वन्दे धेनु मातरम

भारतीय संस्कृति में कृषि व गौपालन का अति उत्तम स्थान रहा है। एक दो नहीं लाखों करोड़ों गाँव वाले इस देश में दूध दही की नदियाँ बहती थी। हर परिवार की कन्या दुहिता यानी दुहने वाली कहलाई । ब्रह्म मुहूर्त में उठते ही गृहनीयाँ झूमती हुई दही बिलोती और माखन मिश्री खिलाती थीं व अन्न्दा सुखदा गौमाता के लिए भोजन से पहले गौग्रास निकालना धर्म का अंग था। तेरहवी सदी में मक्रोपोलो ने लिखा की भारतवर्ष में बैल हाथिओं जैसे विशालकाय होते हैं, उनकी मेहनत से खेती होती है, व्यापारी उनकी पीठ पर फसल लाद कर व्यापार के लिए ले जाते हैं। पवित्र गौबर से आँगन लीपते हैं और उस शुद्ध स्थान पर बैठ कर प्रभु आराधना करते हैं। "कृषि गौरक्ष्य वाणीज्यम" के संगम ने भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था को पूर्णता, स्थिरता, व्यापकता वः प्रतिष्ठा दी जिसके चलते भारत की खोज करते भारत से कल्पतरु (गन्ना) और कामधेनु (गाय) लेकर गया. माना जाता है की इनकी संतति से अमरीका इंग्लैंड डेनमार्क आस्ट्रेलिया न्युजीलैंड सहीत समस्त साझा बाज़ारके नौ देशों में गौधन बढा,वह देश सम्पन्न हुए और(भारत) सोने की चिडिया लुट गयी. अंग्रेजी सरकार ने फ़ुट डालने के लिए गौकशी का सहारा लिया और चरागाह सम्बन्धी नाना कर लगाये गाय बैलों को उनकी गौचर भूमि पर भी चरना कठिन कर दिया .

स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के सभी सेनानियों ने गौरक्षा के पक्ष में आवाज उठाई. महामना मदन मोहनजी मालवीय, देश की स्वतन्त्रता का अर्थ गोरक्षा से लगाते थे. यानी देश के आजाद होने पर कलम की पहली नौक से देश में गोहत्या रोक दी जाएगी ऐसा संकल्प पूजनीय मालवीय जी, लोकमान्य तीलक जी और महात्मा गाँधी जी जैसी महान विभुतिओं का था. रास्ट्रपिता महात्मा गांधी जी ने कितनी ही बार गोरक्षा को देश की स्वतन्त्रता बड़ा प्रश्न कहा था.जिस पार्टी की यह बात है वोह तो दो बैलों की जोड़ी फिर गाय बछड़ा देश को दिखा कर हाथ दिखा चुकी लेकिन हमे गर्व है की हमारी पार्टी, जो की भारत की जनता की अपनी पार्टी है, ने गोवंश की महता समझते हुए गोवंश विकास प्रकोस्ट की स्थापना की

स्वतंत्र भारत के संविधान निर्माताओं ने मूलभूत अधिकार ५१-a और निर्देशक सिधांत४८-a में पृकृति सुरक्षा व राज्य सरकारों को कृषि और पशुपालन को आदुनिक ढंग से संवर्द्धित व विशेषत: गाय बछड़े एवम दुधारू व खेती के लिए उपयोगी पशुओं की सुरक्षा का निर्देश दिया आज का द्रश्य बिल्कुल विपरीत है। अनुपयोगी पशुओं के नाम पर उपयोगी पशुओ का निर्मम यातायात व अवैधानिक कत्ल देश के हर कोने में हो रहा है ।

तात्कालिक लाभ के लिए देश की वास्तविक पूंजी को नष्ट किया जा रहा है । गाँव, नगर, जिला राज्य या देश की आवश्यकता ही नहीं, विदेशी गौमांस की जरूरतें मूक पशुओं की निर्मम हत्या कर पूरी की जा रही हैं. मुम्बई का देवनार आन्ध्र का अल कबीर या केरला का केम्पको यांत्रिक कसाई खानों का जाल प्रति वर्ष लाखों प्राणियों का संहारकर रहा है

मांस का उत्पादन ही नहीं वरन विभिन्न यांत्रिक उपयोगों ने, रासायनिक खाद प्रयोगों ने ग्राम शहरीकरण व विदेशी चालचलन ने इन मूक प्राणियों को ग्रामीण विकास, अर्थव्यवस्था व रोजगार से दूर कर दिया है. आज रहट की जगह नलकूप, हल की जगह ट्रेक्टर, कोल्हू की जगह एक्सपेलर, बैलगाडी के स्थान पर टेंपो, उपलों की जगह गैस, प्राकृतिक खाद की जगह रासायनिक खाद आदि ले चुकी हैं। इस प्रदूषण और प्राणी हनन के परिणाम आज असहनीय हो चुके हैं.

हमारा नित्य आहार रासायनिक हो विषयुक्त हो चूका है . कृषि की लागत कई गुना बढ़ चुकी है. गाँव में रोजगार के अवसर निरंतर घट रहे हैं. पर्यावरण दूषित हो रहा है. कीमती विदेशी मुद्रा खनिज तेल व रासायनिक खाद के आयात में बेदर्दी से खर्च हो रही है .कभी २ डालर(८५/-) प्रति बैरल का तेल जल्द २०० डालर ८,४००/- हो सकता है स्त्री शक्ति पशु पालन का अभिन्न अंग है। मूक पशु के निर्मम संहार ने इcvसके उत्थान को रोक लगा दी है। आज जगह जगह अन्नदाता कृषक आत्महत्या करने पर मजबूर है ।भारतवर्ष की लगभग ४८ करोड़ एकड़ कृषि योग्य भूमि तथा १५ करोड़ ८० लाख एकड़ बंtजर भूमि के लिए ३४० करोड़ टन खाद की आवश्यकता आंकी गई है। जबकि अकेला पशुधन वर्ष में १०० करोड़ टन प्राकृतिक खाद देने में सक्षम है । उपरोक्त भूमि को जोतने के लिए ५ करोड़ बैल जोड़ीयों की आवश्यकता खेती, सिचाई, गुडाई परिवहन, भारवहन, के लिए है. इतनी पशु शक्ति आज भी हमारे देश में प्रभु कृपा से बची हुयी है. उपरोक्त कार्यों में इसका उपयोग कर के ही कृषि तथा ग्रामीण जीवन यापन की लागत को कम किया जा सकता है. प्राकृतिक खाद, गौमुत्र द्वारा निर्मित कीट नियंत्रक व औषधियों के प्रचलन और उपयोग से रसायनरहित पोष्टिक व नैसर्गिक आहार द्वारा मानव जाति को दिघ्र आयु कामना की जासकती है .देश की लगभग १५,००० छोटी बड़ी गौशालाओं के कंधे पर बड़ा दायित्व है. अहिंसा, प्राणी रक्षा तथा सेवा में रत्त यह संस्थाएं हमारी संस्कृति की धरोहर हैं जो विभिन्न अनुदानों व सामाजिक सहायता पर निर्भर चल रही हैं. अहिंसक समाज का अरबों रुपिया देश में इन गौशालाओं के संचालन पर प्राणी दया के लिए खर्च हो रहा है. समय की पुकार है की बची हुई पशु सम्पदा के निर्मम हनन को रोका जाये और पशु धन की आर्थिक उपयोगिता सिद्ध की जाये.

आमजन के मानस में मूक प्राणी के केवल दो उपयोग आते हैं. दूध व मांस यानी गौपालक गाय की उपयोगिता व कीमत उसकी दुग्ध क्षमता पर आंकता है और जब की कसाई उपलब्ध मांस हड्डी खून खाल आदि नापता है. गौपालक को प्रति प्राणी प्रति दिन रु.१५-२० खर्च ज्कारना होता है और येही २५०-३०० किलो की गाय या बैल लगभग २-३,००० में कसाई को मिल जाता है जब तक यह गाय दुधारू होती है गौपालक पालन करता है अन्यथा कसाई के हाथों में थमा देता है. पशु शक्ति, गोबर, गौमुत्र की आय या उपयोगिता का कई हिसाब ही नहीं लगाया जाता है. जो जानवर २-३,००० में ख़रीदा गया, २-३ दिनों में कत्ल कर रु.१००/- प्रति किलो २०० किलो गोमांस, चमडा रु.१,०००/- १५-२० किलो हड्डियाँ रु. २०/- प्रति किलो से और १२ लीटर खून दवाई उत्पादकों यो गैरकानूनी दारू बनाने वालों को बेच दिया जाता है. प्रति प्राणी औसतन २०-२५,००० का व्यापार हो जाता है. प्रति वर्ष अनुमानत: ७.५ करोड़ पशुधन का अन्तिम व्यापार रु. १८७५ अरब का आंका जासकता है . इस व्यापार पर कोई सरकारी कर या रूकावट नहीं देखने में आती है. गौशालाएं दान से और कसाई खाने विभिन्न नगरपालिकाओं द्वारा करदाताओं के पैसे से बना कर दिएजाते है।

कानून की धज्जियाँ उड़ते देखने को आइये आपको इस पूर्ण कार्य का भ्रमण कराते है. इस अपराध की शुरुआत सरकारी कृषि विपन्न मंडियों से होती देखी जासकती है. मंडीकर की चौरी के साथ में विपन्न धरो का साफ उलंघन यहाँ देखा जा सकता है. पशु चिकत्सा व पशु संवर्धन विभाग के अधिकारियो से हाथ मिला कर कानून के विपरीत पशु स्वास्थ्य प्रमाणपत्र के अंदर, वहां नियंत्रक, नाका अधिकारियों को नमस्ते कर, पुलिस को क्षेत्रिय राजनीतिज्ञों की ताकत प्रयोग में ला कर मूक प्राणी एक गाँव से दुसरे गाँव, शहर, तालुक जिला तथा राज्य सीमा पार करा कसाईखाने तक पहुंचा दिए जाते है.. इन सरकारी या गैर कानूनी कसयिखानो पर भी माफियों का एकछत्र राज देखा जासकता है. स्वास्थ्य, क्रूरता निवारण, पशु वध निषेध आदि बिसीओं कानूनों की धज्जिँ उडाते हुए बिना किसी चिकित्सक निरक्षण के विभिन्न रोगों ग्रस्त मांस जनता की जानकारी बिना परोसा जा रहा है

साथिओं, जनमानस के सोच का पता चलता है गतवर्ष की विश्व मंगल गौ ग्राम यात्रा से, जिसका पूर्ण देश के ४,११,७३७ ग्रामो और शहरों में स्वागत हुआ और जाति, धर्म, क्षेत्र की सीमाओं को तोड़ते हुए ८ करोड़ ५० लाख हिन्दू, मुसलमान, ईसाई, ग्रामीण, शहरी, आदिवासी भारत के नागरिक गोभक्तो ने हस्ताक्षर किये जो महामहिम रास्त्रपति जी को दिए गये

हम क्या चाहते हैं ? हम चाहते हैं पूर्ण गोवंश रक्षा आज जहाँ भी भारतीय जनता पार्टी की सरकारें आई हैं हमने पूर्ण गोवंशहत्या पर रोक लगाने का अहम् प्रयास किया है और केन्द्रीय सरकार पर पूर्ण दबाव बना रहे हैं. हमे जवाब मिलता है की यह तो राज्य का विषय है. मैं कर्णाटक से हूँ और हमारे जनप्रिय मुख्यमंत्री ने कर्नाटक गोवंश हत्यानिषेध एवम संवर्धन बिल, २०१० विधानसभा में विपक्ष के, विरोध के कारण विरोध, का सामना करते हुए पास करवाया. पूर्ण प्रान्त में ख़ुशी की लहर थी लेकिन 'महामहिम' राज्यपाल महोदय ने जनमानस को धत्ता बताते हुए वह बिल महामहिम रास्ट्रपत्ति महोदया के पास राय के लिए भेज दिया जो माननीय मुख्य मंत्रीजी सहित विभिन्न उच्त्तम प्रतिनिधिमंडलों के मिलने, जानकारी देने के बाद भी, गत ६ मास से दफ्तरों की धुल खा रहा है.आज भी देश के कई राज्यों में गोवंशहत्या का निर्माणकार्य कानून ना होने के कारण गोभ्क्तों की आँखों के सामने चल रहा है.

देश के संविधान के निर्देश सिधांत ४८ का गोवंश हत्या को रोकने में प्रयोग होना चाहिए था लेकिन साथिओं गोहत्या में उपयोग हो रहा है . इस मूक प्राणी को अनुपयोगी और कृषक पर भार बताते हुए १२ वर्ष के ऊपर के बैल काटना वैधानिक घोषित यानी कसाई के हाथ में तलवार देना हो गया है और इस छुट के आधार पर सुंदर, सुद्रढ़ बैलों की जोदियन तो काटी ही जा रही हैं इनके साथ में नवजात बछड़े, बछियाँ भी स्वादिस्ट गोमांस के लिए काटी जा रही हैं. जिन राज्यों, जैसे केरल, आसाम, आदि में यह गोरक्षा कानून भी नही है या जो बंगलादेश, पाकिस्तान से जुड़े हैं उनके हम उनके गोवंश आपूर्तिकर्ता हो गये हैं

साथिओं, देश में सरकार कसाईखाने बनाती है, हर शहर में बनाती है जैसे कोई बहुत बड़ा सामाजिक उत्थान कार्य हो और फिर कसायिओं को नीलामी में इतने कम पैसे में दे दिया जाता है जिसमे उस कसाई खाने में एक अर्ध कालिक सफाई कर्मचारी भी नियुक्त नही किया जा सकता. गोवंश सुरक्षा का तो प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता.

देश की कृषि उत्पाद मंडियां, जिन,मे गोवंश भी एक वस्तु माना गया है, प्रति सप्ताह कसाई और उनके दलालों से भारी पाई जाती हैं और जिस देश के मोटर यातायात नियम एक ट्रक में ४-५ से ज्यादा पशु लड़ने पर रोक लगाते है, उस देश में सरकारी पुलिस, यातायात, वन,मंडी, पशु कल्याण विभागों के विभिन्न विधि विधानों को तोड़ते हुए एक ग्रामसे दुसरे ग्राम, एक जिले से दुसरे जिले, एक राज्य से दुसरे राज्य की सभी व्यवस्थाओं के साथ समझोता करते हुए, कसाईखानों में पहुंचा दिए जाते हैं. मुझे भारत सरकार के जीव जंतु कल्याण बोर्ड के कर्णाटक केरल प्रभारी होने के नाते माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशानुसार कर्नाताकौर केरल के पशु व्यापर और कसाईखानों का दौरा करना पड़ा और जिंदा गाय को कैसे कटा जारहा है देखने का दुर्भाग्य भी झेलना पड़ा. लेकिन, उस रिपोर्ट को माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने मान्य किया और पूर्ण देश के कसाईखानों के लिए निर्देश भी जारी किये.

' नहीं पहुँचते अल्लाह के पास लहू-गोस्त के लुकमे - पहुँचती है परहेजगारी" कोई भी धर्म हिंसा, नहीं सिखाता,

हमारे देश में शिक्षा विभाग को हमे चेताना और विद्यार्थिओं को सही मार्ग दर्शन देना होगा साथिओं इस ११२ करोड़ की विशाल जनसंख्या वाले देश में सरकारी आंकड़ो के अनुसार देशी- विदेशी नर मादा बछड़े बछिया सभी मिला कर भी २८ अक्तूबर, २०१० को गोवंश 32,57,58,250 पाया गया है. अगर भैसों को भी मिलालें तो यह ४५ करोड़ माना गया है.

हालाँकि इसका ७०% भी गोवंश शायद नहीबचा है. सरकारी आंकड़ो को सही मानलें तो हमारे पास लगभग २०.५ करोड़ गोमाता हैं जो प्रति वर्ष कम से कम ६ करोड़ नये गोवंश को जन्म देती हैं और यह ६ करोड़ औरइसही अनुपात से १० करोड़ भैंस भी लगभग ३ करोड़ भैसों को जन्म देती हैं. यह प्रजनन पूर्णतया गोचर ही नहीं होता. यानी लगभग ९-१० करोड़ गाय- बैल, भैंस, रु. २,००,००० करोड़ का २ करोड़ टन गोमांस प्रदान करती हैं ५०,००० करोड़ का चरम, हड्डी,खून, आदि का व्यापार होता है. यह २.५० लाख करोड़ का व्यापर देश के विकास में कोई सहयोग नहीं देता पाया गया है. ना ही ग्रामीण विकास में ना ही रोजगार देने में समर्थ है.सिर्फ कुछ विशेष सम्प्रदाय के लोगो, विभिन्न विभागों के निरक्षकों, अधिकारिओं,

Table No Description सूची इस प्रकार है. Rural Urban Total

1A Cattle Exotic& Crossbreed - Male 29952994 3107066 3,30,60,660

1B Cattle Exotic & Crossbreed-Female 6287311 556386 68,43,697

1C Cattle Indigenous-Male 74990525 1788963 7,67,79,488

1D Cattle Indigenous-Female 190297452 8777553 19,90,75,005

1E Buffalo – Male 18774888 822504 1,95,97,392

1F Buffalo-Female 99916144 5426500 10,53,42,644

राजनीतिज्ञों को, जो इस घृणित व्यवसाय से जुड़े हैं, को समृद्ध बना रहा है.आप अपने राज्यों में, प्रकोस्ट की राज्य, जिला, शहर, ग्राम शाखाओं का विकास कर अपने क्षेत्र कार्यकर्ताओं को विधि विधान की पूर्ण जानकारी प्रदान करें और अपने अपने क्षेत्रों की समश्याओं से रास्ट्रीय प्रकोस्ट को साथ लें. मेरा अटूट विश्वास है की जो भी केन्द्रीय और राज्यों के कानून हैं उनका अगर सही पालन करवा सकें तो हम पूर्ण गोवंश रक्षा में आज भी सफल हो सकते हैं. देश और प्रान्तों में लागु कुछ विधानों की जानकारी सलंग्न है .

देश का सर्व हारा गोपालक, कृषक, आज आत्म हत्या कर रहा है क्योंकी उसको महानाशकारी रासायनिक खाद लगा दिया गया है, खेतों में ट्रेक्टर, नलकूप आदि के उपयोग ने बैल शक्ति को नीर उपयोगी बना दिया है. खेती की लागत में उर्वरक, जल और डीजल मुख्य घटक बन चुके हैं इसके अलावा देश की २५% भूमि चरागाहों के लिए रखी जाने के प्रावधान आज भूले जाकर शहरीकरण की दौड़ में कब्जा किये जा चुके हैं. यह दीवानगी भरा मूक प्राणी संहार आज पर्यावरण, स्वास्थ्य, स्वच्छता, रोजगारविकास , स्त्रीशक्ति, ग्रामीण विकास को तहस नहस कर रहा है.

गोवंश ४ टन प्रति वर्ष की दर से १२० करोड़ टन गोबर और ८० करोड़ किलो लीटर गोमूत्र प्रदान करता है. यह मात्रा लो की देश के विकास में सहायक होनी चाहिए आज पर्यावरण की समस्या बन गयी है ग्राम- शहर की नालिओं से बह कर क्षेत्र के जलाशयों, और नदिओं के जल स्तर को ऊँचा करती जा रही है. अगर इस गोवंशशक्ति को उपयोग में लाया जाये तो १२० करोड़ टन गोबर ५०,००० करोड़ का प्राकृतिक उर्वरक, ३५,००० करोड़ की १०,००० करोड़ यूनिट बिजली और एक बैल ८ अश्वशक्ति ८० करोड़ अश्व शक्ति के सामान बैलशक्ति देश की ग्रामीण विद्युत्, इंधन और पेय जल समाश्या का निदान है.

बैल शक्ति का कृषि, सिचाई, परिवहन, अन्य कल कारखानों को चलने में उपयोग ग्रामीण बेरोजगारी समाप्त कर ग्राम विकास की धुरी बन भूतपुरव राष्ट्रपति डॉ. ए.पी.जे अब्दुल कलाम जी की कल्पना 'पूरा' (ग्राम में शहर की सुविधा) प्रदान कर सकता है.

