 of 1958), particularly its Section 3. The third was the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 (M.P. 18 of 1959), especially Sections 4(2)(a) and 5. The Court also referred to the earlier decision in Mohd Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar, where it had held that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she‑buffaloes after they ceased to be useful was contrary to the general public interest and therefore invalid. In response to that decision, the legislatures of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh each enacted the statutes mentioned above.

The Court explained the operative provisions of each statute. Section 3 of the Bihar Act forbade the slaughter of a bull, bullock or she‑buffalo unless the animal was more than twenty‑five years old and had become useless. Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules, 1960 required that a certificate authorising slaughter could be issued only with the concurrence of both the Veterinary Officer and the Chairman or Chief Officer of the relevant District Board, Municipality or similar authority; where the two officials disagreed, the decision was to be made by the Sub‑Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer. Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Act permitted slaughter of a bull or bullock only if the animal was over twenty years of age and was permanently unfit, and it barred any slaughter within twenty days after a certificate declaring the animal fit for slaughter had been granted. The Uttar Pradesh provision also granted any aggrieved person a right of appeal against the order granting such a certificate. Section 4(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Act required that no bull, bullock or buffalo could be slaughtered without a certificate issued by the competent authority, while Section 4(2)(a) stipulated that such a certificate could be issued only if the animal was more than twenty years old and was unfit for work or breeding. Finally, Section 4(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Act conferred upon any person dissatisfied with the certificate a right to appeal the decision.

Section 5 of the legislation stipulated that no animal could be slaughtered within ten days after the certificate was issued, and that when an appeal was filed against the grant of the certificate, slaughter could not occur until the appeal was finally decided. The petitioners, who were engaged in the butchery trade, argued that the combined provisions of the three statutes effectively imposed a complete prohibition on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she‑buffaloes even after those animals had ceased to be of any practical use, thereby destroying the livelihood of their profession. The Court held that the statutory ban on slaughter of these animals below the ages of twenty or twenty‑five years did not constitute a reasonable restriction in the interest of the public and was therefore void. It was observed that a bull, bullock or buffalo generally ceased to be useful after fifteen years, and any minimal utility thereafter was outweighed by the economic burden of feeding and maintaining an unproductive animal. The additional requirement that the animal must also be unfit, in addition to being over the prescribed age, was deemed an unreasonable further restriction, rendering Section 3 of the Bihar Act, Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Act and Section 4(2)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Act invalid. The Court also found Rule 3 of the Bihar Rules to be defective because it imposed a disproportionate limitation on the petitioners’ rights, with the procedure involving such expense of money and time that obtaining the certificate became unprofitable. Moreover, the provisions in the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Acts which forbade slaughter within twenty days and ten days, respectively, after issuance of the certificate, and which allowed any aggrieved person to appeal the competent authority’s order, were likely to delay the slaughter for an excessive period, effectively creating a total ban even after the animals were no longer useful. These provisions were therefore considered unreasonable restraints on the petitioners’ fundamental rights and were declared void. The Court referred to the precedents set in Mohd Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar [1959] SCR 629, State of Madras v V G Row [1952] SCR 597 and State of Bihar v Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1952] SCR 889. The judgment pertained to petitions numbered 15 of 1959, 14 of 1960 and 21 of 1959, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights. Counsel for the petitioners appeared in petitions 15 and 21 of 1959, and also in petition 14 of 1960, while counsel for the respondent represented the State in petition 15 of 1959 and in the remaining petitions.

For petition number 21 of 1959, the respondent was represented by H. N. Sanyal, who held the position of Additional Solicitor‑General of India, and by C. P. Lal. The judgment was pronounced on 23 November 1960, and it was delivered by Justice S. K. Das. The three writ petitions under consideration were heard together because each raised the same questions of law and fact, although they each concerned a distinct statute enacted by a different state legislature: the Bihar statute in petition number 15, the Uttar Pradesh statute in petition number 21, and the Madhya Pradesh statute in petition number 14. In each petition the applicants contested the validity of several provisions of the respective enactments, and in some instances they also challenged the rules made under those enactments. While the provisions challenged in the three cases were alike in their general purpose, they were not identical. Accordingly, the Court first outlined the petitioners’ case in general terms and then examined the specific provisions of each state law separately. Before undertaking that detailed analysis, the Court found it necessary to provide a brief historical background of the legislation involved. In 1958 the Court had examined the validity of three statutes: (1) the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, Bihar Act II of 1956; (2) the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, which was enacted as Uttar Pradesh Act 1 of 1956; and (3) the Central Provinces and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, cited as CP and Berar Act LII of 1949. The Bihar Act prohibited the slaughter of every category of bovine cattle. The Uttar Pradesh Act prohibited the slaughter of cows and all of their progeny, including bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves. The Central Provinces and Berar Act prohibited the slaughter of cows, all calves of cows, bulls, bullocks and heifers, while allowing the slaughter of buffaloes only if a proper authority issued a certificate. All three statutes were enacted to implement the directive principle of State policy contained in Article 48 of the Constitution. The petitioners, who were engaged in the butcher trade and related businesses, argued that these statutes violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g). In the earlier decision of Mohd Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, the Court held that a complete ban on the slaughter of cows of any age, calves of cows, and female buffaloes was reasonable and valid; it also held that a total ban on the slaughter of female buffaloes, breeding bulls, or working bullocks—whether cattle or buffalo—while they could still be used for milk production or draught work was likewise reasonable and valid.

