Vaishnavi Nirmal | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 2nd March 2020
Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, 2005 [Civil Appeal Nos. 4937-4940 of 1998]
Fact of case:
By the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act of 1994, the restriction that bulls and bullocks below the age of 16 years could not be slaughtered was enlarged to a to a total prohibition on the slaughter of the progeny of the cow in the State of Gujarat.
The whole controversy arose in the writ petition filed in the Gujarat High Court challenging the validity of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994. By this amendment the age restriction was totally taken away and that means that no bull and bullock irrespective of age shall be slaughtered. This amendment was challenged before the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court after dealing with all aspects in detail held that amendment is ultra vires. The State of Gujarat appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
The matter was listed before the three Judges’ Bench. Thereafter, it was taken by the Constitution Bench and the Constitution Bench realizing difficulty that there are already Constitution Bench judgments holding the field, referred the matter to the seven Judges’ Bench for reconsideration of all the earlier decisions of the Constitution Benches. Hence, the present petition along with the other petitions came up before the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition.
Issues:
Respondents challenge the constitutionality of the Gujarat Amendment, contending that such amendment violates the fundamental rights of butchers under art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.
Judgement:
The Hon’ble Chief Justice has dealt in detail the relation of Fundamental Rights with Directive Principles. His Lordship has very exhaustively dealt with all the cases bearing on the subject prior and after decision in Keshwanand Bharti’s case. The court should guard zealously Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens of the society, but at the same time strike a balance between the Fundamental Rights and the larger interests of the society. But when such right clashes with the larger interest of the country it must yield to the latter. Therefore, wherever any enactment is made for advancement of Directive Principles and it runs counter to the Fundamental Rights an attempt should be made to harmonise the same if it promotes larger public interest.
The court also repelled all arguments on the grounds of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19(1) (g) by stating that, “In the light of the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape from the conclusion that the protection conferred by the impugned enactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest of the nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause “inconvenience” or some “dislocation” to the butchers, restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the general public. The former must yield to the latter.”
The Supreme Court sided with the appellant (State of Gujarat), considering that the restriction placed on the fundamental right of butchers is reasonable in that the ban does not run in clear conflict with the fundamental right of butchers, and has been enacted within the legislative competence of the enacting legislature.
“A cattle which has served human beings is entitled to compassion in its old age when it has ceased to be milch or draught and becomes so-called ‘useless’. It will be an act of reprehensible ingratitude to condemn a cattle in its old age as useless and send it to a slaughterhouse taking away the little time from its natural life that it would have lived, forgetting its service for the major part of its life, for which it had remained milch or draught. We have to remember: the weak and meek need more of protection and compassion.”
Leave a Reply