कृषक और गोपालक की लागत में कमी लाकर, कृषि को लाभदायक बनाते हुए हमारा गोवंश देश की अर्थ व्यवस्था में अशीम योगदाता बन सकता है. पचासिओं वस्तुओं के निर्माण का साधन, अगर राज्य और केंद्र सरकारें, इस और तनिक ध्यान दे दें तो ग्रामीण उद्योग, देश की अर्थ व्यवस्था में खरबों रुपैये का योगदाता बन सकता है. बीसिओं वस्तुएं, जैसे, साबुन, शेम्पू, फिनियाल, धूप, अगबती, रंग रोगन, कीमती टायल, प्लाई बोर्ड, मूर्ति, कागज, उर्वरक, किटनियंत्रक, १७० रोगों की रोकथाम दवाईयां, मछर नियंत्रक तेल, कोइल और तो और गोकोला, गोज्योती जैसी विभिन्न दैनिक जरुरत में कम आने वाली वस्तुएं जो की विभिन्न विदेशी महा कंपनियो द्वारा विज्ञापन के जोर से जन मानस में जहर की तरह घुटी जा रही हैं, उन्हें ग्राम ग्राम में बना कर लाभप्रद गोवंश उद्योग मै जोड़ कर गोबरसे रु.५ और गोमूत्र और गोमूत्रसे रु. २० प्रति लिटरके दाम प्राप्त कर गोपालक को समृद्ध और गोवंश में बढ़ोतरी की जा सकती है .

मुझे प्रेरणा मिली और देश का पृथम गोवंश आधारित उद्योग गोवर्धन ओरगेनिक लिमिटेड आज लगभग ५०,००० किलो गोबर और ५००० लिटर गोमूत्र उपयोग क्षमता के साथ पार्टिकल बोर्ड , फिनायल, हस्त प्रक्षालन पावडर गोमूत्र अर्क, आदि का सफलता पूर्वक उत्पादन कर रहा है, केवल गोवंश ही नही पर्यावरण में योगदान देते हुए प्रतिवर्ष लगभग १,००,००० वृक्षों की रक्षा करेगा.अगर पूर्ण गोवंश द्वारा प्रदित गोबर गोमूत्र का लेखा करे तो करोड़ो वृक्षों की रक्षा का यह साधन है.

कार्बन क्रेडिट साथिओं, आपने ओजोन परत के विषय में पढ़ा होगा कार्बन क्रेडिट के रूक में अगर हम एक टन कोयले, तेल इंधन की बचत करते हैं तो विदेशी कम्पनिओं से लगभग डॉलर १५-१६ प्राप्त होते हैं. इस प्रकार के उद्योग लगाये जाने तो १२० करोड़ टन गोबर हमे १८०० करोड़ डॉलर यानी ९०,००० करोड़ रूपया विदेशी मुद्रा लाने में सहायक हो सकता है

रास्ट्रीय और प्रांतीय सरकारों के विभिन्न मंत्रालयों के कार्यों में गोवंश जुड़ा हुआ है आपकी जानकारी के लिए कुछ विभाग निम्नलिखित हैं गोवंश विकास प्रकोस्ट यह सभी जानकारियाँ आपके माध्यम से देश के कोने कोने में पहुंचा कर सर्वहारा के रोजगार, सुन्दर जीवनयापन, स्वास्थ्य की कल्पना करते हुए भा ज पा का सन्देश हर घर में पंहुचा सकता है.

आईये हम आज से ही जूट जाएँ और

· गोबध बंदी को कठोरता पूर्वक लागु करवा कर उदाहरण पेश करें केन्द्रीय और प्रांतीय सरकारों पर दबाव बना कर पूर्ण गोवंश हत्याबंदी बंदी और अवैधानिक कसायिखानो को रुकवाएं.

· केन्द्रीय एवम राज्य सरकारों से बजट में विभिन्न योजनाओं में गोवंश आधार शामिल करने का प्रयास करें

· केन्द्रीय और राज्य सरकारों को गोवंश आधारित उद्योग स्थापना में प्रोत्साहन देने का अनुरोध करें.

· हर जिले में कामधेनु अरण्य के निर्माण का प्रयास करें मैं इस प्रयास को अटल गो वन योजना का नाम देते हुए परम पूजनीय अटल को समर्पित करना चाहता हूँ.

· विदेशी नस्ल से गर्भाधान बंद हो और देसी नस्ल सुधार को प्रोत्साहन हो करें .

· चारागाह क्षेत्रो की सूची बना कर जिला प्रशासन को उसे विम्मुक्त करवा गोपालक, गोशाला व् कृषक को चारा उगाने को दिलवाने का प्रयास करें

· जैविक खाद और कीटनियंत्रक के विक्रय और केंद्र और राज्यों से छूट का अनुरोध करें

· गोवंश आधारित उद्योगिक क्षेत्रों की स्थापना,राजकीय विभिन्न अनुदान, कर रियायतें राज्य बजटों का भाग बने

· आदर्श ग्राम योजना जिसमे जैविक कृषि, गोवंश आधारित उद्योग, बैल चालित उपकरण उपयोग में ला कर जल, इंधन, विद्युत्, परिवहन, उर्वरक, किट नियंत्रक, दुग्ध और इसके उत्पाद प्रारंभ कर पूर्ण ग्राम उत्थान कर दिखाएँ.

· हर तहसील में गोशाला, नंदीशाला, वर्षभशाला हो जो आत्मनिर्भरता कार्य करे गोवंश नस्लसुधार कर देश के गोवंश को स्वास्थ्य, सुद्रढ़ और सम्पन्न बनायें.

साथिओं, मुझे पूर्ण विश्वास है क़ि अगर हम आज कमर कस लें तो यक़ीनन, देश के हरगाँव, हरशहर में हम गोवंश विकास की धरा बहा देंगे हमने ८.५ करोड़ हस्ताक्षर दिए और अगर हम इन गोभ्क्तों को मत दाता के रूप में परिवर्तित कर सकें तो मुझे पूर्ण विश्वास है की हम गोवंश की रक्षा, संवर्धन, ग्राम विकास, मानवसेवा के उच्चतम मानकों को स्थापित करते हुए में गोमाता के आशीर्वाद से स्वास्थ्य, सुद्रढ़ और सम्पन्न बनायें

जय गोमाता, जय भारत आपका साथी

डॉ. श्री कृष्ण मित्तल B.com(Hons) LLM, P.hD

Action plan to prevent Illegal Transportation of Cattle, Beef, & Slaughter Houses

Form team of gau sevaks (hon. Animal welfare officers ) in your area , enlist their name , address, phone numbers and two photographs for issuance of identity cards arrange periodical meeting and report your activities to BJP Cow Development cell.

Watch in your area the following record points of cattle sale for slaughter . it may be APMC yards, unregulated markets , private brokers buying cattle from villages etc. weekly shandy days

Transporting vehicles . normally we find these vehicle totally covered and repeatedly carrying cattle .watch their movement and record their make ,color and resistration numbers . place of slaughter and meet shops record their location and details of operation.

Record names , addresses and phone numbers of police station , tahshildar , subdivision assistant commissioner, asst. director animal husbandry and veterinary services, municipal health officer and commissioner , town board,R.T.O.A.P.M.C president and secretary etc

Call meeting of transporters and above officials and discuss the gravity of problem in your area and your intention of assisting them in curbing this illegal and evil start vigil in the area and when find illegal movement of cattle whether by vehicle or on walk, inform police station in writing with copy to A.H and V.S office for immediate cognizance of offence and seizing the cattle and vehicle ( if any ) and arresting the accompanying persons. In case of delay or non action on their part as a vigilant citizen , stop the cattle supposed to be going for slaughter and vehical, if laoded. Make though inquiry and if you find that there is breach of any of above cited rules arrest them under code 43 of cr .P.C

Arrest by private person and procedure on such arrest.

1 : any private person may be arrest or caused to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non bail able and cognizable offence , or any proclaimed offender and without unnecessary delay , shell make over or couse to be made over any person , so arrested to a police officer or in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody of nearest police station

Lodge FIR with police in writing . your information must contain the following . your information must contain the following . your name , address, details of incident , place ,time ,number of cattle with different types ( nos.of cow , calves, she buffalo etc) . vehicle number , make and registration number , names of person as told by them and request for resistration of FIR under SEC.4,5,8,9 &11 of Karnataka prevention of cow slaughter and preservation of cattle act ,1964, cruelty to animal act .1960 SEC. 11 .IPC SEC.429 etc . insist and obtain copy of FIR and cooperate with police for mahazar after MAHAZAR police will obtain necessary orders from hon’ble court.

In case of slaughter houses and meat shops , again you have to repeat the process , call the meeting of officials and persons from slaughter houses and discuss with them the illegality of their work . as per act of 1964 cow. Caves and she circumstances . animals intended to be slaughter , to be offered at least one day prior to competent authority for issuance certificate on prescribed form with fee.

Slaughter houses has to obtain certificate from such authority or officer as the stategovernment may appoint in this behalf.

Make inquiry with local A.H & V.S or municipal official about details of certified slaughter houses in your area . in most of cases we find that no certificate has been obtained . straightway, you can write to competent authority / police informing the details & location of these illegal slaughter places. a case will be booked U/S. 4,5,7,9&11 of the act of 1964

In case of slaughter houses having certificate, arrenge visit with competent authority &/or police and request them to match the number of animals slaughtered by them with number of cattle certified by the competent authority. On finding illegal slaughter of cow , calf and she-buffalo, aodge complaint under above sections of act of 1964.

All above offences are cognizable & officer in charge of area police , on receiving your information will be registered under of SEC. 154(1) C.R.P.C

In case police still do not resister FIR inform supritendent of police by telegram and move the petition to hon’ble court under sec.200 C.R.P.C for registration of FIR and jucicial action in the matter

Do not truble innocent reares , cooperate with police and govt. officials.

Developmental work safety of life of speechless animals depends on economic viability. Come forward for their development by the use of scientific methods for increase in the milk yielding , improvement in breed , propagating for commercial use of gobra as organic compost . akhil Karnataka gau raksha sangh will be

always keen to associate with you for this NOBLE CAUSE.

First Information Report (F.I.R)

CrPC Code 154. Information in cognizable cases.

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer Subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence A Complaint in any allegation made orally or in writing with a view to his taking action under the code of criminal Procedure , that some person, known or unknown, has committed an offence.

1. The law has not provided any particular format for drafting a complaint But it is necessary to allege that an offence has been committed. It is also expected that complainant must state all ingredients consisting the alleged offence.

2. First Information Report (FIR) are filed at Police Station when you wish yo push down in record an incident which you wish to bring to the notice of Police and at the same time seek their help in solving it.

3. Make a detailed description of the Crime.

4. Request the Police Station that you wish to file a FIR in Police Register or you write it on a plain paper in duplicate.

5. Police Station official is responsible for making all the necessary entries.& providing you the copy of F.I.R. and to keep the Magistrate of the area informed about the Report and the progress.

Crime chart

Illegal purchase, sale transfer of cattle Violation of State Agro Produce Marketing (Control ) acts / Mandi ActState prevention of cow slaughter and cattle preservation actsPrevention pf cruelty to animal act , 1960 & RulesIPC.429 IPC 153-A State Municipalities ActsIllegal transportation of cattle on rail and motor vehicleState motor vehicle rules Motor vehicle act, 1968State prevention of cow slaughter and preservation of cattle act.State agro produce marketing( control)act prevention of cruelty to animal act, 1960 IPC 429 andIPC 153-ATransport of cattle rules, 1978 State Forest act

Illegal transportation of cattle on foot Illegal transportation of cattle on foot Rules (PCA Act) 2002State prevention of cow slaughter & Cattle preservation Act. Preservation of cattle act. 1964Karnataka agro produce marketing control actPrevention of cruelty to animal act . 1960

IPC429 and IPC 153-A

P.C.A( transport of cattle on foot)Rules, 2001

State Forest Acts

Illegal slaughter of cattle

State prevention of cow slaughter and cattle preservation acts

Prevention of cruelty to animal act, 1960

IPC . 429

IPC .153-A

State Municipalities Acts

PCA (slaughter house) rules. 2001

Illegal Sacrifice/ Bali/ Kurbani of Cattle

IPC 429

IPC 153

State prevention of cow slaughter and cattle preservation acts

Prevention pf cruelty to animal act , 1960 & Rules

State Prevention of Animal Sacrifice Acts

Punishments

Conviction ,

arrest,

imprisonment, and seizure of cattle, seizure of vehicle ,

cancellation of permits,

cancellation of driving licence,

fines,

closer of premises,

loss of respect ,

disturbance of communal harmony ,

curse of speechless animal ,

and financial losses

Government agencies & Organizations functioning against above crime

BJP Cow Development Cell,

Animal Welfare Board of India

State Goseva Ayogs

State Animal Welfare Boards

District SPCAs

Animal Welfare Organizations

Goshala, Pinjrapoles and N.G.O

Model (F.I.R):First Information Report to be submitted to concerned Police Station /Post/Choki/Naka

Police Station Officer / Circle Inspector/Sub Inspector Place____________

__________Police Station/Post/Choki/Naka……. Date Time_______

Sub: First Information Report under IPC 429, PCA Act Sec 11, ____________State

Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and other related Acts & Rules

Sir,

I,____________________S/O_______________aged__________Resident of ________ hereby submit , as under:

That I am member /animal activist working for cow safety. I got information from reliable sources / while on road I saw a vehicle carrying number of Cattle. I followed the vehicle No___________ / group walking and stopped the same at___________(place)

On enquiry I was informed that Cattle are being brought from ___________and carried to ____(destination) and reasoned to believe that these Cattle are going for slaughter.

On verifying, cow, Calves were found under transportation in most cruel manner . Their mouth were tightened without providing sufficient space. Transporter / owner were unable to show any permission / Permit nor any Certificate as deemed necessary to be issued by competent Authority.

In first vision and fact it is with out any doubt that these cattle are being transported in violation of provisions of Prevention of Cruelty Act, Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, IPC 429, Motor Vehicle Act & State Motor Vehicle Rules. And also in violation of _____State Prevention of Cow slaughter Act etc.

I request you to book a case for the violation of all above Acts & Rules, seize Cattle in transportation & save their precious life and also the Vehicle and necessary arrest. I will be available to co operate during the investigation and prosecution.

Thanking you

Complainant Name &Address

Requirement &Suggestion on different State Departments

1. Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services described as Competent authority under Prevention of Cow Slaughter & Preservation of Cattle Act, 1964 is seen totally neglecting the implementation of above Act. There is no single infirmary established in whole State. In spite of repeated reminders SPCA has not even being constituted in many Districts. Karnataka State Animal Welfare Board has met 3-4 times since its inception in last 6-7 years. Your wonderful planned Scheme “Swrana Karanataka Gauthali Yojna ” has been reported misused in many places out of 18 granted institutions.

2. Planning : National & State Planning commissions / Minstries shall consider cow Progeny as big source of Energy, Rural Development, Industrial Growth, Exchequer and declare as thrust area. Suitable fund allocation willresult not only in Safety of cow progeny BUT will be instrumentalin National and state growth.

3. Home: The implementation of all Acts & Rules normally falls on Police solders. There are number of Acts and Rules including IPC 429 to be implemented in letter and spirit. Though Karnataka Police is one of the best team in our country still negligence can be seen in whole State. Visible crime every day are left un booked in one pretext or other. Investigation in booked Crime are not seen in concluding manner.

4. Urban Development - Municipal Administration: Civic administration responsible for stray Cattle, slaughter, Sale of carcass owns big responsibility. Karnataka Municipality Act has defined all activities. But, gross violation can be seen in all civic bodies. Directions from Honorable Supreme Court of India in LN Modi V/s Govt. of India & ors may attract contempt proceedings one day. There is no ante mortem post martem system seen in any of Slaughter house. Mafia are holding the control and even Government officials are afraid of entering in the area. Cattle pounds or Infirmaries are statutory requirements which are not in existence.

5. Rural Development & Panchayat Raj : Cow and its progeny , the backbone of rural economy has been destabilized because of greed of money and vested interest. App.20 millian Govansh generates 80 million M.T of Cow dung & 20 million kilo ltr of Gaumutra. Bull power availability can be fairly estimated at 200 million Horsepower. 30,000+ village of State are crying for rural employment, Water, Electricity Fertilizer etc. State is consuming thousand crore worth of Phenyl. RDPR Department shall be instrumental in development and implementation of Schemes for proper utilization. Inclusion of Cow progeny in present available Schemes like Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana, Rural Housing, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act-2005, National Social Assistance Programme, Training, Capart, DRDA Administration, Vigilance and Monitoring,

6. Finance & Revenue : State exchequer is bearing huge loss due to non taxation on Animal Trade & Slaughter houses. Animal transportation, Trade &Slaughter activities shall be dealt as commercial and industrial activities. Normal 12.5% VAT shall bring at least RS 1,000 Crore / Year but it is draining huge amount on different heads. The auction amount received by Civic bodies is not even sufficient to post part time sweeper in a slaughter house

7. Disaster management : Speechless animals are prime victim of any disaster whether draught or flood or fodder shortage or earth quake. State receives huge amount and also spends billions of Rupees but definite animal related schemes are not at all seen. Even Fodder transportation subsidy announced many times in the State has not been released. In case of States like Rajasthan Goshala are getting RS.20/- per day per Cattle. Most of the amount is coming out of Disaster Relief Funds.

8. Agro Produce Marketing: The animal related crime generates from Government Land of 110+ APMC Yards in the State every week. Cattle is item under Schedule A needs Trading License and other regulations. But, implementation is not seen apart from co ordination between other departments. As per fair estimate it is incurring a revenue loss of few Crores in this account. Presence of APMC Check post can be seen in whole State but totally indifferent on the subject.

9. Transport : Presence of RTO can be seen every where including on interstate borders. Motor Vehicle Rules and Motor Vehicle Act has imposed stringent penalties, confiscation and imprisonment of violation. BUT, the visible Crime is going un noticed under the nose of Transport Department

10. Law & Justice: All connected laws were enacted at least 40-50 years earlier. Price Index has gone up many fold in this time but Penalties and Fines are unchanged. It is helping offenders. Animal related cases are not cared by prosecution resulting into release of Cattle to offenders in violation of Honorable Supreme Court Directions. Executive Departments are not provided with the relevant legal information.

11. Forest : Most of transport routes crosses Forest area Hand Posts. Animal carcass, effluent are highly hazardous for wild life. Illegal transporters are big enemies and to be tackled with iron hands by forest authorities in co ordination with other Departments

12. Agriculture : Animal Welfare, Fodder, Fertilizer, Seeds Subsidies etc many issues comes under Agriculture Department preview. Proper schemes has to be chalked out and implemented for best use of Bull power, Milch animal, Bio Compost production, Fodder cultivation etc.

13. Dairy Development : Cow and its progeny is known as Dairy development tool also. Breed improvement, Milk procurement, milk product marketing like many issues directly related with Cattle preservation and Safety.

14. Small Scale & Cottage Industries: There are scores of cottage & medium Scale industries based on Cow dung and Cow Urine. It can be a big rural employment generation. Industries Department and connected Corporations shall develop, propagate, motivate, different schemes

15. Primary & Higher Education: Compassion, Health & Hygiene, Legal, economy, Husbandry , Veterinary etc many subjects needs attention of Primary & Higher Education Departments. Gains of Animal Safety & Loss of Cruelty & Killing shall be incorporated in Syllabus. Seperete Chairs shall be established in different Universities on related subjects.

16. Energy: Bull Power& Bio Gas are large untapped source of non conventional Energy. Proper Production & utilization will certainly reduce Burdon on Energy Department. Like incentives on Solar energy, schemes shall be chalked out on use of Bull Power & Electricity Generation. Apart from Implementation of Union government Ministry of Non Conventional Energy.

Constitution of India Provisions

51A Fundamental duties.—It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—

a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;

(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;

(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;

(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;

(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of Endeavour and achievement;

(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.—The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall Endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.—The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.—The State shall Endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the Country.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPc)

43. Arrest by private person and procedure on such arrest.

(1) Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.

(2) If there is reason to believe that such person comes under the provisions of section 41, a police officer shall re-arrest him.