In that earlier decision the Court held that a complete prohibition on slaughtering she‑buffaloes, bulls and bullocks after they had ceased to be capable of producing milk or of breeding or of serving as draught animals was not in the public interest and therefore was invalid. Consequently the Court directed the respondent States not to enforce those portions of their legislation that the Court had declared void. The direction led to the enactment of amending statutes or to the passage of new statutes, and the matters presently before the Court concerned the provisions of those amending or new Acts and the rules made thereunder. In Bihar, the impugned statute was the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959, which obtained the Governor’s assent on 13 January 1959. In Uttar Pradesh, the challenged legislation was the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 1958. In Madhya Pradesh, a fresh statute, the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 (Act 18 of 1959), had been passed; it received the President’s assent on 24 July 1959 and came into force on 15 January 1960, and the associated regulations were styled the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 1959.

The petitioners, who were numerous in each of the three states, were Indian citizens employed in the butcher’s trade and its ancillary activities. They contended that various provisions of the amended or newly enacted legislation effectively imposed an absolute ban on the slaughter of she‑buffaloes, bulls or bullocks even after such animals had become unproductive, thereby destroying their means of livelihood. They pointed out that the statutory age limits—twenty or twenty‑five years—were set so high that, in practical terms, no animal could be slaughtered. The petitioners argued that the additional restrictions introduced by the amendment Acts were arbitrary and unreasonable, amounting in effect to a prohibition on, or destruction of, their constitutional right to carry on their profession. The petitioners illustrated their case by quoting passages from one of the writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959), which explained that professional authorities recognized that, even in highly progressive and scientific animal‑husbandry systems, cattle rarely lived beyond fifteen or sixteen years, and pedigree breeding bulls were usually discarded at twelve to fourteen years of age. Moreover, they asserted that in India bulls, bullocks and she‑buffaloes seldom survived even fifteen years, and that draught bullocks began to age after eight years, thereby underscoring the impracticability of the statutory age thresholds.

The petitioners asserted that increasing the permissible age for slaughtering bulls, bullocks and she‑buffaloes from fifteen years to twenty years was arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the public interest. They contended that this increase infringed their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(f) and Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners further alleged that Section 3 of the amending Act represented a dishonest and colourable exercise of legislative power, also violating the same constitutional provisions. According to the petitioners, the arbitrary raising of the age limit would be detrimental to the public for several reasons. First, they claimed that virtually no bulls, bullocks or she‑buffaloes survive in India beyond fifteen years, so the new limit would effectively eliminate the possibility of slaughter for these animals. Second, they argued that the trade, profession and occupation of millions of Muslims would suffer permanent and irreparable injury. Third, they maintained that members of minority communities—including Christians, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Muslims—who consider cattle beef a staple of their diet would be deprived of that diet. Fourth, they warned that the rapid increase in an uneconomic cattle population would exacerbate problems such as crop destruction, public nuisance and the inability to slaughter animals, thereby intensifying these issues. Fifth, they pointed out that a growing number of uneconomic cattle would place additional strain on the country’s fodder and animal‑feed resources. Sixth, they noted that competition for land between a burgeoning human population and an expanding herd of largely useless cattle would become more severe. Seventh, they asserted that the legislation would promote a steady increase in useless bulls and bullocks, which would be disastrous for efforts to improve milk production, draft power and overall animal husbandry. Similar allegations were raised in the other two petitions. The respondent States challenged the correctness of these allegations and, through certain officers, submitted affidavits in response. While the Court will later examine the specific averments contained in those affidavits, a brief overview of their general effect can be provided at this stage. In the State of Bihar, the age below which the slaughter of she‑buffaloes, bulls and bullocks is prohibited is twenty‑five years. The State argues that the usefulness and longevity of livestock for breeding and other purposes now depend largely on improved animal‑husbandry facilities—such as better feeding, management and disease control—and that, because such facilities are more widely available, the legislature concluded that a bull, bullock or she‑buffalo below twenty‑five years remains useful. The State further contends that if an animal becomes permanently incapacitated before reaching that age, the challenged provision permits its slaughter, and therefore the legislation under review conforms to the decisions of this Court and does not contravene any constitutional right.