(3) If there is reason to believe that he has committed a non-cognizable offence, and he refuses on the demand of a police officer to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he shall be dealt with under the provisions of section 42; but if there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed any offence, he shall be at once released.

154. Information in cognizable cases.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

157. Procedure for investigations.

(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may by general of special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:

Provided that-

(a) When information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the office in-charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;

(b) If it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.

(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.

173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.

(2) (i) as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-

(a) the names of the parties;(b) the nature of the information;(c) The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;(e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.

(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report, shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.

(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.

(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report-

(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation

(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witness.

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the sub-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).

(8) Notwithstanding in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of' sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).

190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) Upon it police report of such facts;

(c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.

191. Transfer on application of the accused.

When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (I) of section 190, the accused shall, before any evidence is taken, be informed that he is entitled to have the case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate, and if the accused or any of the accused, if there be more than one, objects to further proceedings before the Magistrate taking cognizance, the case shall ba transferred to such other Magistrate as may be specified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in this behalf.

192. Making over of cases to Magistrates.(1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking Cognizance of all offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to and competent Magistrate subordinate to him.

(2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order, specify, and thereupon such Magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial.

200. Examination of complainant. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint; or(b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry, or trial to another Magistrate under section 192:

Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

301. Appearance by public prosecutors.

(1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal-

(2) If any, such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.

451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay , or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of .

Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "property" includes-(a) Property of any kind or document which is produced before the court or which is in its custody.(b) Any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony

¹[153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—

(a) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) Commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, 2[or]

²[(c) Organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence of knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,] Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Offence committed in place of worship, etc.— (2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.]

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by any Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

Para II Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of ²[citizens of India], ³[by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ⁴[three years], or with fine, or with both.]

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

Section 429. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees

Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Bail able—Tri able by any Magistrate of the first class—Compoundable by the owner of the cattle or animal with the permission of the court.

Transport of Animals, Rules, 1978 (PCA Act.)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960); the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, the same having been previously published as required by the said Section, namely :

Transport of Animals Rules, 1978.

Chapter I

1. Short Title

These rules may be called the Transport of Animals, Rules, 1978.

2. Definitions :

In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires

(a) qualified veterinary surgeon means one who holds a diploma or a degree of a recognised veterinary college.

(b) "Schedule" means a schedule appended to these rules.

CHAPTER IV

Transport of Cattle

46. Rules 47 to 56 shall apply to the transport by rail of cows, bulls, bullocks, buffaloes, yaks and calves. (hereinafter in these rules referred to as cattle).

4 7. (a) A valid certificate by a qualified veterinary surgeon to the effect that the cattle are in a fit condition to travel by rail or road and are not suffering from any infectious or contagious or parasitic diseases and that they have been vaccinated against rinderpest and any other infectious or contagious or parasitic diseases, shall accompany each consignment.

(b) In the absence of such a certificate, the carrier shall refuse to accept the consignment for transport.

48. Veterinary first-aid equipment shall accompany all batches of cattle.

4 9. (a) Each consignment shall bear a label showing in bold red letters the name, address and telephone number (if any) of the consignor and consignee, the number and types of cattle being transported and quantity of rations and food provided.

(b)The consignee shall be informed about the train or vehicle in ' which the consignment of cattle is being sent and its arrival time in advance.

(c)The consignment of cattle shall be booked by the next train or vehicle and shall not be detained after the consignment is accepted for booking.

50. The average space provided per cattle in Railway wagon or vehicle shall not be less than two square metres.

51. (a) Suitable rope and platforms should be used for loading cattle from vehicles.

(b) In case of railway wagon the dropped door of the wagon may be used as a ramp when loading or unloading is done to the platform.

52. Cattle shall be loaded after they are properly fed and given water.

53. Cattle in advanced stage of pregnancy shall not be mixed with young cattle in order to avoid stampede during transportation.

54. (1) Watering arrangements on route shall be made and sufficient quantities of water shall be carried for emergency.

(2) Sufficient feed and fodder with adequate reserve shall be carried to last during the journey.
(3) Adequate ventilation shall be ensured.

55. When cattle is to be transported by rail.

(a) An ordinary goods wagon shall carry not more than ten adult cattle or fifteen calves on broad gauge, not more than six adult cattle or ten calves on metre guage, or not more than four adult cattle or six calves on narrow gauge.

(b) every wagon carrying cattle shall have at least one attendant.

(d) rations for padding, such as straw, shall be placed on the floor to avoid injury if a cattle lies down and this shall not be less than 6 cms thick.

(e) rations for the journey shall be carried in the middle of the wagon.

(f) to provide adequate ventilation, upper door of one side of the wagon shall be kept open properly fixed and the upper door of the wagon shall have wire gauge closely welded mesh arrangements to prevent burning cinders from the engines entering the wagon and leading to fire outbreak.

(g) cattle wagons should be attached in the middle of the train.

(h) cooking shall not be allowed in the wagons nor hurricane lamps without chimneys.

(i) two breast bars shall be provided on each side of the wagon, one at height of 60 to 80 cm and the other at 100 to 110 cm.

(j) Cattle-in-milk shall be milked at least twice a day and the calves shall be given sufficient quantity of milk to drink.

(k) As far as possible, cattle may be moved during the nights only.

(1) during day time, if possible, they should be unloaded, fed, given water and rested and if in milk, milking shall be carried out.

56. When cattle are to be transported by goods vehicle the following precautions are to be taken namely

(a) Specially fitted goods vehicles with a special type of tail board and padding around the sides should be used.

(b) Ordinary goods vehicles shall be provided with anti-slipping material, such as coir matting or wooden baord on the floor and the superstructure, if low, should be raised.

(d) each goods vehicle shall be provided with one attendant.

(e) while transporting, the cattle, the goods vehicle shall not be loaded with any other merchandise; and

(f) to prevent cattle being frightened or injured, they should preferably, face the engine.

Proforma for Certificate of fitness to travel Cattle

8. SCHEDULE - H [See Rule 47]

This Certificate should be completed and signed by a qualified Veterinary Surgeon

Date and time of examination : ..................................................................

Species of cattle : .......................................................................................

Number of Trucks / Railway Wagons .............................................................

Number of cattle : ................................................................

Sex Age.

Breed and identification marks, if any ..........................................................

Transported from To Via

I hereby certify that I have read rules 46 to 56 in Chapter IV of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978.

1. That, at the request of (consignor) I have examined the above mentioned Cattle in the goods vehicle/ railway wagons not more than 12 hours before their departure.

2. That each cattle appeared to be in a fit condition to travel by rail/road and is not showing any signs of infectious or contagious or parasitic disease and that it has been vaccinated against rinderpest and any other infectious or contagious or parasitic diseases(s).

3. That the cattle were adequately fed and watered for the purpose of the journey.

4. That the cattle have been vaccinated.

(a) Type of vaccine :

(b) Date of vaccination:

Signed .........................................................

Address ...................................................

Qualifications ................................................ Date .........................................

THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960

(59 OF 1960)(26th December, 1960)

AN ACT to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Eleventh year of the Republic of India as follows:

CHAPTER I

PRELIMINARY

1. Short title, extent and commencement : (1) This Act may be called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. ,

(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different States and for the different provisions comained in this Act.

2. Definitions : In this Act, unless the context otherwise. requires,

(a) "animal" means any living creature other than a human being,

1[(b) "Board" means the Board established under Section 4. and as reconstituted from time to time under Section 5A]

(c) "captive animal" means any animal (not being a domestic animal) which is in capacity or confinement, whether permanent or temporary, or which is subjected to any appliance of contrivance for the purpose of hindering or preventing its escape from captivity or confinement or which is pinioned or which is or appears to be. maimed;

a"domestic animal" means any animal which is tamed or which has been or is being sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for the use of man or which, although it neither has been nor is intended to be so tamed, is or has become in fact wholly or partly tamed-,

(e) "local authority" means a municipal committee, district board or other authority for the time being invested by law with the control and administration of any matters within a specified local area;

(f) "owner", used with reference to an animal, includes not only the owner but also any other person for the time being in possession or custody of the animal, whether with or without the consent of the owner.

(g) "phooka" or "doom dev" includes any process of introducing air or any substance into the female organ of a milch animal with the object of drawing off from the animal any secretion of milk;

(h) "prescribed" means prescribed by Rules made under this Act;

(i) "street" includes any way, road, lane, square, court, alley, passage or open space, whether a thoroughfare or not to which the public have access.

3. Duties of persons having charge of animals : It shall be the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.

CHAPTER II

2(ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA)

4. Establishment of Animal Welfare Board of India : (1) For the promotion of animal welfare generally and for the purpose of protecting animals from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, in particular, there shall be established by the Central Government, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, a Board to be called the ³(Animal Board of India.)

CHAPTER III

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS GENERALLY

11. Treating animals cruelly : (1) If any person

(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes, or being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or

(b) ¹³(employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease) infirmity; wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be employed; or

(c) wilfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance to ¹⁴(any animal) or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by ¹⁵(any animal;) or

(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or

(e) keeps or confines any animal in any -cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or

f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or

(g) being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in close confinement; or

(h) being the owner of (any animal) fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or

(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which tender it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation thirst; or

(j) wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner, to go at large in any street, while the animal is affected with contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner, to die in any street; or

(k) offers for sale or without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other illtreatment; or

16{(1) mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections, in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner or;)

17{(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment

(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object or prey for any other animal; or

(n) ¹⁸[xxxx] organises, keeps uses or acts in the management or, any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; or

(o) promotes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting:

he shall be punishable ¹⁹(in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rup6es but which may extend to fifty rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend, to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend, to three months, or with both.]

(2) For the purposes of section (1) an owner shall be deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to the prevention of such offence;

Provided that where an owner is convicted permitting cruelty by reason only of having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to -

(a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or noseroping of any animal in the prescribed manner, or

(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers ²⁰[by such other methods as may be prescribed] or

(d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or

(e) the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

12. Penalty for practising phooka or doom dev : If any persons upon any cow or other milch animal the operation called practising phooka or ²¹[doom dev or any other operation (including injection of any or doom dev. substance) to improve lactation which is injurious to the health of the animal] or permits such operation being performed upon any such animal in his possession or under his control, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with both, and the animal on which the operation was performed shall be forfeited to the Government.

13. Destruction of suffering animals� : (1) Where the owner of an animal is convicted of an offence under section 11, it shall be lawful for the court, if the court is satisfied that it would be cruel to keep the animal alive, to direct that the animal be destroyed and to assign the animals to any suitable person for that purpose, and the person to whom such animal is so assigned shall as soon as possible, destroy such animal or cause such animal to be destroyed in his presence without unnecessary suffering: and any reasonable expense incurred in destroying the animal may be ordered by the court, if the court is satisfied that it would be cruel to keep the animal alive, to direct that the animal be destroyed and to assign the animal to any reasonable expense incurred in destroying the animal mal be ordered by the court to be recovered from the owner as if it were a fine:

Provided that unless the owner assents thereto, no order shall be made under this section except upon the evidence of a veterinary officer in charge of the area.

(2) When any magistrate, commissioner of police or district superintendent of police has reason to believe that an offence under section 11 has been committed in respect of any animal, he may direct the immediate destruction of the animal, if in his opinion, it would be cruel to keep the animal alive.

(3) Any police officer above the rank of a constable or any person authorised by the State Government in this behalf who finds any animal so diseased or so severely injured or in such a physical condition that in his opinion it cannot be removed without cruelty, may, if the owner is absent or refuses his consent to the destruction of the animal, forth with summon the veterinary officer in charge of the area in which the animal is found, and if the veterinary officer certifies that the animal is mortally injured or so severely injured or in such a physical condition that it would be cruel to keep it alive, the police officer or the person authorised, as the case may be, may, after obtaining orders from a magistrate, destroy the animal injured or cause it to be destroyed; ²²(in such manner as may be prescribed)

(4) No appeal shall lie from any order of a magistrate for the destruction of an animal.

CHAPTER IV

EXPERIMENTATION OF ANIMALS

14. Experiments on animals : Nothing contained in this Act shall render unlawful the performance of experiments (including) experiments involving operations) on animals for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants.

19. Power to prohibit experiments on animals : If the Committee is satisfied, on the report of any officer or other person made to it as a result of any inspection under section 18 or otherwise that the rules made by it under section 17 are not being animals the Committee may, after giving an opportunity to the person or institution carrying on experiments on animals; the Committee may, after giving an opportunity to the person or institution of being heard in the matter, by order, prohibit the person or institution from carrying on any such experiments either for a specified period or indefinitely, or may allow the person or institution to carry on such experiments subject to such special conditions as the Committee may think fit to impose.

20. Penalties : If any person-(a) contravenes any order made by the Committee under section 19; or(b) commits a breach of any condition imposed by the Committee under that section: he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, and, when the contravention or breach of condition has taken place in any institution the person in charge of the institution shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be punishable accordingly.

CHAPTER V

PERFORMING ANIMALS

21. "Exhibit" and "train" defined : In this Chapter, " exhibit" means exhibit or any entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets, and "train" means train for the purpose of any such exhibition, and the expressions "exhibitor" and "trainer" have respectively the corresponding meanings.

22. Restriction on exhibition and training of performing animals : No person shall exhibit or train

(i) any performing animal unless he is registered in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter;

(ii) as a performing animal, any animal which the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify as an animal which shall not be exhibited or trained as a performing animal.

23. Procedure for registration : (1) Every person desirous of exhibiting or training any performing animal shall, on making an application in the prescribed form to the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee, be registered under this Act unless he is a person who, by reason of an order made by the court under this Chapter, is not entitled to be so registered.

(2) An application for registration under this Chapter shall contain such particulars as to the animals and as to the general nature of the performances in which the animals are to be exhibited or for which they are to be trained as may be prescribed, and the particulars so given shall be entered in the register maintained by the prescribed authority.

(3) The prescribed authority shall give to every person whose name appears on the register kept by them, a certificate of registration in the prescribed form containing the particulars entered in the register.

(4) Every register kept under this Chapter shall at all reasonable times be open for inspection on payment of the prescribed fee, and any person shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to obtain copies thereof or make extracts therefrom.

(5) Any person whose name is entered in the register shall, subject to the provisions of any order made under this Act by any court, be entitled, on making an application for the purpose, to have the particulars entered in the register with respect to him varied, and where any such particulars are so varied, the existing certificate shall be cancelled and a new certificate issued.

24. Power of court to prohibit or restrict exhibition and training of performing animals : (1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of any magistrate on a complaint made by a police officer or an officer authorised in writing by the prescribed authority referred to in section 23, that the training or exhibition of any performing animals has been accompanied by unnecessary pain or suffering and should be prohibited or allowed only subject to conditions, the court may make an order against the person in respect of whom the complaint is made, prohibiting the training or exhibition or imposing such conditions in relation thereto, as may be specified by the order.

(2) Any court by which an order is made under this section, shall cause a copy of the order to be sent, as soon as may be after the order is made, to the prescribed authority by which the person against whom the order is made is registered, and shall cause the particulars of the order to be endorsed upon the certificate field by the person, and that person shall produce his certificate on being so required by the court for the purposes of endorsement, and the prescribed authority to which a copy of an order is sent under "his section shall enter the particulars of the order in that register;

25. Power to enter premises : (1) Any person authorised in writing by the prescribed authority referred to in section 23 and any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector may

(a) enter at all reasonable times and inspect any premises in which any performing animals are being trained or exhibited or kept for training or exhibition, and any such animals found therein; and

(b) require any person who, he has reason to believe is a trainer or exhibitor of performing animals to produce his certificate of registration,

(2) No person or police officer referred to in sub section (1) shall be entitled under this section to go on or behind the stage during a public performance of performing animals.

26. Offences : If any person -

(a) not being registered under this chapter, exhibits or trains any performing animal; or

(b) being registered under the Act, exhibits or trains any performing animal with respect to which or in a manner with respect to which, he is not registered; or

(c) exhibits or trains as a performing animal, any animal which is not to be used for the purpose by reason of a notification issued under clause (ii) of section 22; or

(d) obstructs or willfully delays any person or police officer referred to in section 25 in the exercise of powers under this Act as to entry and inspection; or

(e) conceals any animal with a view to avoiding such inspection: or

(f) being a person registered under 'the Act, on being duly required in pursuance of this Act to produce his certificate under this Act, fails without reasonable excuse so to do; or

(g) applies to be registered under this Act when not entitled to be so registered,

He shall be punishable on conviction with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with both.

27. Exemptions : Nothing contained in this Chapter shall apply to -

(a) the training of animals for bonafide military or police purpose or the exhibition of any animals so trained; or

(b) any animals kept in any zoological garden or by any society or association which has for its principal object the exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes.

CHAPTER VI

MISCELLANEOUS

28. Saving as respects manner of killing prescribed by religion : Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.

29. Power of court to deprive person convicted of ownership of animal : (1) If the owner of any animal is found guilty of any offence under this Act. the court upon his conviction thereof, may, if it thinks fit, in addition to any other punishment make an order that the animal with respect to which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to Government and may, further, make such order as to the disposal of the animal as it thinks fit under the circumstances.

(2) No order under sub section (1) shall be made unless it is shown by evidence as to a -previous conviction under this Act or as to the character of the owner or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal that the animal if left with the owner, is likely to be exposed to further cruelty.

(3) without prejudice to the provision contained in sub-section (1), the court may also order that a person convicted of an offence under this Act shall, either permanently or during such period as is fixed by the order, be prohibited from having the custody of any animal of any kind whatsoever, or as the court thinks fit of any animal of any kind or species specified in the order.

(4) No order under sub-section (3) shall be made unless

(a) it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction or as to the character of the said person or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal in relation to which he has been convicted that an animal in the custody of the said person is likely to be exposed to cruelty;

(b) it is stated in the complaint upon which the conviction was made that it is the intention of the complaint upon the conviction of the accused to request that an order be made as aforesaid and

(c) the offence for which the conviction was made was committed in an area in which under the law for the time being in force a licence is necessary for the keeping of any such animal as that in respect of which the conviction was made.

(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any person in respect of whom an order is made under sub-section (3) shall have no right to the custody of any animal contrary to the provisions of the order, and if he contravenes the provisions oil any order, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or. with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.

(6) Any court which has made an order under sub-section (3) may at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, rescind or modify such order.

30. Presumptions as to guilt in certain cases : If any person is charged with the offences of killing a goat, cow or its to guilt in progeny contrary to the provisions of clause (1) of sub section (1) or section 11, and it is proved that such person had in his possession, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, the skin of any such animal as is referred to in this section with any the skin of any such animal as is referred to in this section with any part of the skin of the head attached thereto, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that such animal was killed in a cruel manner.

31.Cognizability of offences : Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or Criminal procedure, 1898, (5 of 1898) an offence punishable under clause (1) or clause (n) or clause, (o) of sub-section (1) of section 11 or under section 12 shall be a cognizable offence within the meaning of that code.

32. Powers of search and seizure : (1) If a police officer not below the rank of sub inspector, or any person authorised by the State Government in this behalf has reason to believe that an offence under clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 11 in respect of any such animal as is referred to in section 30 is being, or that any person has in his possession the skin of any such animal with any part of the skin of the head attached thereto, he, may enter and search such place or any place in which he has reason to believe any such skin to be, and may seize such skin or any article or thing used or intended to be used in the commission of such offence.

(2) If a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, or any person authorised by the State Government in this behalf, has reason to believe that phooka or²⁵(doom dev or any other operation of the nature referred to in section 12) has just been or is being, performed on any animal within the limits of his jurisdiction, he may enter any place in which he has reason to believe such animal to be, and may seize the animal and produce it for examination by the veterinary officer incharge of the area in which the animal is seized.

33. Search warrants : (1) If a magistrate of the first or second class or a presidency magistrate or a commissioner of police or district superintendent of police, upon information in writing; and after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that an offence under this Act is being, or is about to be, or has been committed in any place, he may either himself enter and search or by his warrant authorise any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector to enter and search the place.

(2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, relating to searches shall so far as those provision can be made applicable, apply to searches under this Act.

34. General Power of seizure for examination : Any police officer above the rank of a constable or any person authorised seizure for by the State Government in this behalf, who has reason to believe that examination an offence against this Act has been or is being, committed in respect of any animal, may, if in his opinion the circumstances so require, seize the animal and produce the same for examination by the nearest magistrate or by such veterinary officer as may be prescribed; and such police officer or authorised person may, when seizing the animal, require the person in charge thereof to accompany it to the place of examination.

35. Treatment and care of animals : (1) The State Government, may by general or special order appoint infirmaries for the treatment and care of animals in respect of which offences against this Act have been committed, and may authorise the detention therein of any animal pending its production before a magistrate.

(2) The magistrate before whom a prosecution for an offence against this Act has been instituted may direct that the

animals concerned shall be treated and cared for in an infirmary, until it is fit to perform its usual work or is otherwise fit for discharge, or that it shall be sent to a pinjrapole, or if the veterinary officer in charge of the area in which the animal is found or such a veterinary officer as may be authorised in this behalf by rules made under this Act certifies that it is incurable or cannot be removed without cruelty, that it shall be destroyed.

(3) An animal sent for care and treatment to an infirmary shall not, unless the magistrate directs that it shall be sent to a pinjrapole or that it shall be destroyed, be released from such place except upon a certificate of its fitness for discharge issued by the veterinary officer in charge of the area in which the infirmary is situated or such other veterinary officer as may be authorised in this behalf by rules made under this Act.

(4) The cost of transporting the animal to an infirmary or pinjrapole and of its maintenance and treatment in an infirmary, shall be payable by the district magistrate, or, in presidency-towns, by the commissioner of police;

Provided that when the magistrate so orders on account of the poverty of the owner of the animal, no charge shall be payable for the treatment of the animal.

(5) Any amount payable by an owner of an animal under sub-section (4) may be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue,

(6) If the owner refuses or neglects to remove the animal within such time as a magistrate may specify, the magistrate may direct that the animal be sold and that the proceeds of the same be applied to the payment of such cost.

(7) The surplus, if any, of the proceeds of such sale shall, on application made by the owner within two months from the date of the sale be paid to him.

36. Limitation of prosecutions : A prosecution for an offence against this Act shall not be instituted after prosecutions the expiration of three months from the date of the commission of the offence.

37. Delegation of powers : The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that all or any of the powers exercisable by it under this Act, may, subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, be also exercisable by any State Government.

38. Power to make rules : (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Central Government may make rules providing for all or any of the following matters, namely:

(a) the ²⁶(xxxx) conditions of service of members of the Board, the allowances payable to them and the manner in which they may exercise their powers and discharge their functions.

27[(aa) the manner in which the persons to represent municipal corporation are to be elected under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section

(b) the maximum load (including any load occasioned by the weight of passengers) to be carried or drawn by any animal;

(c) the conditions to be observed for preventing the overcrowding of animals; the period during which, and the hours between which, any class of animals shall not be used for draught purposes:

(a) prohibiting the use of any bit or harness involving cruelty to animals;

28[(ea)the other methods of destruction of stray dogs referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 11;

(eb) the methods by which any animal which cannot be removed without cruelty may be destroyed under sub-section (3) of section 13,]

(f) requiring persons carrying on the business of a farrier to be licensed and registered by such authority as may be prescribed and levying a fee for the purpose;

(g) the precautions to be taken in the capture of animals for purposes of sale, export or for any other purpose, and the different appliances or devices that may alone be used for the purpose; and the licensing of such capture and the levying of fees for such licences;

(h) the precautions to be taken in the transport of animals whether by rail, road, inland waterway, sea or air and the manner in which and the cages or other receptacles in which they may be so transported;

(i) requiring person owning or in charge of premises in which animals are kept or milked to register such permises, to comply

with such conditions as may be laid down in relation to the boundary walls or surroundings of such premises, to permit their inspection for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence under this Act is being, or has been committed therein, and to expose in such premises copies of section 12 in a language or languages commonly understood in the locality;

(j) the form in which applications for registration under Chapter V may be made, the particulars to be contained therein the fees payable for such registration and the authorities to whom such applications may be made;

29[ja) the fees which may be charged by the Committee constituted under section 15 for the registration of persons or institutions carrying on experiments on animals or for any other purpose;]

(k) the purposes to which fines realised under the Act may be applied, including such purposes as the maintenance of infirmaries, pinjrapole and veterinary hospitals;

(1) any other matter which has to be, or may be prescribed.

(3) If any person contravenes, or abets the contravention of, any rules made under this section, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.

30[XXXX]

31[38A. Rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament : Every rule made by the Central Government or by the Committee constituted under section 15 and every regulation made. by the Board shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation, as the case may be, should not be made the rule or regulation shall there after have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation.]

39. Persons authorized under section 34 to be public servants : Every person authorized by the State Government under section 34 shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal code.

40. Indemnity : No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person who is, or who is deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of anything in good faith done or intended to be done under

this Act.

State Prevention of Cow slaughter & Cattle preservation Laws

Derogatory directive by the central government to the state governments.

1. Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act ,1977.

2. Assam Cattle Preservation act, 1950 (13 of 1951)

3. Bihar Preservation and improvement of Animals Act 1955(amended by Bihar Act no 59 of 1982)

4. Chhattisgarh Krishik Pashu Sanrakshan Adhiniyam ,2004.

5. Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act 1994.

6. Goa,Daman and Div Prevention of Cow Slaughter act,1978 and Goa Animal Preservation Act, 1995

7. Gujarat: Bombay animal Preservation Act,1954 (amended up to date)

8. Haryana, Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act ,1955, applicable with certain amendments.

9. Himachal Pradesh: Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act 1955, applicable.

10. Jammu and Kashmir: ranbir penal code, samvat 1989 and J& Rules pertaining to exportation of bovine animals

11. Jharkhand Govanshiya Pashu Hatya Pratishesh Adhiniyam, 2005

12. Karnataka Prevention of Cow slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964

13. Madhya Pradesh Govansh, Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004.

14. Maharashta Animal Preservation Act 1976 amendment ON25^th may 1992.

15. Manipur of Cow Killing

16. Nagaland of Armed Police Act

17. Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960

18. Pondicherry Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1968.

19. Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act 1955.

20. Rajashthan Bovine Animal prohibition of slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export Act,1995

21. Tamilnadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958

22. Utter Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 ( amended by amendment act of 2002)

23. Uttarakhand Protection of Cowprogeny Act 2007

24. West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1995

NO TO SLAUGHTER HOUSE

There are thousands of illegal slaughter houses functioning in our country and still Planning Commission has granted thousands of Crores of Rupees for mechanized Slaughter Houses in whole country.This issue needs mindful decision but unknowingly animal lovers are taken to war path to stop these installations. We faced the same situation in Mysore and were able to stop the process. In the following Representation we have tried to cover Legal, Economical, Environmental and all related issues.

This Draft can be circulated and may be helpful in saving precious animal lives.

Draft RepresentationSub: Objections on Mysore City Corporation intention of Construction of new Slaughter House for small and Big animals Ref: Your office advertisement and Letter No. 135/2002-03 ,Meeting held on & letter No. C-2/TR/153/2002-03 regarding Mysore City Corporation’s ANIMALS AT NORTHERN OUT FALL OF KHESERE

Dear sir

Greetings to you

Reference your office letter cited above, we submitted our objectionsvide our letter Dt. & highlighted the same during the meeting called byTax, Finance and Appeal Standing Committee on We are in receipt of your circular letter No. C-2/TR/153/2002-03calling the objections Again in writing. We have submitted our objections vide our letter and again draw your kind attention here as under:-

Akhil Karnataka GauRaksha Sangh ® a is a Registered NGO functioning on State level for the public cause of CATTLE SAFETY & ILLEGAL AND CRUEL KILLING OF SPEECHLESS ANIMALS.

We understand that Corporation in not keen to establish a SLAUGHTERHOUSE but proceeding due to following reasons:
1. As per Karnataka Municipally Act, 1964 it is the duty of CORPORATION to provide the amenities(Sec 244 Opening, closing and letting of markets and slaughter houses.)(1) The municipal council may,from time to time, open or close any public market or slaughter house. It may also either take stallage or other rents or fees for the use by any person of any such market or slaughter house or from time time sell by public auction or otherwise the privilege of occupying any stall or space in, or otherwise using any such market or slaughter house, and levy fees on any animal slaughter house for purpose of consumption.)

2. On the basis of DIRECTIONS issued by Hon’ble High CourtKarnataka and to avoid Contempt proceedings in the WP. filled by Mysore City Butchers Association.

3.To utilize the State &Central Government Grant.

We don’t see any other reason as per the information provided by you vide your letter DT. In AGENDA 254 to Worshipful Mayor, Members & Officials of Mysore City Corporation.These are the fit reasons for proceeding for establishment of a SLAUGHTER HOUSE. Though we don’t have the complete information about the case filed by the Association nor the reply and information submitted by the Corporation Our observation on the subject is very clear that this issue has not been handled properly, nor Hon’ble High Court was supplied with proper information, nor public was informed. But on the basis of above information, following questions arises in our mind.
Q.1 Mysore City Butcher Association is claiming that they are in the Slaughter Trade.
R.1 Whether the credentials of so called Butchers Associations members have been checked and their claim has been judiciously examined?

If yes, what is their turnover and number of Big Animals slaughtered by them before & after approaching the Honorable Court in last 20 year

Q. 2 How many pre-mortem and postmortem has been cone by Corporation Health officials.?

R.2 As per figures given in live Stock census thee their claim for a Slaughterhouse is wrong.

Q.3 Whether requirement of Meat has been assessed?R.3 To best of our knowledge majority of Mysore citizen are vegetarian and they don’t like animal particularly cow and its progeny to be slaughtered.

Q.4 What Capacity Slaughter house is under planning?

R.4 When there is neither much requirement nor availability, then it is very clear that are proceeding for a Modern Slaughterhouse in Mysore not to cater the Mysore requirement but to provide business opportunity to a particular group with Taxpayers money. It is not the clear violation of provisions of Karnataka Municipality Act.?

Q.5 Whether availability of Raw material has been assessed?

R.5 Live Stock (cattle) is listed as Schedule item in Karnataka Agro Marketing Act Regularizing the whole trade and as per records of APMC Yards in Mysore District not a single transaction has taken place for slaughtering purpose. It very clearly shows that there is not big animal available as raw material for above proposed slaughterhouse.

Q.6 Whether the running cost has been worked out?

R.6 As a business project also, providing a slaughterhouse is not a profitable proposition. Already Mysore City Corporation has burnt its fingers Two times with millions of Rupees. Nor it is the job of city Corporation and other concerned departments as per prevailing Acts & Rules.

Q.7 Whether the local area population of proposed site was suitably informed?
R.7 City Corporation advertisement regarding proposed slaughterhouse is not with full details. It don’t have Key plan and site plan nor any indication mark or board has been displayed at the proposed site nor quantum of land to be used to be used for the purpose has been informed. We don’t know why.?

Q.8 Whether the role of city Corporation has been assessed as per provisions of Karnataka Municipality Act along with other Central & State Government Acts& Rules?
R.8 There are so many other Act & Rules which will be governing the smooth running of a laughter house . :Like:

· UNION GEVERMENT ACTS AND RULES:-

· INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860-

· CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973-

· MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988-

· PREVENTION OF CRULETY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960. AND

· REGULATIOON (SPCA) RULES 2001-

· TRANSPORT OF CATTLE RULES, 1965-

· ESTABLISHMENT P.C.A (TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS ON FOOT) RULES 2001

· PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER HOUSE) RULE,2001-

· KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT ACT RULES AND DIRECTIONS

· KARNATAKA AGRO MARKETING (CONTROL) ACT,1966-

· KARNATKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964

· The Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter & Cattle Preservation Act , 1964

· The Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter & Cattle Preservation Rules, 1967

· Meat less DAYS IN KARNATAKA

· KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL ACT- FACTORIES ACT ETC.

· Decision of Hon. Supreme Court of India in Sri Lakshmi Narayan Modi V/s GOI & Others

· 7 Judges Div. Bench Of Sup. Court of India order by CJ RC Lahoti

Q.9 Whether Other Directions of Karnataka High Court has been carries?

R.9 No. Even Directions given by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka are not being followed. Copy of order is he as under

IN THE KARNTAKA HIGH COURT, BANGALORE WRIT PETITION NO. 9344/99 DATED THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 1999. PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICETHE HON’BLE JUSTICE A.M. FAROOQ)

The Akhil Karnataka Prani Daya Sangha®-

Secretary to Govt. Home Dept Karnataka By Hon. President Sri C.M. Goenka Director Generalof Police in Karnataka(Sri H.K. Rama Chandra Adv.) Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City
-petitioner The Commissioner, Corporation of Bang alore, Secretary to Govt., Animal Husbandry De p t Respondents

Whereas a Writ Petition files by the above named petitioner under Aricle 226 of the Constitution of India, has been registered by this Court. After hearing the Court made the following:-

ORDER :

There shall be stay of Slaughtering of Cows, Claves and she Buffaloes. Counter in three weeks Copy of the order be given to the learned counsel today.

All above questions are answered. We request you to approach the real ground level situation and get the order rectified in light of earlier experience faced by the Corporation where even a single tender was not received, nor the pollution Control Board Corporation could be met out and big public opposition was faced.

Comments to be considered before investing hard earned public money

1. Sir, Erstwhile Mysore State was merged with Union of India with understanding between Maharaja of Mysore & Government of India that there will be absolute ban on cow laughter. Government of Karnataka enacted Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and cattle preservation Act. 1964 imposing absolute ban on slaughter of Cow, Calves and She Buffalo and He cow and he buffalo below 12 year of age. It clearly restrict then installation of Slaughter house for BIG ANIMALS.

2. People of Mysore are aggrieved by the proposal of Corporation to shift the existing/establish official Slaughter house at kaisere North. Very recently Mysore City Corporation to started slaughter house very near and in the same vicinity which attracted a big public agitation and Corporation had no other OPTION except to close the same. Was it not sear waste of public money? If the slaughter house is not required by Mysore Citizen and than why it shall be imposed on them only to satify some greedy flash traders.

3. The present scenario in our City is that scores of illegal, unregulated, unhygienic Slaughterhouses are functioning under the knowledge and nose of Mysore City Corporation. Illegal, unlicensed meat shops, supplying unhygienic meat, highly injurious to health can be seen in whole city. Since many years, we have raised this issue with your predecessors, Worshipful Mayors, Dy. Commissioners, police commissioners and officials of Animal Husbandry & Vet. Services Dept

4. Commissioner, Mysore had issued directions vide order No. 237:2001-2002, for the action and cracking down on the these illegal SLAUGHTERN HOUSES. We are unable to understand that instead of cracking down on these illegal activities why the CORPORATION is proposing to start a NEW Slaughter house. This concern and difficult and sickening condition of the people near the proposed Slaughter house.

5. It is beyond doubt that majority population of our city is compassionate with Speechless animals and do not require a killing place and particularly with precious public money. All the religions have preached the compassion and not the killing and Cruelty to gods creation.

6. Constitution of India has very clearly put as under;51-A fundamental Duties improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers & wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Directive principle of State Policy Article 48 Organization of Agriculture & Animal Husbandry on modern and scientific lines and in particular the take steps preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows. Calves and other milking animals.

7. in Indian penal Code sec.47 defines animal denotes any leaving creature other than an human being and sec.429. declares that Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc of any value or any animal of the of 50 Rupees:- shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine, or with both.

8. The scenario of a Slaughter house is described as where the healthy animals are brought in Trucks in most cruel manner and thrown in death wells. They are kept hungry without fodder and water for several days so that hemoglobin be absorbed in whole body. The weak cattle is pulled near the machine.200 D.D. boiled water is sprayed on whole body the chain pulls the animal and hang to a shaft the its

9. back legs After the skin is removed its neck is half cut for bleeding & to collect the blood. A hole is made in the stomach to fill it with air to remove the skin. Then its neck, leg, body and bones are separated and packed beef containers received. Such a unholy, most cruel process is excess loading, whereas why we want to proceed for a organized crime?

10. Our nation is known for Great Gautam Budh, Mahaveer Swami ji,Mahatma Gandhi ji, Lord Krishna who have given the message of Love & Compassion to all and not the cruel killing of speechless animals.

11. Government of India has enacted Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. An act to Prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. Be it enacted by Parliament in the eleventh Year of the Republic of India. The slaughter of any animal in the sight of another animal has been included in the description of ruelty for purposes of punishment. Prevention of cruelty to animals (slaughter house) Rule 2001 Gazette Under Section 38(1) & (2) of Prevention of cruelty to animals Act, 1960 to regulate Slaughter houses in the country.

12. Even the sacrifice for religious purpose has banned as per KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF ANIMAL SACRIFICES ACT 1959. An act to prevent animal sacrifices in or within the precincts of any place of public religious worship or adoration and in the State of Karnataka.

13. It is beyond doubt that majority population of our city is compassionate with Speechless animals and do not require a killing place and particularly with precious public money. This concern can not be

14. termed as imaginary and is genuine and real, for the simple reason and fact that this concern and difficult and sickening conditions of the people near the slaughter house.

15. Even action against public wish and sentiments may attract the provisions of I.P.C. Sec.,153. That “whoever-(a) by words either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise promoters or attempts to promote caste or any other ground whatsoever,

16. disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, social, language or regional groups of caste, or communities, or (b) Commits any act, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony disturbs or is likely to disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility. It is certain that different actions of slaughtering animal carriage, disposal etc do attract all above provisions. At least City Corporations shall not become the party to such act.

17. In our view, people in any area have independent right to oppose a move, which they consider nuisance, obnoxious, illegal or outrageous to cultural Ethos and to seek injunctions . We challenge the legality of the unregulated slaughtering permitted by STATE in the public Slaughterhouses, and questions it, also from the Environmental and cultural point of view, and thus opposes the setting up of shifting of a slaughter house at their doorstep. Even planning Commission of Government of India has turned down the proposal of the opening of slaughter houses. It can not be lost sight of that the new slaughterhouse at Kasaire will face the similar problem as are as faced last year in the same are.

18. As for the grounds of public nuisance and pollution etc. there is now little doubt or controversy, as is also evidenced by present conditions every where. Following statement in the Annual Report (1989-90) of the Department of Agricultural and Cooperation, Government of India at page 97 amounts to be an admission on the question of threat to people outside Slaughterhouses. There are more that 30000 slaughterhouses in the country, majority of which are outdated, unrecognized with sub standard hygienic facilities, causing risk to the health of persons working in abattoirs, millions of meat eaters and a pollution problem to about 100 million population living in the neighborhood if abattoirs.” A question may be asked “ is the above statement of Government not sufficient for closing down of even existing slaughterhouse in the interest of health of the citizen.” In no conditions and circumstances in which alone animals could be destroyed for ‘food’ this is suggested so that GREED BASED economic ambition linked killing and killing otherwise for whatsoever trade etc, are replaced by NEED BASED killings. In a manner which is consistent with the harmonious coexistence of man and animal kingdom, as both are mutually interdependent in environment rather thanindependent. Much of the killings today are in the NAME OF FOOD for taste etc: rather than SAKE OF FOOD.

19. Requirement of the day is necessity of sufficient green pastures and grazing grounds for livestock animals in city/town planning process, so that cattle rearing practices do not die, and distress sales are avoided. This suggestion is also with an objective that sufficient milk is made available to the poorest of poor locally to maintain national health

20. We must have a view to contain unnecessary damage to resources, consider Environmentally Destructive practices to determine from time on continuing basis the nature of various trade and other practices today, by drawing a critical or threshold line will become destructive of environment tomorrow. In a democratic society with fundamental right of freedom of trade and occupation with no legal controls on expanding population, the finite resources and infinite needs are to be constantly regulated to maintain balance.

21. At what point of time, for example, the use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides or insecticides or insecticides. Plastics etc, may start having irreversible effect on soil, egetation or other creatures or bio-organisms, need to be constantly monitored on the basis of scientific knowledge, facts and other materials, todetermine the regulations etc. Likewise at what point of time, eg. The freedom of speech and expression and freedom of circulation, when exercised as a trade for business or profit aims, by multiplication of new titles on various subjects may start having a demand to be met by illegal felling of trees, in number more than what could be grown, are to be watched.