In Uttar Pradesh the law set the permissible age for the slaughter of bulls or bullocks at twenty years, with an additional restriction to be addressed later. The State argued that bulls or bullocks do not become unfit at twelve or fourteen years, contrary to the petitioners’ claim; instead, they remain useful and never become entirely useless. The affidavit submitted by the State stated that the lifespan and serviceability of the animals depend on the care they receive and the quality of the grass on which they graze. It quoted a high authority who observed that the average age of an ox under favourable conditions ranges from fifteen to twenty years, and noted that even under the conditions prevailing in Uttar Pradesh, bulls can live up to twenty years or more, as indicated by an analysis of a survey report of the animal husbandry department. Relying on these statements, the State maintained that the legislation was valid. In Madhya Pradesh the permitted age was also twenty years. The Under‑Secretary of the State Government’s Agricultural Department filed an affidavit noting that Madhya Pradesh differs from other states in several respects. The affidavit provided detailed land statistics, stating that the State has a total area of 107,589,000 acres, of which the cropped area is 43,572,000 acres, forest area is 33,443,000 acres, non‑cultivable area is 11,555,000 acres, uncultivated land is 18,405,000 acres, and fallow land is 5,834,000 acres. It emphasized that the large forest cover supplies ample grassland for pasturage and that forest resources meet most of the population’s fuel needs, while animal dung is widely available as manure. The legislature concluded that bulls, bullocks and buffaloes remain useful in the State well beyond twenty years and should not be slaughtered until they are older than that age and also permanently unfit for work or breeding. The affidavit further asserted that the problem of animals dying of slow starvation or of worthless animals depriving useful animals of fodder does not arise in the State, and that the agricultural community benefits from the continued usefulness of these animals. Additional statements highlighted a shortage of breeding bulls, working bullocks and she‑buffaloes in Madhya Pradesh, reinforcing the State’s contention that cattle remain useful up to twenty years. Having outlined the petitioners’ case and the replies of the respondent States, the Court proceeded to a detailed examination of the impugned legislation, beginning with the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1959 and the rules made under the principal Act of 1955.

In the year 1955 the legislation was amended by inserting Section 3, which reads in full: “Section 3. Prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull, bullock or she‑buffalo; Notwithstanding anything contained in any law then in force or any usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, calf, bull, bullock or she‑buffalo. Provided that the prescribed authority may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, allow the slaughter of—(i) a bull or bullock which is over twenty‑five years of age or which has become permanently incapable of breeding or of being used as a draught animal, as the case may be; and (ii) a she‑buffalo which is over twenty‑five years of age or which has become permanently incapable of breeding or yielding milk, if the permanent incapability has not been caused deliberately; provided further that the State Government may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, allow the slaughter of any such animal for any medicinal or research purposes.” The structure of this provision is that its main clause creates an absolute ban on the killing of a cow, calf, bull, bullock or she‑buffalo, while the following proviso inserts a limited exception for bulls, bullocks and she‑buffaloes and specifies the exact circumstances under which the killing of those particular animals may be permitted. The Court has already affirmed that a complete prohibition on the slaughter of cows and calves is constitutionally valid, so there is no dispute concerning those species. The issue that the Court is now asked to examine is whether the portion of the section that deals with bulls, bullocks and she‑buffaloes can withstand constitutional challenge. It is noteworthy that the original draft of the Bill fixed the age threshold at fifteen years only; however, the Select Committee on the Bill expressed the view that fifteen years would not be sufficient for the preservation of animals. The Committee stated, “The Committee feels that the words ‘fifteen years’ will not be sufficient for the preservation of animals. They feel that it would be better if those words are substituted by the words ‘twenty‑five years’ ….” No additional justification for raising the age limit was recorded. Following the filing of Writ Petition No. 15 of 1959, the Governor of Bihar issued certain rules under Section 38 of the Act.