22. The examples are only illustrative. We have to provide compassion towards living creatures, as also in keeping with India’s Culture and Civilizations of living in harmony with all living beings in Nature: our culture and tradition of love and respect for animal life: and clear necessity to protect and preserve livestock wealth: and hall take steps with a sense of urgency to regulate the State promoed massive killings of animals for export of meat, obtained by slaughtering of animals.

23. Having given careful thought and consideration to Constitutional obligations as already discussed, in the prevailing scenario of entirely unregulated freedom of killing animals for greed based economic ambition of few unwittingly promoted by State for small monetary gain, by its permitting killing of animal for export of meat, and other mentioned reasons, resulting in killing of animals, with potentially environmentally destructive dimensions: And taking serious note of enormous silence of different Union and State Departments, when they had an inescapable duty, to share concern for animal life general, and loss of livestock population in particular, in the Slaughterhouses.

24. In case Corporation will process for the same, it well be treated most disastrous decision in the history and will be a big loss of reputation and public money and also.

Under the circumstances, we request you, Mysore City Corporation & Government of Karnataka to drop the idea of SLAUGHTER HOUSE in total for ever and crack down on illegal slaughter places and MEAT shops in full vigor, in the interest of health, hygiene, revenue generation and compassion to Speechless animals.

We will be glad to furnish further information, if any desired by you and will be glad to participate in hearing, if fixed. For further discussion in the matter, please

With great hopes and warm regards
Yours in service to speechless animals

DR. SK MITTAL

B.Com (Hons) LLM. Ph.D

Reference Case Law

No slaughter on Bakar idd day The Supreme Court of India (Civil appellate Jurisdiction) AIR 1995 S.C.464 Civil Appeal No. 6790 of 1983 with Civil Appeal No,6791,6793&6794 of 1983 dated 16.11.1996

Section 154(1) Cr.P.C on F.I.R. recording Mandatory for Police Officer (1992) Supp (1)Supreme Court Cases 335 Civil Appeal No.5412 of 1990 decided on 21.11.1990

Section 301: Cr.PC Local standi of Volunteers & Volunteer organizations upheld (Cr. Misc. Case No. 25 of 1996 . Balgangadhar Tirpathi & others Vs State of UP &others Allahabad Highcourt Lacknow bench judgement Dt.19.1.1996

Section 153 A Allahabad High Court Civil Side original jurisdiction Crml. Writ Petition no.116 of 2001 J. GPMathur & J. SK. Jain

Section 451 Cr.P.C. Interim Custody of Cattle should be given to organizations engaged in preservation of Cattle such as Goshala, Gosadan,Panjrapole AND Maintenance Charge be paid by the accused claiming ownership of the Cattle. Crl. Revesion No.70 of 1996 of Allahabad High Court Lacknow bench. Judgement Dt.25.4.1996

· Supereme Court of India order Dt.30.1.1991 Deviprasad Misra Vs UP &others Crnl. Appeal No.68-78 of 1991

Interim Custody of Cattle Andhrapradesh High Court Crml.LJ 2195 /1992 Akhil BHARAT Krishi Seva Sangh Vs State of AP

1988 Maharastra Law Journal, 293 Actg.CJ C.S. Dharmadhikari Mumbai Highcourt

Allahabad Highcourt Crml. Revision no. 1609 of 1994

Supereme Court of India Crml. Appellate Jurisdiction Crml.Appeal Nos. 283-287/2002 juatice GB Pattanaik, Brijesh kumar

Justice R.C. Lahoti ‘s famous judgement on Cow Slaughter

The Supreme Court of India Stay of Slaughtering of Cow, Calves & She buffaloes Karnataka High Court Writ Petition No. 9344/99 Dt. 25.3.1999 CJ A.M. Farook SUPREME COURT’S ORDER CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4937-4940 of 1998 PETITIONER: State of Gujarat RESPONDENT:

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/10/2005

BENCH:CJI R.C. LAHOTI, B.N.AGRAWAL, ARUNKUMAR,G.P.MATHUR,C.K.THAKKER, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4941-44 of 1998

Shree Ahimsa Army Manav Kalyan Jeev Daya Charitable Trust Appellant Versus Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, Ahmedabad & Ors. Respondents and CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4945 of 1998 Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh Appellant Versus Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab amat, Ahmedabad & Ors. Respondents

R.C. LAHOTI, CJI

Section 2 of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994) which introduced certain amendments in Section 5 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (as applicable to the State of Gujarat) has been struck down as ultra vires the Constitution by the High Court of Gujarat. These three sets of appeals by special leave have been filed there against. A chain of events, legislative and judicial, lead to the impugned enactment. To appreciate the core issue arising for decision in these appeals and also the constitutional questions arising therein, it will be useful to set out the preceding events in their chronological order.

PART - I Backdrop of Events \Legislative history leading to impugned enactment

With a view to conserve the cattle wealth of the State of Bombay, the State Government enacted the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1948 and prohibited slaughter of animals which were useful for milch, breeding or agricultural purposes. This Act was substituted by the Bombay Animal Preservation Act of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act'). The provisions relevant for our purpose are contained in Sections 5 and 6. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 5 and Section 6 are extracted and reproduced hereunder :

"5. (1) Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any animal unless, he has obtained in respect of such animal a certificate in writing from the Competent Authority appointed for the area that the animal is fit for slaughter.

(2) No certificate shall be granted under sub-section (1), if in the opinion of the Competent Authority

(a) the animal, whether male or female, is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural operations;

(b) the animal, if male, is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of breeding;

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the slaughter of any animal above the age of fifteen years for bona-fide religious purposes : Provided that a certificate in writing for such slaughter has been obtained from the Competent Authority.

(4)xxxxxxxxx 5)xxxxxxxxx(6) xxxxxxxxx

6. No animal in respect of which a certificate has been issued under section 5 shall be slaughtered in any place other than a place specified by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf."

The Preamble to the Act stated "WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the preservation of animals suitable for milch, breeding or for agricultural purposes; It is hereby enacted as follows:-"

The Statement of Objects and Reasons stated inter alia "It is now proposed to repeal the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1948 and to undertake fresh legislation, on the basis of a model bill recommended by the Government of India, in order to stamp out slaughter in unauthorized places and abetment of offences which were not covered by the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1948".

The State of Gujarat was formed in the year 1960. Gujarat Legislature enacted The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 whereby the Bombay Act was extended to the State of Gujarat in order to achieve uniformity in law in different parts of the State with regard to this subject. The Saurashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1956 which was applicable to that part of Gujarat which formed part of erstwhile State of Saurashtra was repealed. Apart from extending the Bombay Act, Section 5 of the Bombay Act, which was called 'the principal Act' in the Gujarat Act of 1961, was also amended by Section 4 thereof which reads as under:

4.Amendment of Section 5 of Bombay LXXII of 1954.- In section 5 of the principal Act, -

(1)After sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely :-

"(1A) No certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in respect of a cow.";

(2)in sub-section (2), for the words "No certificate" the words, brackets, figure and letter "In respect of an animal to which sub-section (1A) does not apply, no certificate" shall be substituted;

(3)in sub-section (3), for the words "religious purposes" the words, "religious purposes, if such animal is not a cow" shall be substituted.

The above Act was assented to by the Governor on the 1st May, 1961 which was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette, Extraordinary, Part IV, dated May 6, 1961. The objects of such extension were mainly two : (i) to achieve uniformity in law in different parts of the State; and (ii) to impose a ban on cow slaughter. The amendment introduced by Section 4 of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 indicates that slaughter of cow was totally banned. In 1979, the Gujarat Legislature enacted the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1979 to further amend the Bombay Act. Section 2 of this Act is relevant which is

extracted and reproduced hereunder:

2. Amendment of section 5 of Bom. LXXII of 1954._ In the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, Bom. LXXII of 1954, (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), in section 5,__

(1) for sub-section (1A), the following shall be substituted, namely:__"(1A) No certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in respect of __

(a) a cow;

(b) the calf of a cow, whether male or female and if male, whether castrated or not;

(d) a bullock below the age of sixteen years";

(2) for sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:__

"(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to __

(a) the slaughter of any of the following animals for such bona fide religious purposes, as may be prescribed, namely:__

(i) any animal above the age of fifteen years other than a cow, bull or bullock;

(ii) a bull above the age of fifteen years;

(iii) a bullock above the age of fifteen years;(b) the slaughter of any animal not being a cow or a calf of a cow, on such religious days as may be prescribed. Provided that a certificate in writing for the slaughter referred to in clause (a) or (b) has been obtained from the Competent Authority."

The Act was preceded by an Ordinance, a reference to which is not necessary. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act are stated as under:

"Under the existing provisions of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, although there is a total prohibition against the slaughter of a cow, the slaughter of progeny of a cow, that is to say bulls, bullocks and calves is prohibited, like that of other bovines only if they are useful or likely to become useful for the purposes of draught, agricultural operations, breeding, giving milk or bearing off spring. In order to give effect to the policy of the Government towards further securing the directive principle laid down in article 48 of the Constitution namely prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle, it was considered necessary to impose a total prohibition against slaughter of the aforesaid progeny of a cow below the age of eighteen years as they are useful for the aforesaid purposes"

The above-said Act was assented to by the Governor on 16th October 1979. The Act was given retrospective effect by sub-section (2) of Section 1 thereof, which provided that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 28th November, 1978.

Digressing a little from the narration of legislative development, here itself we may indicate that the constitutional validity of the above amendment introduced by the Gujarat Legislature into the Bombay Act was put in issue and came to be dealt with initially by the Gujarat High Court and then this Court by a Constitution Bench in Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi and Others v. State of Gujarat, (1986) 3 SCC 12. The Gujarat High Court turned down the challenge and the decision of the Gujarat High Court was upheld by this Court. We will revert back to this decision a little later.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 Act which reads as under:

2. In the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), in section 5, -(1) in sub-section (1A), for clauses (c) and (d), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely :-"(c) a bull;(d) a bullock.";(2) in sub-section (3), -(i) in clause (a), sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) shall be deleted;(ii) in clause (b), after the words "calf of a cow", the words "bull or bullock" shall be inserted."

The Act was preceded by an Ordinance, a reference to the provisions whereof is unnecessary. The Preamble to the Act reads as under:"WHEREAS it is established that cow and her progeny sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet;AND WHEREAS the working bullocks are indispensable for our agriculture for they supply power more than any other animal;AND WHEREAS the working bullocks are often useful in ploughing the fields, drawal of water from the wells and also very useful for drawing carts for transporting grains and fodders from the fields to the residences of farmers as well as to the Agricultural Market Yards;AND WHEREAS the dung of the animal is cheaper than the artificial manures and extremely useful for production of bio-gas; AND WHEREAS it is established that the back-bone of Indian agriculture is, in a manner of speaking the cow and her progeny and have, on their back, the whole structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system;

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in articles 47, 48 and in clauses (b) and (c) of articles 39 of the Constitution of India and to protect, preserve and sustain cow and its progeny;"The Statement of Objects and Reasons and the facts set out therein are of relevance and significance and hence are reproduced hereunder:"The existing provisions of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 provides for prohibition against the slaughter of cow, calf of a cow, and the bulls and bullocks below the age of sixteen years. It is an established fact that the cow and her progeny sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet. The economy of the State of Gujarat is still predominantly agricultural. In the agricultural sector, use of animals for milch, draught, breeding or agricultural purposes has great importance. It has, therefore, become necessary to emphasise preservation and protection of agricultural animals likebulls and bullocks. With the growing adoption of non-conventional energy sources like biogas plants, even waste material have come to assume considerable value. After the cattlecease to breed or are too old to do work, they still continue to give dung for fuel, manure and bio-gas, and therefore, they cannot be said to be useless. It is well established that the backbone of Indian agriculture is, in a manner of speaking, the cow and her progeny and have on their back, the whole structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system. In order to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in articles 47, 48 and clause (b) and (c) of article 39 of the Constitution of India, it was considered necessary also to impose totalprohibition against slaughter of progeny of cow. As the Gujarat Legislative Assembly was not in session the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 to amend the said Act was promulgated to achieve the aforesaid object in the interest of general public. This Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance by an Act of the State Legislature."The Challenge to the Constitutional Validity

The constitutional validity of the above said legislation, that is, the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 was put in issue by four writ petitions filed in the High Court which were heard and disposed of by a common judgmentdated April 16, 1998. Two of the writ petitions were filed by individuals who were butchers by profession, and are known as Kureshis. Two writ petitions were filed by the representative bodies of Kureshis. Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh sought for intervention before the High Court and was allowed to be impleaded as a party-respondent in the writ petitions. Hinsa Virodhak Sangh, Jivan Jagruti Trust and Gujarat Prantiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha also sought for intervention and they were also allowed to be impleaded by the High Court as party-respondents in the writ petitions. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and struck down the impugned legislation as ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court held that the Amendment Act imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights and therefore, it was ultra vires the Constitution. The effect of the judgment of the High Court as summed up by the learned Judges would be that there would not be a total ban on the slaughter of bulls or bullocks above the age of 16 years; in other words animals could be slaughtered consistently with the provisions of the parent Act as it stood prior to the amendment brought in by Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, the State of Gujarat and Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh have filed these appeals. Shree Ahimsa Army Manav Kalyan Jeev Daya Charitable Trust, a Public Trust has filed an appeal by special leave, seeking leave of this Court to file the appeal, which has been granted.

On 17.2.2005, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, before which the appeals came up for hearing directed the matter to be placed for hearing before a Constitution Bench in the following terms of the order : "Parties to these appeals agree that the issue involved in these appeals requires interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of India especially in regard to the status of Directive Principles vis-`-vis the Fundamental Rights as well as the effect of introduction of Articles 31C and 51A in the Constitution.Therefore, in view of Article 145(3) of the Constitution, we think it appropriate that this matter should be heard by a Bench of at least 5 Judges."

On 19.7.2005, the Constitution Bench which heard the matter referred it to a Bench of seven Judges on an opinion that certain prior decisions of this Court by Constitution Benches might call for reconsideration. This is how the matter came to be heard by this Bench.

We have heard Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee and Shri S.K. Dholakia, Senior Advocates who led the submissions made on behalf of the appellants in the three sets of appeals. We have also heard Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate and Shri Ramesh P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, who led the arguments on behalf of the respondents (writ petitioners in High Court) in the several appeals. Before we notice and deal with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the respondents, it will be useful to set out and deal with some of the decisions delivered by this Court which have been relied on by the High Court in its impugned judgment, and on which implicit and forceful reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel for the respondents in support of the judgment of the High Court.Relevant Decisions of this Court The most important and leading decision is Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1959 SCR 629 (hereinafter referred to as 'Quareshi-I'). We propose to deal with this case somewhat in detail.

Three legislative enactments banning the slaughter of certain animals were passed respectively by the States of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In Bihar, the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1956 (Bihar Act II of 1956) was introduced which imposed a total ban on the slaughter of all categories of animals belonging to the species of bovine cattle. In Uttar Pradesh, the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act I of 1956) was enacted which also imposed a total ban on the slaughter of cows and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and cows. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, it was the C.P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act (Act LII of 1949) which was amended and applied. It imposed a total ban on the slaughter of cows and female calf of a cow. The male calf of a cow, bull, bullock, buffalo (male or female, adult or calf) could be slaughtered only on obtaining a certificate. The bans, as imposed by the three legislations were the subject matter of controversy.

The challenge to the constitutional validity of the three legislations was founded on the following three grounds, as was dealt with in the judgment : (i) that the total ban offended the religion of the Muslims as the sacrifice of a cow on a particular day is enjoined or sanctioned by Islam; (ii) that such ban offended the fundamental right guaranteed to the Kasais (Butchers) under Article 19(1)(g) and was not a reasonable and valid restriction on their right; and (iii) that a total ban was not in the interest of the general public. On behalf of the States, heavy reliance was placed on Article 48 of the Constitution to which the writ petitioners responded that under Article 37 the Directive Principles were not enforceable by any court of law and, therefore, Article 48 had no relevance for the purpose of determining the constitutional validity of the impugned legislations which were alleged to be violative of the fundamental rights of the writ petitioners.

Dealing with the challenge to the constitutional validity of the legislations, their Lordships reiterated the well accepted proposition based on several pronouncements of this Court that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that the burden lies upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. The legislative wisdom as expressed in the impugned enactment can be pressed into service to support the presumption. Chief Justice S.R. Das spoke for the Constitution Bench and held :- (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male or female, was quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the Directive Principles laid down in Article 48; (ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are capable of being used as milch or draught cattle was also reasonable and valid; and (iii) that a total ban on slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they ceased to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals could not be supported as reasonable in the interests of the general public and was invalid.

The first ground of challenge was simply turned down due to the meagre materials placed before their Lordships and the bald allegations and denials made by the parties. No one specially competent to expound the religious tenets of Islam filed any affidavit and no reference was made to any particular Surah of the Holy Quran which, in terms, requires the sacrifice of a cow. It was noticed that many Muslims do not sacrifice cow on the BakrI'd day. Their Lordships stated, inter alia :- "It is part of the known history of India that the Moghul Emperor Babar saw the wisdom of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humayun to follow this example. Similarly Emperors Akbar, Jehangir, and Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter. Nawab Hyder Ali of Mysore made cow slaughter an offence punishable with the cutting of the hands of the offenders. Three of the members of the Gosamvardhan Enquiry Committee set up by the Uttar Pradesh Government in 1953 were Muslims and concurred in the unanimousrecommendation for total ban on slaughter of cows. We have, however, no material on the record before us which will enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing facts, that the sacrifice of a cow on that day is an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. In the premises, it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners." (p.651)

In State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashutosh Lahiri, (1995) 1 SCC 189, this Court has noted that sacrifice of any animal by muslims for the religious purpose on BakrI'd does not include slaughtering of cow as the only way of carrying out that sacrifice. Slaughtering of cow on BakrI'd is neither essential to nor necessarily required as part of the religious ceremony. An optional religious practice is not covered by Article 25(1). On the contrary, it is common knowledge that cow and its progeny, i.e., bull, bullocks and calves are worshipped by Hindus on specified days during Diwali and other festivals like Makr-Sankranti and Gopashtmi. A good number of temples are to be found where the statue of 'Nandi' or 'Bull' is regularly worshipped. However, we do not propose to delve further into the question as we must state, in all fairness to the learned counsel for the parties, that no one has tried to build any argument either in defence or in opposition to the judgment appealed against by placing reliance on religion or Article 25 of the Constitution.

Dealing with the challenge founded on Article 14 of the Constitution, their Lordships reiterated the twin tests on the anvil of which the reasonability of classification for the purposeof legislation has to be tested, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question (p.652). Applying the twin tests to the facts of the cases before them, their Lordships held that it was quite clear that the objects sought to be achieved by the impugned Acts were the preservation, protection and improvement of livestocks. Cows, bulls, bullocks and calves of cows are no doubt the most important cattle for the agricultural economy of this country. Female buffaloes yield a large quantity of milk and are,therefore, well looked after and do not need as much protection as cows yielding a small quantity of milk require. As draught cattle, male buffaloes are not half as useful as bullocks. Sheep and goat give very little milk compared to the cows and the female buffaloes and have practically no utility as draught animals. These different categories of animals being susceptible of classification into separate groups on the basis of their usefulness to society, the butchers who kill each category may also be placed in distinct classes according to the effect produced on society by the carrying on of their respective occupations (p. 653). Their Lordships added :-"The attainment of these objectives may well necessitate that the slaughterers of cattle should be dealt with more stringently than the slaughterers of, say, goats and sheep. The impugned Acts, therefore, have adopted a classification on sound and intelligible basis and can quite clearly stand the test laid down in the decisions of this Court. Whatever objections there may be against the validity of the impugned Acts the denial of equal protection of the laws does not, prima facie, appear to us to be one of them. In any case, bearing in mind the presumption of constitutionality attaching to all enactments founded on the recognition by the court of the fact that the legislature correctly appreciates the needs of its own people there appears to be no escape from the conclusion that the petitioners have not discharged the onus that was on them and the challenge under Article 14 cannot, therefore, prevail." (p. 653)

The challenge to the constitutional validity founded under

Article 14 was clearly and in no unmistaken terms turned down.The third contention, that is, whether the "total prohibition" could be sustained as a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the butchers to slaughter animals of their liking or in which they were trading, was dealt with in great detail. This is the aspect of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Quareshi-I which, in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, was not correctly decided and, therefore, calls for reconsideration. The question was dealt with by their Lordships from very many angles. Whether the restrictions permissible under clause (6) of Article 19 may extend to "total prohibition" ___ was treated by their Lordships as a vexed question and was left open without expressing any final opinion as their Lordships chose to concentrate on the issue as to whether the restriction was at all reasonable in the interests of the general public, de hors the fact whether it could be held to be partial or total. Their Lordships referred to a lot of documentary evidence which was produced before them, such as (i) the figures of 1951 Animals' Census; (ii) Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India issued by the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Ministry of Goods and Agriculture, Government of India, 1956; and (iii) the figures given in the First and Second Five Years Plans and so on. Their Lordships concluded that if the purpose of sustaining the health of the nation by the usefulness of the cow and her progeny was achieved by the impugned enactments the restriction imposed thereby could be held to be reasonable in the interest of the general public.

Their Lordships referred to other documents as well. The findings of fact arrived at, based on such evidence may briefly be summed up. In the opinion of their Lordships, cow progeny ceased to be useful as a draught cattle after a certain age and they, although useful otherwise, became a burden on the limited fodder available which, but for the so-called useless animals, would be available for consumption by milch and draught animals. The response of the States in setting up Gosadans (protection home for cow and cow progeny) was very poor. It was on appreciation of the documentary evidence and the deduction drawn therefrom which led their Lordships to conclude that in spite of there being a presumption in favour of the validity of the legislation and respect for the opinion of the legislatures as expressed by the three impugned enactments, they were inclined to hold that a total ban of the nature imposed could not be supported as reasonable in the interests of the general public.

While dealing with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel before us, we would once again revert to this judgment. It would suffice to observe here that, excepting for one limited ground, all other grounds of challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned enactments had failed.

In Abdul Hakim Quraishi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1961) 2 SCR 610 (hereinafter referred to as Quraishi-II) once again certain amendments made by the Legislatures of the States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were put in issue. The ground of challenge was confined to Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6). The ban as imposed by the impugned Act was once again held to be 'total' and hence an unreasonable restriction. The Constitution Bench, by and large, chose to follow the dictum of this Court in Quareshi-I.

In Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 853, the State Government issued a notification whereby the earlier notification issued by the Jabalpur Municipality which permitted the slaughter of bulls and bullocks along with other animals was recalled. Para 6 of the judgment notes the anguish of the Constitution Bench, as in the opinion of their Lordships, the case was apparently another attempt, though on a restricted scale, to circumvent the judgment of this Court in Quareshi-I. Vide para 9, their Lordships have noticed the decision of this Court in Narendra Kumar & Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors., (1960) 2 SCR 375, which upholds the view that the term "restriction" in Articles 19(5) and 19(6) of the Constitution includes cases of "prohibition" also. Their Lordships drew a distinction between cases of "control" and "prohibition" and held that when the exercise of a fundamental right is prohibited, the burden of proving that a total ban on the exercise of the right alone would ensure the maintenance of the general public interest lies heavily upon the State. As the State failed in discharging that burden, the notification was held liable to be struck down as imposing an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners.

In Haji Usmanbhai Hassanbhai Qureshi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (1986) 3 SCC 12 (hereinafter referred to as 'Qureshi-III') the constitutional validity of the Bombay Act as amended by Gujarat Act 16 of 1961 was challenged. The ban prohibited slaughter of bulls and bullocks below the age of 16 years. The petitioners pleaded that such a restriction on their right to carry on the trade or business in beef and allied articles was unreasonable. Yet another plea was urged that the total ban offended their religion as qurbani (sacrifice) at the time of BakrI'd or Id festival as enjoined and sanctioned by Islam. The High Court rejected the challenge on both the grounds. The writ petitioners came in appeal to this Court. The appeal was dismissed. While doing so, this Court took note of the material made available in the form of an affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Agriculture, Forest and Cooperation Department wherein it was deposed that because of improvement and more scientific methods of cattle breeding and advancement in the science of looking after the health of cattle in the State of Gujarat, today a situation has been reached wherein the cattle remain useful for breeding, draught and other agricultural purposes above the age of 16 years as well. As the bulls and bullocks upto the 16 years of age continued to be useful, the prescription of the age of 16 years up to which they could not be slaughtered was held to be a reasonable restriction, keeping in mind the balance which has to be struck between public interest which requires useful animals to be preserved, and permitting the appellants (writ petitioners) to carry on their trade and profession. The test of reasonableness of the restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) was held to have been satisfied.

The challenge based on Article 14 of the Constitution alleging the impugned legislation to be discriminatory, as it was not uniform in respect of all cattle, was rejected.

The Court also held that buffaloes and their progeny, on the one hand and cows and their progeny, on the other hand constitute two different classes and their being treated differently does not amount to hostile discrimination.In Hashmattullah v. State of M.P. and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 391, vires of M.P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991 imposing a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State of Madhya Pradesh was challenged. The validity of the amending Act was upheld by the High Court. The writ petitioners came up in appeal to this Court which was allowed and the amending Act was struck down as ultra vires the Constitution.In State of West Bengal and others v. Ashutosh Lahiri and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 189, the legislation impugned therein permitted slaughter of cows on the occasion of BakrI'd subject to an exemption in that regard being allowed by the State Government. The power to grant such an exemption was challenged. The High Court allowed the writ petition and struck down the power of the State Government to grant such an exemption. There was a total ban imposed on the slaughter of healthy cows and other animals mentioned in the schedule under Section 2 of the Act. The State of West Bengal appealed. On a review of earlier decisions of this Court, the three-Judge Bench concluded that it was a settled legal position that there was no fundamental right of Muslims to insist on slaughter of healthy cows on the occasion of BakrI'd. The contention that not only an essential religious practice under Article 25(1) of Constitution, but even optional religious practice could be permitted, was discarded. The Court held "We, therefore, entirely concur with the view of the High Court that slaughtering of healthy cows on BakrI'd is not essential or required for religious purpose of Muslims or in other words it is not a part of religious requirement for a Muslim that a cow must be necessarily sacrificed for earning religious merit on BakrI'd."

Issues in Present Set of Appeals Though there is no explicit concession given but it became clear during the course of prolonged hearing before us that the decision of this case hinges much on the answer to the question whether the view of this Court in Quareshi-I is to be upheld or not. While the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants has been that, to the extent the Constitution Bench in Quareshi-I holds the total ban on slaughter of cow progeny to be unconstitutional, it does not lay down good law for various reasons, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents has submitted that Quareshi-I leads a chain of five decisions of this Court which in view of the principle of stare decisis, this Court should not upset. The learned senior counsel for the appellants find following faults with the view taken by this Court in Quareshi-I, to the extent to which it goes against the appellants:- (1) Quareshi-I holds Directive Principles of State Policy to be unenforceable and subservient to the Fundamental Rights and, therefore, refuses to assign any weight to the Directive Principle contained in Article 48 of the Constitution and refuses to hold that its implementation can be a valid ground for proving reasonability of the restriction imposed on theFundamental Right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) ofthe Constitution a theory which stands discarded in a series of subsequent decisions of this Court.

(2) What has been noticed in Quareshi-I is Article 48 alone; Article 48A and Article 51A(g) were not noticed as they were not available then, as they were introduced in the Constitution by Forty-second Amendment with effect from 3.1.1977.

(3)The meaning assigned to "other milch and draught cattle" in Quareshi-I is not correct. Such a narrow view as has been taken in Quareshi-I does not fit into the scheme of the Constitution and, in particular, the spirit of Article 48.

(4) Quareshi-I does not assign the requisite weight to the facts contained in the Preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons of the enactments impugned therein.

(5)'Restriction' and 'Regulation' include 'Prohibition' and a partial restraint does not amount to total prohibition. Subsequent to the decision in Quareshi-I the trend of judicial decisions in this area indicates that regulation or restriction within the meaning of Articles 19(5) and 19(6) of the Constitution includes total prohibition - the question which was not answered and left open in Quareshi-I.

(6) In spite of having decided against the writ petitioners on all their principal pleas, the only ground on which the constitutional validity of the impugned enactments was struck down in Quareshi-I is founded on the finding of facts that cow progeny ceased to be useful after a particular age, that preservation of such 'useless cattle' by establishment of gosadan was not a practical and viable proposition, that a large percentage of the animals, not fit for slaughter, are slaughtered surreptitiously outside the municipal limits, that the quantum of available fodder for cattle added with the dislodgment of butchers from their traditional profession renders the total prohibition on slaughter not in public interest. The factual situation has undergone a drastic change since then and hence the factual foundation, on which the legal finding has been constructed, ceases to exist depriving the later of all its force.

The learned senior counsel for the appellants further submitted that Quareshi-I forms the foundation for subsequent decisions and if the very basis of Quareshi-I crumbles, the edifice of subsequent decisions which have followed Quareshi-I would also collapse. We will examine the validity of each of the contentions so advanced and at the end also examine whether the principle of stare decisis prevents us from reopening the question answered in favour of writ petitioners in Quareshi-I.

PART IIQuestion-1. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:-"It was the Sapru Committee (1945) which initially suggested two categories of rights: one justiciable and the other in the form of directives to the State which should be regarded as fundamental in the governance of the country Those directives are not merely pious declarations. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that in future both the Legislature and the Executive should not merely pay lip service to these principles but they should be made the basis of all legislative and executive actions that the future Government may be taking in matter of governance of the country. (Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol.7, at page 41)" (See: The Constitution of India, D.J. De, Second Edition, 2005, p.1367). If we were to trace the history of conflict and irreconciliability between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, we will find that the development of law has passed through three distinct stages.

To begin with, Article 37 was given a literal meaning holding the provisions contained in Part IV of the Constitution to be unenforceable by any Court. In The State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCR 525, it was held that the Directive Principles of State Policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. The view was reiterated in Deep Chand and Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 8. The Court went on to hold that disobedience to Directive Principles cannot affect the legislative power of the State. So was the view taken in In Re : The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 , 1959 SCR 995.

With L.C. Golak Nath and others v. State of Punjab and Another, (1967) 2 SCR 762, the Supreme Court departed from the rigid rule of subordinating Directive Principles and entered the era of harmonious construction. The need for avoiding a conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was emphasized, appealing to the legislature and the courts to strike a balance between the two as far as possible. Having noticed Champakam (supra) even the Constitution Bench in Quareshi-I chose to make a headway and held that the Directive Principles nevertheless are fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the duty of the State to give effect to them. "A harmonious interpretation has to be placed upon the Constitution and so interpreted it means that the State should certainly implement the directive principles but it must do so in such a way that its laws do not take away or abridge the fundamental rights, for otherwise the protecting provisions of Part III will be a 'mere rope of sand'." Thus, Quareshi-I did take note of the status of Directive Principles having been elevated from 'sub-ordinate' or 'sub-servient' to 'partner' of Fundamental Rights in guiding the nation.

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1973) 4 SCC 225, a thirteen-Judge Bench decision of this Court is a turning point in the history of Directive Principles jurisprudence. This decision clearly mandated the need for bearing in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy while judging the reasonableness of the restriction imposed on Fundamental Rights. Several opinions were recorded in Kesavananda Bharati and quoting from them would significantly increase the length of this judgment. For our purpose, it would suffice to refer to the seven-Judge Bench decision in Pathumma and Others v. State of Kerala and Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 1, wherein the learned Judges neatly summed up the ratio of Kesavananda Bharati and other decisions which are relevant for our purpose. Pathumma (supra) holds :-

"(1) Courts interpret the constitutional provisions against the social setting of the country so as to show a complete consciousness and deep awareness of the growing requirements of society, the increasing needs of the nation, the burning problems of the day and the complex issues facing the people, which the legislature, in its wisdom, through beneficial legislation, seeks to solve. The judicial approach should be dynamic rather than static, pragmatic and not pedantic and elastic rather than rigid. This Court while acting as a sentinel on the qui vive to protect fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of the country must try to strike a just balance between the fundamental rights and the larger and broader interests of society so that when such a right clashes with a larger interest of the country it must yield to the latter.(Para 5)

(2)The Legislature is in the best position to understand and appreciate the needs of the people as enjoined in the Constitution. The Court will interfere in this process only when the statute is clearly violative of the right conferred on a citizen under Part III or when the Act is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature. The courts have recognised that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the statutes and the onus to prove its invalidity lies on the party which assails it. (Para 6)(3) The right conferred by Article 19(1)(f) is conditioned by the various factors mentioned in clause (5). (Para 8)

(4) The following tests have been laid down as guidelines to indicate in what particular circumstances a restriction can be regarded as reasonable: (a) In judging the reasonableness of the restriction the court has to bear in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy. (Para 8)

(b) The restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go beyond the requirements of the interests of the general public. The legislature must take intelligent care and deliberation in choosing the course which is dictated by reason and good conscience so as to strike a just balance between the freedom in the article and the social control permitted by the restrictions under the article. (Para 14)

(c) No abstract or general pattern or fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of universal application. It will have to vary from case to case and having regard to the changing conditions, the values of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances all of which must enter into the judicial verdict. (Para 15)

(d) The Court is to examine the nature and extent, the purport and content of the right, the nature of the evil sought to be remedied by the statute, the ratio of harm caused to the citizen and the benefit conferred on the person or the community for whose benefit the legislation is passed. (Para 18 )

(e) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the restriction imposed and the object which is sought to be achieved. (Para 20)

(f) The needs of the prevailing social values must be satisfied by the restrictions meant to protect social welfare. (Para 22)

(g) The restriction has to be viewed not only from the point of view of the citizen but the problem before the legislature and the object which is sought to be achieved by the statute. In other words, the Court must see whether the social control envisaged by Article 19 (1) is being effectuated by the restrictions imposed on the fundamental right. However important the right of a citizen or an individual may be it has to yield to the larger interests of the country or the community. (Para 24)

(h) The Court is entitled to take into consideration matters of common report history of the times and matters of common knowledge and the circumstances existing at the time of the legislation for this purpose. (Para 25)"(underlining by us)

In State of Kerala and Anr. v. N.M. Thomas and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 310, also a seven-Judge Bench of this Court culled out and summarized the ratio of this Court in Kesavananda Bharati. Fazal Ali, J extracted and set out the relevant extract from the opinion of several Judges in Kesavananda Bharati and then opined:

"In view of the principles adumbrated by this Court it is clear that the directive principles form the fundamental feature and the social conscience of the Constitution and the Constitution enjoins upon the State to implement these directive principles. The directives thus provide the policy, the guidelines and the end of socio-economic freedom and Articles 14 and 16 are the means to implement the policy to achieve the ends sought to be promoted by the directive principles. So far as the courts are concerned where there is no apparent inconsistency between the directive principles contained in Part IV and the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III, which in fact supplement each other, there is no difficulty in putting a harmonious construction which advances the object of the Constitution. Once this basic fact is kept in mind, the interpretation of Articles 14 and 16 and their scope and ambit become as clear as day."

The message of Kesavananda Bharati is clear. The interest of a citizen or section of a community, howsoever important, is secondary to the interest of the country or community as a whole. For judging the reasonability of restrictions imposed on Fundamental Rights the relevant considerations are not only those as stated in Article 19 itself or in Part-III of the Constitution; the Directive Principles stated in Part-IV are also relevant. Changing factual conditions and State policy, including the one reflected in the impugned enactment, have to be considered and given weightage to by the courts while deciding the constitutional validity of legislative enactments. A restriction placed on any Fundamental Right, aimed at securing Directive Principles will be held as reasonable and hence intra vires subject to two limitations : first, that it does not run in clear conflict with the fundamental right, and secondly, that it has been enacted within the legislative competence of the enacting legislature under Part XI Chapter I of the Constitution.

In Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC 20, what was impugned before the High Court was a standing order issued by the Municipal Commissioner of the State of Ahmedabad, increasing the number of days on which slaughter houses should be kept closed to seven, in supersession of the earlier standing order which directed the closure for only four days. The writ petitioner, a beef dealer, challenged the constitutional validity of the impugned standing orders (both, the earlier and the subsequent one) as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The challenge based on Articles 14 of the Constitution was turned down both by the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, the High Court had struck down the seven days closure as not "in the interests of the general public" and hence not protected by Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. In appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation, the Constitution Bench reversed the Judgment of the High Court and held that the objects sought to be achieved by the impugned standing orders were the preservation, protection and improvement of live-stock, which is one of the Directive Principles. Cows, bulls, bullocks and calves of cows are no doubt the most important cattle for our agricultural economy. They form a separate class and are entitled to be treated differently from other animals such as goats and sheep, which are slaughtered. The Constitution Bench ruled that the expression "in the interests of general public" is of a wide import covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.

In Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Others. v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Anr. , (1992) 3 SCC 336, the Constitution Bench clearly ruled (vide para 27) "Ordinarily any restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest." Similar view is taken in Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. and Anr. , (1995) 1 SCC 501.

Directive Principles Long back in The State of Bombay and anr. v. F.N. Balsara, 1951 SCR 682, a Constitution Bench had ruled that in judging the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the Fundamental Rights, one has to bear in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy set-forth in Part IV of the Constitution, while examining the challenge to the constitutional validity of law by reference to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

In a comparatively recent decision of this Court in M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Govt. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 227, this Court, on a conspectus of its various prior decisions summed up principles as 'clearly discernible', out of which three that are relevant for our purpose, are extracted and reproduced hereunder.

"13.On a conspectus of various decisions of this Court, the following principles are clearly discernible:

(1)While considering the reasonableness of the restrictions, the court has to keep in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy. xxxxxx(3)In order to judge the reasonableness of the restrictions, no abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of universal application and the same will vary from case to case as also with regard to changing conditions, values of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances. xxxxxx(6)There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the restrictions imposed and the object sought to be achieved. If there is a direct nexus between the restrictions and the object of the Act, then a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise. (See: Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni Vs. State of Madras and Kerala, (1960) 3 SCR 887; O.K. Ghosh Vs. E.X. Joseph, 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 789)"

Very recently in Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 589, this Court while dealing with the case of a total prohibition reiterated that 'regulation' includes 'prohibition' and in order to determine whether total prohibition would be reasonable, the Court has to balance the direct impact on the fundamental right of the citizens as against the greater public or social interest sought to be ensured. Implementation of the Directive Principles contained in Part IV is within the expression of 'restriction in the interests of the general public'

Post Kesavananda Bharati so far as the determination of the position of Directive Principles, vis-a-vis Fundamental Rights are concerned, it has been an era of positivism and creativity.

Article 37 of the Constitution which while declaring the Directive Principles to be unenforceable by any Court goes on to say "that they are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country." Several clauses of Article 37 themselves need to be harmoniously construed assigning equal weightage to all of them. The end part of Article 37 "It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws" is not a pariah but a constitutional mandate. The series of decisions which we have referred to hereinabove and the series of decisions which formulate the 3-stages of development of the relationship between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights undoubtedly hold that, while interpreting the interplay of rights and restrictions, Part-III (Fundamental Rights) and Part-IV (Directive Principles) have to be read together. The restriction which can be placed on the rights listed in Article 19(1) are not subject only to Articles 19(2) to 19(6); the provisions contained in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy can also be pressed into service and relied on for the purpose of adjudging the reasonability of restrictions placed on the Fundamental Rights.

Question 2 Fundamental Rights and Articles 48, 48-A and 51-A (g) of Constitution

Articles 48, 48-A and 51-A(g) (relevant clause) of the Constitution read as under :-

"48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

51-A. Fundamental duties.It shall be the duty of every citizen of India

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;"

Articles 48-A and 51-A have been introduced into the body of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 3.1.1977. These Articles were not a part of the Constitution when Quareshi-I, Quraishi-II and Mohd. Faruk's cases were decided by this Court. Further, Article 48 of the Constitution has also been assigned a higher weightage and wider expanse by the Supreme Court post Quareshi-I. Article 48 consists of two parts. The first part enjoins the State to "endeavour to organize agricultural and animal husbandry" and that too "on modern and scientific lines". The emphasis is not only on 'organization' but also on 'modern and scientific lines'. The subject is 'agricultural and animal husbandry'. India is an agriculture based economy. According to 2001 census, 72.2% of the population still lives in villages (See- India Vision 2020, p.99) and survives for its livelihood on agriculture, animal husbandry and related occupations. The second part of Article 48 enjoins the State, de hors the generality of the mandate contained in its first part, to take steps, in particular, "for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle".

Article 48-A deals with "environment, forests and wild life". These three subjects have been dealt with in one Article for the simple reason that the three are inter-related. Protection and improvement of environment is necessary for safeguarding forests and wild life, which in turn protects and improves the environment. Forests and wild life are clearly inter-related and inter-dependent. They protect each other.

Cow progeny excreta is scientifically recognized as a source of rich organic manure. It enables the farmers avoiding the use of chemicals and inorganic manure. This helps in improving the quality of earth and the environment. The impugned enactment enables the State in its endeavour to protect and improve the environment within the meaning of Article 48A of the Constitution.

By enacting clause (g) in Article 51-A and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by the Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48A is honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. The Parliament availed the opportunity provided by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 to improve the manifestation of objects contained in Article 48 and 48-A. While Article 48-A speaks of "environment", Article 51-A(g) employs the expression "the natural environment" and includes therein "forests, lakes, rivers and wild life". While Article 48 provides for "cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle", Article 51-A(g) enjoins it as a fundamental duty of every citizen "to have compassion for living creatures", which in its wider fold embraces the category of cattle spoken of specifically in Article 48.

In AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS and Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 428, a three-Judge Bench of this Court made it clear that fundamental duties, though not enforceable by writ of the court, yet provide valuable guidance and aid to interpretation and resolution of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt, peoples' wish as expressed through Article 51-A can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the courts. The fundamental duties must be given their full meaning as expected by the enactment of the Forty-second Amendment. The Court further held that the State is, in a sense, 'all the citizens placed together' and, therefore, though Article 51A does not expressly cast any fundamental duty on the State, the fact remains that the duty of every citizen of India is, collectively speaking, the duty of the State.

In Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594, a governmental decision to give utmost importance to the training programme of the Indian Administrative Service selectees was upheld by deriving support from Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution, holding that the governmental decision was in consonance with one of the fundamental duties.

In State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 7, this Court interpreted the object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls by deriving support from Article 51-A(j) which enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to strive towards excellence, individually and collectively.

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1986 (Supp) SCC 517, a complete ban and closing of mining operations carried on in the Mussoorie hills was held to be sustainable by deriving support from the fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution. The Court held that preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only Governments but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation of the State as well as of the individuals.

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606, a three-Judge Bench of this Court read Article 48-A and Article 51-A together as laying down the foundation for a jurisprudence of environmental protection and held that "Today, the State and the citizens are under a fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures".

In State of W.B. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129, Articles 48 and 51-A(g) of the Constitution were read together and this Court expressed that these provisions have to be kept in mind while interpreting statutory provisions.

It is thus clear that faced with the question of testing the constitutional validity of any statutory provision or an executive act, or for testing the reasonableness of any restriction cast by law on the exercise of any fundamental right by way of regulation, control or prohibition, the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties as enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution play a significant role. The decision in Quareshi-I in which the relevant provisions of the three impugned legislations was struck down on the singular ground of lack of reasonability, would have decided otherwise if only Article 48 was assigned its full and correct meaning and due weightage was given thereto and Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) were available in the body of the Constitution

.Question 3 : Milch and draught cattle, meaning of, in Article 48

Article 48 employs the expression 'cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle'. What meaning is to be assigned to the expression 'milch and draught cattle'? The question is whether when Article 48 precludes slaughter of cows and calves by description, the words 'milch and draught cattle' are described as a like species which should not be slaughtered or whether such species are protected only till they are 'milch or draught' and the protection ceases whenever, they cease to be 'milch or draught', either temporarily or permanently? According to their inherent genetic qualities, cattle breeds are broadly divided into 3 categories (i) Milch breed (ii) Draught breed, and (iii) Dual purpose breed. Milch breeds include all cattle breeds which have an inherent potential for milk production whereas draught breeds have an inherent potential for draught purposes like pulling, traction of loads etc. The dual purpose breeds have the potential to perform both the above functions.

The term draught cattle indicates "the act of moving loads by drawing or pulling i.e. pull and traction etc. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines 'draught animal' as 'one used for drawing heavy loads'.

Cows are milch cattle. Calves become draught or milch cattle on attaining a particular age. Having specifically spoken of cows and calves, the latter being a cow progeny, the framers ofthe Constitution chose not to catalogue the list of other milch and draught cattle and felt satisfied by employing a general expression "other milch and draught cattle" which in their opinion any reader of the Constitution would understand in the context of the previous words "cows and calves".

"Milch and draught", the two words have been used as adjectives describing and determining the quality of the noun 'cattle'. The function of a descriptive or qualitative adjective is to describe the shape, colour, size, nature or merits or demerits of the noun which they precede and qualify. In a document like the Constitution, such an adjective cannot be said to have been employed by the framers of the Constitution for the purpose of describing only a passing feature, characteristic or quality of the cattle. The object of using these two adjectives is to enable classification of the noun 'cattle' which follows. Had it been intended otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have chosen a different expression or setting of words.

No doubt, cow ceases to be 'milch' after attaining a particular age. Yet, cow has been held to be entitled to protection against slaughter without regard to the fact that it has ceased to be 'milch'. This constitutional position is well settled. So is the case with calves. Calves have been held entitled to protection against slaughter without regard to their age and though they are not yet fit to be employed as 'draught cattle'. Following the same construction of the expression, it can be saidthat the words "calves and other milch and draught cattle" have also been used as a matter of description of a species and not with regard to age. Thus, 'milch and draught' used as adjectives simply enable the classification or description of cattle by their quality, whether they belong to that species. This classification is with respect to the inherent qualities of the cattle to perform a particular type of function and is not dependant on their remaining functional for those purposes by virtue of the age of the animal. "Milch and draught cattle" is an expression employed in Article 48 of the Constitution so as to distinguish such cattle from other cattle which are neither milch nor draught.

Any other meaning assigned to this expression is likely to result in absurdity. A milch cattle goes through a life cycle during which it is sometimes milch and sometimes it becomes dry. This does not mean that as soon as a milch cattle ceases to produce milk, for a short period as a part of its life cycle, it goes out of the purview of Article 48, and can be slaughtered. A draught cattle may lose its utility on account of injury or sickness and may be rendered useless as a draught cattle during that period. This would not mean that if a draught cattle ceases to be of utility for a short period on account of sickness or injury, it is excluded from the definition of 'draught cattle' and deprived of the benefit of Article 48.

This reasoning is further strengthened by Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. The State and every citizen of India must have compassion for living creatures. Compassion, according to Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary means "a strong feeling of sympathy for those who are suffering and a desire to help them". According to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, compassion is "fellow feeling, or sorrow for the sufferings of another : pity". Compassion is suggestive of sentiments, a soft feeling, emotions arising out of sympathy, pity and kindness. The concept of compassion for living creatures enshrined in Article 51A (g) is based on the background of the rich cultural heritage of India the land of Mahatama Gandhi, Vinobha, Mahaveer, Budha, Nanak and others. No religion or holy book in any part of the world teaches or encourages cruelty. Indian society is a pluralistic society. It has unity in diversity. The religions, cultures and people may be diverse, yet all speak in one voice that cruelty to any living creature must be curbed and ceased. 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 slaughter house 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.

In our opinion, the expression 'milch or draught cattle' as employed in Article 48 of the Constitution is a description of a classification or species of cattle as distinct from cattle which by their nature are not milch or draught and the said words do not include milch or draught cattle, which on account of age or disability, cease to be functional for those purposes either temporarily or permanently. The said words take colour from the preceding words "cows or calves". A specie of cattle which is milch or draught for a number of years during its span of life is to be included within the said expression. On ceasing to be milch or draught it cannot be pulled out from the category of "other milch and draught cattle."

Question - 4 : Statement of Objects and Reasons -

Significance and Role thereof

Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is permissible for understanding the background, antecedent state of affairs in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute was sought to remedy. (See __ Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th Edition, 2004, at p.218). In State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Ors., 1954 SCR 587, the Constitution Bench was testing the constitutional validity of the legislation impugned therein. The Statement of Objects and Reasons was used by S.R. Das, J. for ascertaining the conditions prevalent at that time which led to the introduction of the Bill and the extent and urgency of the evil which was sought to be remedied, in addition to testing the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the impugned provision. In his opinion, it was indeed very unfortunate that the Statement of Objects and Reasons was not placed before the High Court which would have assisted the High Court in arriving at the right conclusion as to the reasonableness of the restriction imposed. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, (1964) 1 SCR 371, 431-32 approved the use of Statement of Objects and Reasons for the purpose of understanding the background and the antecedent state of affairs leading upto the legislation.

In Quareshi-I itself, which has been very strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents before us, Chief Justice S.R. Das has held:-"Pronouncements of this Court further establish, amongst other things, that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. The courts, it is accepted, must presume that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It must be borne in mind that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest and finally that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation. (Para 15). The legislature is the best judge of what is good for the community, by whose suffrage it comes into existence....". This should be the proper approach for the court but the ultimate responsibility for determining the validity of the law must rest with the court." (Para 21, also see the several decisions referred to therein).(underlining by us)

The facts stated in the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to any legislation are evidence of legislative judgment. They indicate the thought process of the elected representatives of the people and their cognizance of the prevalent state of affairs, impelling them to enact the law. These, therefore, constitute important factors which amongst others will be taken into consideration by the court in judging the reasonableness of any restriction imposed on the Fundamental Rights of the individuals. The Court would begin with a presumption of reasonability of the restriction, more so when the facts stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Preamble are taken to be correct and they justify the enactment of law for the purpose sought to be achieved.

In Sardar Inder Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1957 SCR 605, a Constitution Bench was testing the validity of certain provisions of the Ordinance impugned before and it found it to be repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution and hence void. At page 620, Venkatarama Aiyar, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench referred to the recitals contained in the Preamble to the Ordinance and the object sought to be achieved by the Ordinance as flowing therefrom and held "that is a matter exclusively for the legislature to determine, and the propriety of that determination is not open to question in courts. We should add that the petitioners sought to dispute the correctness of the recitals in the Preamble. This they cannot clearly do".

Question - 5 : Article 19(1)(g) : 'Regulation' or 'Restriction' includes Total Prohibition; Partial Restraint is not Total Prohibition Respondents rely on Article 19(1)(g) which deals with the fundamental right to 'practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business'. This right is subject to Article 19(6) which permits reasonable restrictions to be imposed on it in the interests of the general public.

This raises the question of what is the meaning of the word 'restriction'.

Three propositions are well settled:- (i) 'restriction' includes cases of 'prohibition'; (ii) the standard for judging reasonability of restriction or restriction amounting to prohibition remains the same, excepting that a total prohibition must also satisfy the test that a lesser alternative would be inadequate; and (iii) whether a restriction in effect amounts to a total prohibition is a question of fact which shall have to be determined with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, the ambit of the right and the effect of the restriction upon the exercise of that right. Reference may be made to Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., AIR 1954 SC 634, Krishna Kumar v. Municipal Committee of Bhatapara, (Petition No.660 of 1954 decided on 21st February 1957 by Constitution Bench) (See __ Compilation of Supreme Court Judgments, 1957 Jan-May page 33, available in Supreme Court Judges Library), Narendra Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (1960) 2 SCR 375, The State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao and Ors., (1969) 2 SCR 392, Sushila Saw Mill v. State of Orissa & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 615, Pratap Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 87 and Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712.

In Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. (supra) a large section of traders were completely prohibited from carrying on their normal trade in forward contacts. The restriction was held to be reasonable as cotton, being a commodity essential to the life of the community, and therefore such a total prohibition was held to be permissible. In Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao and Ors. (supra) trade in hides was completely prohibited and the owners of dead animals were required to compulsorily deposit carcasses in an appointed place without selling it. The constitutionality of such prohibition, though depriving the owner of his property, was upheld. The court also held that while striking a balance between rights of individuals and rights of citizenry as a whole the financial loss caused to individuals becomes insignificant if it serves the larger public interest. In Sushila Saw Mill (supra), the impugned enactment imposed a total ban on saw mill business or sawing operations within reserved or protected forests. The ban was held to be justified as it was in public interest to which the individual interest must yield. Similar view is taken in the other cases referred to hereinabove.

In Krishna Kumar (supra), the Constitution Bench held that when the prohibition is only with respect to the exercise of the right referable only in a particular area of activity or relating to a particular matter, there was no total prohibition. In that case, the Constitution Bench was dealing with the case of Adatiyas operating in a market area. A certain field of activity was taken away from them, but they were yet allowed to function as Adatiyas. It was held that this amounts to a restriction on the exercise of writ petitioners' occupation as an Adatiya or a seller of grain but does not amount to a total ban.

In the present case, we find the issue relates to a total prohibition imposed on the slaughter of cow and her progeny. The ban is total with regard to the slaughter of one particular class of cattle. The ban is not on the total activity of butchers (kasais); they are left free to slaughter cattle other than those specified in the Act. It is not that the writ petitioner-respondents survive only by slaughtering cow progeny. They can slaughter animals other than cow progeny and carry on their business activity. In so far as trade in hides, skins and other allied things (which are derived from the body of dead animal) are concerned, it is not necessary that the animal must be slaughtered to avail these things. The animal, whose slaughter has been prohibited, would die a natural death even otherwise and in that case their hides, skins and other parts of body would be available for trade and industrial activity based thereon.

We hold that though it is permissible to place a total ban amounting to prohibition on any profession, occupation, trade or business subject to satisfying the test of being reasonable in the interest of the general public, yet, in the present case banning slaughter of cow progeny is not a prohibition but only a restriction.

Question - 6 : Slaughter of cow progeny, if in public interest

As we have already indicated, the opinion formed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Quareshi-I is that the restriction amounting to total prohibition on slaughter of bulls and bullocks was unreasonable and was not in public interest. We, therefore, proceed to examine the evidence available on record which would enable us to answer questions with regard to the 'reasonability' of the imposed restriction qua 'public interest'.The facts contained in the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the impugned enactment highlight the following facts:-

(i)it is established that cow and her progeny sustain the health of the nation;

(ii)the working bullocks are indispensable for our agriculture for they supply power more than any other animal (the activities for which the bullocks are usefully employed are also set out);

(iii)the dung of the animal is cheaper than the artificial manures and extremely useful of production of biogas;

(iv)it is established that the backbone of Indian agriculture is the cow and her progeny and they have on their back the whole structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system;

(v)the economy of the State of Gujarat is still predominantly agricultural. In the agricultural sector use of animals for milch, draught, breeding or agricultural purposes has great importance. Preservation and protection of agricultural animals like bulls and bullocks needs emphasis. With the growing adoption of non-conventional energy sources like biogas plants, even waste material have come to assume considerable value. After the cattle cease to breed or are too old to work, they still continue to give dung for fuel, manure and biogas and, therefore, they cannot be said to be useless. Apart from the fact that we have to assume the above-stated facts as to be correct, there is also voluminous evidence available on record to support the above said facts. We proceed to notice few such documents.Affidavits Shri J.S. Parikh, Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Cooperative and Rural Development, Department, State of Gujarat, filed three affidavits in the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 9991 of 1993. The first affidavit was filed on 20th October, 1993, wherein the following facts are discernible and mentioned as under:

(i)With the improved scientific animal husbandry services in the State, the average longivity of animals has considerably increased. In the year 1960, there were only 456 veterinary dispensaries and first aid veterinary centers etc, whereas in the year 1993, there are 946 veterinary dispensaries and first aid veterinary centers etc. There were no mobile veterinary dispensaries in 1960 while there are 31 mobile veterinary dispensaries in the State in 1993. In addition, there are around 467 centres for intensive cattle development where besides first aid veterinary treatment, other animal husbandry inputs of breeding, food or development etc. are also provided. In the year 1960, five lakh cattles were vaccinated whereas in the year 1992-93 around 200 lakh animals are vaccinated to provide life saving protection against various fatal diseases. There were no cattle food compounding units preparing cattle food in the year 1960, while in the year 1993 there are ten cattle food factory producing 1545 MT of cattle food per day. As a result of improved animal husbandry services, highly contagious and fatal disease of Rinder Pest is controlled in the state and that the deadly disease has not appeared in the last three years.

Year

1990-91

1991-92

1992-93

Bullock

/Bull

9,558

9,751

8,324

Buffalo

41,088

41,882

40,034

Sheep

1,82,269

2,11,245

1,13,868

Goat

2,22,507

2,20,518

1,72,791

(ii)Because of various scientific technologies namely, proper cattle feeding, better medical and animal husbandry services, the longevity of the cattle in the State has considerably increased.

(iii)The population of bullock is 27.59 lakhs. Over and above agricultural work, bullocks are useful for other purposes also. They produce dung which is the best organic measure and is cheaper than chemical manure. It is also useful for production of bio-gas.

(iv)It is estimated that daily production of manure by bullocks is about 27,300 tonnes and bio-gas production daily is about 13.60 cubic metres. It is also estimated that the production of bio-gas from bullock dung fulfil the daily requirement of 54.78 lakh persons of the State if whole dung production is utilized. At present, 1,91,467 bio-gas plants are in function in the State and about 3-4 lakhs persons are using bio-gas in the State produced by these plants.

(v)The population of farmers in the State is 31.45 lakhs. Out of which 7.37 lakhs are small farmers, 8 lakhs are marginal farmers, 3.05 lakhs are agricultural labourers and 13.03 lakhs are other farmers. The total land of Gujarat State is 196 lakh hectares and land under cultivation is 104.5 lakh hectares. There are 47,800 tractors by which 19.12 lakh hectares land is cultivated and the remaining 85.38 lakh hectares land is cultivated by using bullocks. It may be mentioned here that all the agricultural operations are not done using tractors. The bullocks are required for some of agricultural operations along with tractors. There are about 7,28,300 bullock carts and there are about 18,35,000 ploughs run by bullocks in the State.

(vi)The figure of slaughter of animals done in 38 recognised slaughter houses are as under:

The above figures show that the slaughter of bullocks above the age of 16 years is done in the State in very small number. The animals other than bullocks are slaughtered in large number. Hence, the ban on the slaughter of cow and cow progeny will not affect the business of meat production significantly. Therefore, the persons engaged in this profession will not be affected adversely.Thereafter two further affidavits were filed by Shri J.S. Parikh, abovesaid, on 17th March, 1998, wherein the following facts are mentioned :

(i)there are about 31.45 lakhs land holders in Gujarat. The detailed classifications of the land holders are as under:-Sl. No.Details of land holdersNo. of land holders1.01 hectare8.00 lakhs2.1-2 hectares7.37 lakhs3.2 and above16.08 lakhs

(ii)almost 50 per cent of the land holdings are less than 2 hectares; tractor keeping is not affordable to small farmers. For economic maintenance of tractors, one should have large holding of land. Such land holders are only around 10 per cent of the total land holders. Hence the farmers with small land holdings require bullocks as motive power for their agricultural operations and transport;

(iii)the total cultivable land area of Gujarat State is about 124 lakh hectares. Considering that a pair of bullocks is required for ploughing 10 acres of land the bullock requirement for ploughing purpose alone is 5.481 million and approximately equal number is required for carting. According to the livestock census 1988 of Gujarat State, the availability of indigenous bullocks is around 2.84 millions. Thus the availability of bullocks as a whole on percentage of requirement works out to be about 25 per cent. In this situation

, the State has to preserve each single bull and bullock that is available to it;

(iv)it is estimated that bull or bullock at every stage of life supplies 3,500 kgs of dung and 2,000 litres of urine and whereas this quantity of dung can supply 5,000 cubic feet of biogas, 80 M.T. of organic fertilizer, the urine can supply 2,000 litres of pesticides and the use of these products in farming increases the yield very substantially. The value of above contribution can be placed at Rs.20,000/- per year to the owner;

(v)since production of various agricultural crops removes plant nutrients from the soil, they must be replenished with manures to maintain and improve fertility of soil. There are two types of manures which are (i) Organic manures, i.e. natural manures and (ii) Artificial or chemical fertilizer. Amongst the organic manures, farm yard manures is the most valuable organic manure applied to soil. It is the most commonly used organic manure in India. It consists of a mixture of cattle dung, the bedding used in the stable. Its crop increasing value has been recognized from time immemorial (Ref. Hand Book of Agriculture, 1987 by ICAR page 214);

(vi)the importance of organic manure as a source of humus and plant nutrients to increase the fertility level of soils has been well recognised. The organic matter content of cultivated soils of the tropics and sub-tropics is comparatively low due to high temperature and intense microbial activity. The crops remove annually large quantity of plant nutrients from soil. Moreover, Indian soils are poor in organic matter and in major plant nutrients. Therefore, soil humus has to be replenished through periodic addition of organic manure for maintaining soil productivity;

(vii)animals are the source of free availability of farmyard manure, which has all the three elements, i.e. Nitrogen, Phosphoric acid and Potash, needed in fertilizer and at the same time which preserve and enrich the fertility of the soil. In paucity of dung availability, the farmers have to depend upon chemical fertilizers. Investment in chemical fertilizers imposes heavy burden upon the economy. If there is availability of alternate source of organic manure from animals, it is required to be promoted;

(viii)the recent scenario of ultramodern technology of super ovulation, embryo transfer and cloning technique will be of very much use to propagate further even from the incapable or even old animals which are not capable of working or reproducing. These animals on a large scale can be used for research programmes as well as for production of non-conventional energy sources such as biogas and natural fertilizers. At present, there are 19,362 biogas plants installed in the State during 1995-97. On an average, each adult cattle produces 4.00 kg. of dung per day. Out of the total cattle strength of (1992 Census) 67,85,865, the estimated dung produced is 99,07,363 tonnes;

(ix)India has 74% of rural population, and in Gujarat out of 4.13 crores of human population, there are 1.40 crores of workers which comprises of 47,04,000 farmers and 32,31,000 workers are workers related to livestock and forestry. In Gujarat, there are 9.24 lakhs marginal farmers and 9.15 lakhs of small farmers, according to the 1991-92 census. Animals are reared in few numbers per family and the feed is obtained from the supplementary crop on fodder/agricultural by-products or from grazing in the gaucher land. In Gujarat 8.48 lakh hectares of land is available as permanent pasture and grazing land. An individual cattle-owner does not consider one or two bullocks as an extra burden for his family, even when it is incapable of work or production. Sometimes the unproductive animals are sent to Panjarapoles and Gosadans. In Gujarat, there are 335 Gaushalas and 174 Panjarapoles which are run by non-governmental oranizations and trusts. Formerly farmers mostly kept few animals and, in fact, they are treated as part of their family and maintained till death. It cannot be treated to be a liability upon them or burden on the economy;

(x)butchers are doing their business since generations, but they are not doing only the slaughter of cow class of animals. They slaughter and trade the meat of other animals like buffaloes, sheep, goats, pig and even poultry. In Gujarat there are only 38 registered slaughter houses functioning under various Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. Beef (meat of cattle) contributes only 1.3% of the total meat groups. Proportion of demand for beef is less in the context of demand for pig, mutton and poultry meat. Slaughtering of bulls and bullocks for the period between 1990-91 and 1993-94 was on an average 9,000;

(xi)number of bullocks have decreased in a decade from 30,70,339 to 28,93,227 as in 1992. A statement showing the amount of dung production for the year 1983-84 to 1996-97 and a statement showing the nature of economy of the State of Gujarat is annexed. The number of bullocks slaughtered per day is negligible compared to other animals, and the business and/or trade of slaughtering bullocks would not affect the business of butchers. By prohibiting slaughter of bullocks the economy is likely to be benefited.

The three affidavits are supported by documents, statements or tables setting out statistics which we have no reason to disbelieve. Neither the High Court has expressed any doubt on the contents of the affidavit nor has the veracity of the affidavits and correctness of the facts stated therein been challenged by the learned counsel for the respondents before us. In this Court Shri D.P. Amin, Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Gujarat State, has filed an affidavit. The salient facts stated therein are set out hereunder:

(i)The details of various categories of animals slaughtered since 1997-1998 shows that slaughter of various categories of animals in regulated slaughter houses of Gujarat State has shown a tremendous decline. During the year way back in 1982-83 to 1996-97 the average number of animals slaughtered in regulated slaughter houses was 4,39,141. As against that (previous figure) average numberof slaughter of animals in recent 8 years i.e. from 1997-98 to 2004-05 has come down to only 2,88,084. This clearly indicates that there has been a vast change in the meat eating style of people of Gujarat State. It is because of the awareness created among the public due to the threats of dangerous diseases like Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy commonly known as "Mad Cow disease" B.S.E. which is a fatal disease of cattle meat origin not reported in India. Even at global level people have stopped eating the beef which is known as meat of cattle class animals. This has even affected the trade of meat particularly beef in the America & European countries since last 15 years. Therefore, there is international ban on export-import of beef from England, America & European countries;

(ii)there is reduction in slaughter of bulls & bullocks above the age of 16 years reported in the regulated slaughter houses of Gujarat State. As reported in the years from 1982-83 to 1996-97, the slaughter of bulls & bullocks above the age of 16 years was only 2.48% of the total animals of different categories slaughtered in the State. This percentage has gone down to the level of only 1.10% during last 8 years i.e. 1997-98 to 2004-05 which is very less significant to cause or affect the business of butcher communities;

(iii)India is predominantly agrarian society with nearly >th of her population living in seven lakh rural hamlets and villages, possesses small fragmentary holding (54.6% below 1 hectare 18% with 1-2 hectares). Draft/pack animal contributes more than 5 crores horse power (H.P.) or 33,000 megawatt electric power and shares for/in 68% of agricultural operations, transport & other draft operations. In addition to draft power, 100 million tonnes dung per year improves the soil health and also used as raw material for biogas plant;

(iv)the cattle population in Gujarat in relation to human population has declined from 315 per 1000 humans in 1961 to 146 per 1,000 humans in 2001 indicating decline in real terms;

(v)in Gujarat 3.28 million draft animal (bullocks 85%) have multifaceted utilities viz. agricultural operations like ploughing, sowing, hoeing, planking, carting, hauling, water lifting, grinding, etc.;

Gujarat State has a very rich cattle population of Kankrej & Gir breed, of which Kankrej bullocks are very well known for its draft power called "Savai Chal";

(vi)considering the utility of aged bullocks above 16 years as draft power a detailed combined study was carried out by Department of Animal Husbandry and Gujarat Agricultural University (Veterinary Colleges S.K. Nagar & Anand). The experiments were carried out within the age group of 16 to 25 years. The study covered different age groups of 156 (78 pairs) bullocks above the age of 16 years. The aged bullocks i.e. above 16 years age generated 0.68 horse power draft output per bullock while the prime bullock generated 0.83 horse power per bullock during carting/hauling draft work in a summer with about more than 42?C temp. The study proves that 93% of aged bullock above 16 years of age are still useful to farmers to perform light & medium draft works. The detailed report is on record;

(vii)by the end of year 2004-05 under the Dept. of Animal Husbandry, there are 14 Veterinary Polyclinics, 515 Vety. Dispensaries, 552 First Aid Vety. Centres and 795 Intensive Cattle Development Project Sub Centers. In all, 1876 institutions were made functional to cater various health care activities to livestock population of State of Gujarat. About two crores of livestock and poultry were vaccinated against various diseases. As a result, the total reported out break of infectious diseases was brought down to around 106 as against 222 in 1992-1993. This shows that State has created a healthy livestock and specifically the longevity of animals has been increased. This has also resulted into the increased milk production of the state, draft power and source of non-conventional energy in terms of increased quantity of dung and urine;

(viii)the value of dung is much more than even the famous "Kohinoor" diamond. An old bullock gives 5 tonnes of dung and 343 pounds of urine in a year which can help in the manufacture of 20 carts load of composed manure. This would be sufficient for manure need of 4 acres of land for crop production. The right to life is a fundamental right and it can be basically protected only with proper food and feeding and cheap and nutritious food grains required for feeding can be grown with the help of dung. Thus the most fundamental thing to the fundamental right of living for the human being is bovine dung. (Ref. Report of National Commission on Cattle, Vol.III, Page 1063-1064);

(ix)the dung cake as well as meat of bullock are both commercial commodities. If one bullock is slaughtered for its meat (Slaughtering activity) can sustain the butchers trade for only a day. For the next day's trade another bullock is to be slaughtered. But if the bullock is not slaughtered, about 5000-6000 dung cakes can be made out of its dung per year, and by the sale of such dung cake one person can be sustained for the whole year. If a bullock survives even for five years after becoming otherwise useless it can provide employment to a person for five years whereas to a butcher, bullock can provide employment only for a day or two.

(x)Even utility of urine has a great role in the field of pharmaceuticals as well as in the manufacturing of pesticides. The Goseva Ayog, Govt. of Gujarat had commissioned study for "Testing insecticides properties of cow urine against various insect pests". The study was carried out by Dr. G.M. Patel, Principal Investigator, Department of Entomology, C.P. College of Agriculture, S.D. Agricultural University, Sardar Krishi Nagar, Gujarat. The study has established that insecticides formulations prepared using cow urine emerged as the most reliable treatment for their effectiveness against sucking pest of cotton. The conclusion of study is dung & urine of even aged bullocks are also useful and have proved major effect of role in the Indianeconomy;

(xi) it is stated that availability of fodder is not a problem in the State or anywhere. During drought period deficit is compensated by grass-bank, silo and purchase of fodder from other States as last resources. The sugarcane tops, leaves of banana, baggase, wheat bhoosa and industrial byproducts etc. are available in plenty. A copy of the letter dated 8.3.2004 indicting sufficient fodder for the year 2004, addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Animal Husbandry Government of India is annexed.Report on draughtability of bullocks above 16 years of age On 20th June, 2001 the State of Gujarat filed I.A. No. 2/2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4937-4940 of 1998, duly supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri D.U. Parmar, Deputy Secretary (Animal Husbandry) Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Government of Gujarat, annexing therewith a report on draughtability of aged bullocks above 16 years of age under field conditions. The study was conducted by the Gujarat Agricultural University Veterinary College, Anand and the Department of Animal Husbandry, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. The study was planned with two objectives: (i) To study the draughtability and utility of aged bullocks above 16 years of age; and(ii)To compare the draughtability of aged bullocks with bullocks of prime age.

Empirical research was carried out under field conditions in North Gujarat Region (described as Zone-I) and Saurashtra region (described as Zone-II). The average age of aged bullocks under the study was 18.75 years. The number of bullocks/pair used under the study were sufficient to draw sound conclusions from the study. The gist of the findings arrived at, is summed up as under:

1.Farmer's persuasion

The aged bullocks were utilized for different purposes like agricultural operations (ploughing, planking, harrowing, hoeing, threshing) and transport-hauling of agricultural produce, feeds and fodders of animals, drinking water, construction materials (bricks, stones, sand grits etc.) and for sugarcane crushing/ khandsari making. On an average the bullocks were yoked for 3 to 6 hours per working day and 100 to 150 working days per year. Under Indian conditions the reported values for working days per year ranges from 50 to 100 bullock paired days by small, medium and large farmers. Thus, the agricultural operations-draft output are still being taken up from the aged bullocks by the farmers. The farmers feed concentrates, green fodders and dry fodders to these aged bullocks and maintain the health of these animals considering them an important segment of their families. Farmers love their bullocks.

2.Age, body measurement and body weightThe biometric and body weight of aged bullocks were within the normal range.

3.Horsepower generation/Work output

The aged bullocks on an average generated 0.68 hp/bullock, i.e.18.1% less than the prime/young bullocks (0.83 hp/bullock). The aged bullocks walked comfortably with an average stride length of 1.43 meter and at the average speed of 4.49 km/hr. showing little less than young bullocks. However, these values were normal for the aged bullocks performing light/medium work of carting. These values were slightly lower than those observed in case of prime or young bullocks. This clearly indicates that the aged bullocks above 16 years of age proved their work efficiency for both light as well as medium work in spite of the age bar. In addition to this, the experiment was conducted during the months of May-June, 2000 a stressful summer season. Therefore, these bullocks could definitely generate more work output during winter, being a comfortable season. The aged bullock above 16 years of age performed satisfactorily and disproved that they are unfit for any type of draft output i.e. either agricultural operations, carting or other works.

4. Physiological responses and haemoglobin concentration

These aged bullocks are fit to work for 6 hours (morning 3 hours + afternoon 3 hrs.) per day. Average Hb content (g%) at the start of work was observed to be 10.72 g% and after 3 hours of work 11.14g%, indicating the healthy state of bullocks. The increment in the haemoglobin content after 3 to 4 hours of work was also within the normal range and in accordance with prime bullocks under study as well as the reported values for working bullocks.

5. Distress symptoms In the initial one hour of work, 6 bullocks (3.8%) showed panting, while 32.7% after one hour of work. After 2 hour of work, 28.2% of bullocks exhibited salivation. Only 6.4% of the bullocks sat down/lied down and were reluctant to work after completing 2 hours of the work. The results are indicative of the fact that majority of the aged bullocks (93%) worked normally. Summer being a stressful season, the aged bullocks exhibited distress symptoms earlier than the prime/young bullocks. However, they maintained their physiological responses within normal range and generated satisfactory draft power. The study report submitted its conclusions as under:

"1.The aged bullocks above 16 years of age generated 0.68 horse power draft output per bullock while the prime bullocks generated 0.83 horsepower per bullock during carting-hauling draft work.

2.The aged bullocks worked satisfactorily for the light work for ontinuous 4 hours during morning session and total 6 hours per day (morning 3 hours and afternoon 3 hours) for medium work.

3.The physiological responses (Rectal temperature, Respiration rate and Pulse rate) and haemoglobin of aged bullocks were within the normal range and also maintained the incremental range during work. However, they exhibited the distress symptoms earlier as compared to prime bullocks.

4.Seven percent aged bullocks under study were reluctant to work and/or lied down after 2 hours of work.

5.The aged bullocks were utilized by the farmers to perform agricultural operations (ploughing, sowing, harrowing, planking, threshing), transport-hauling of agricultural product, feeds and fodders, construction materials and drinking water.

Finally, it proves that majority (93%) of the aged bullocks above 16 years of age are still useful to farmers to perform light and medium draft works."

With the report, the study group annexed album/photographs and cassettes prepared while carrying out the study. Several tables and statements setting out relevant statistics formed part of the report. A list of 16 authentic references originating from eminent authors on the subject under study which were referred to by the study group was appended to the repor

This application (I.A. No. 2/2001) was allowed and the affidavit taken on record vide order dated 20.8.2001 passed by this Court. No response has been filed by any of the respondents controverting the facts stated in the affidavit and the accompanying report. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the facts stated therein; more so, when it is supported by the affidavit of a responsible officer of the State Government.Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007) Documents

In the report of the Working Group on Animal Husbandry and Dairy Farming, the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007) dealing with 'the draught breed relevance and improvement', published by the Government of India, Planning Commission in January, 2001, facts are stated in great detail pointing out the relevance of draught breeds and setting out options for improvement from the point of view of the Indian Economy. We extract and reproduce a few of the facts therefrom:"3.6.12 Relevance of draught breeds and options for improvement

3.6.12.1In India 83.4 million holdings (78%) are less than 2 ha. where tractors and tillers are uneconomical and the use of animal power becomes inevitable since tractors and tillers are viable only for holdings above 5 ha.. In slushy and water logged fields tractor tiller is not suitable. In narrow terraced fields and hilly regions tractors cannot function. Animal drawn vehicle are suitable for rural areas under certain circumstances/conditions viz., uneven terrain, small loads (less than 3 tons), short distances and where time of loading and unloading is more than travel time or time is not a critical factor and number of collection points/distribution points are large as in case of milk, vegetable, water, oil, etc. In India the energy for ploughing two-thirds of the cultivated area comes from animal power and animal drawn vehicles haul two-thirds of rural transport.

3.6.12.2The role of cattle as the main source of motive power for agriculture and certain allied operations would continue to remain as important as meeting the requirement of milk in the country. It has been estimated that about 80 million bullocks will be needed. There is, therefore, a need for improving the working efficiency of the bullocks through improved breeding and feeding practices.

3.6.13Development of Draught Breeds Focused attention to draft breed will not be possible unless a new scheme is formulated for this purpose

3.6.13.2In tracts where there are specialized draught breeds of cattle like Nagori in Rajasthan, Amritmahal and Hallikar in Karnataka, Khillar in Maharashtra etc., selection for improvement in draughtability should be undertaken on a large scale as the cattle breeders in these areas derive a large income by sale of good quality bullocks. Planned efforts should be made for improving the draught capacity and promoting greater uniformity in the type of the cattle population in the breeding tracts. There is need to intensify investigations to develop yardsticks for objective assessment of draught capacity of bullocks.

3.6.14Supplementation of fund-flow for cattle and Buffalo development.

3.6.14.2A number of organizations like NABARD, NDDB, NCDC etc. are also likely to be interested in funding activities relating to cattle and buffalo development in the form of term as loan provided timely return is ensured. Time has now come for exploring such avenues seriously at least on pilot basis in selected areas, where better prospects of recovery of cost of breeding inputs and services exists."

Recognising the fact that the cow and its progeny has a significant role to play in the agricultural and rural economy of the country, the Government felt that it was necessary to formulate measures for their development in all possible ways.

In view of the persistent demands for action to be taken to prevent their slaughter, the Government also felt and expressed the need to review the relevant laws of the land relating to protection, preservation, development and well-being of cattle and to take measures to secure the cattle wealth of India.Yet another document to which we are inclined to make a reference is Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five Year Plan (2002-2007) released in June, 2005 by the Government of India (Planning Commission). Vide para 5.80 the report recommends that efforts should be made to increase the growth of bio-pesticides production from 2.5 to 5 per cent over the next five years.

According to the report, Organic farming is a way of farming which excludes the use of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, etc. and is primarily based on the principles of use of natural organic inputs and biological plant protection measures.

Properly managed organic farming reduces or eliminates water pollution and helps conserve water and soil on the farm and thereby enhances sustainability and agro-biodiversity.

Organic farming has become popular in many western countries. There are two major driving forces behind this phenomenon; growing global market for organic agricultural produce due to increased health consciousness; and the premium price of organic produce fetched by the producers.

India has a comparative advantage over many other countries.The Appraisal Report acknowledged the commencement of the biogas programme in India since 1981-82. Some 35,24,000 household plants have been installed against an assessed potential of 120,00,000 units.

Biogas has traditionally been produced in India from cow dung (gobar gas). However, dung is not adequately and equitably available in villages. Technologies have now been developed for using tree-based organic substrates such as leaf litter, seed starch, seed cakes, vegetable wastes, kitchen wastes etc. for production of biogas. Besides cooking, biogas can also be used to produce electricity in dual fired diesel engines or inhundred per cent gas engines. Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES) is taking initiatives to integrate biogas programme in its Village Energy Security Program (VESP).

Production of pesticides and biogas depend on the availability of cow-dung.National Commission on Cattle Vide its Resolution dated 2nd August, 2001, the Government of India established a National Commission on Cattle, comprising of 17 members. The Commission was given the follow terms of reference:-

a.To review the relevant laws of the land(Centre as well as States) which relate to protection, preservation, development and well being of cow and its progeny and suggest measures for their effective implementation,

b.To study the existing provisions for the maintenance of Goshalas, Gosadans, Pinjarapoles and other organisations working for protection and development of cattle and suggest measures for making them economically viable,

c.To study the contribution of cattle towards the Indian economy and to suggest ways and means of organising scientific research for maximum utilisation of cattle products and draught animal power in the field of nutrition and health, agriculture and energy, and to submit a comprehensive scheme in this regard to the Central Government,

d.To review and suggest measures to improve the availability of feed and fodder to support the cattle population.

The Committee after extensive research has given a list of recommendations. A few of them relevant in the present case are:-

" 1.The Prohibition for slaughter of cow and its progeny, which would include bull, bullocks, etc., should be included in Fundamental Rights or as a Constitutional Mandate anywhere else, as an Article of Constitution. It should not be kept only in the Directive Principles or/Fundamental duties as neither of these are enforceable by the courts.

2. The amendment of the Constitution should also be made for empowering the Parliament to make a Central Law for the prohibition of slaughter of cow and its progeny and further for prohibition of their transport from one State to another.

3. The Parliament should then make a Central law, applicable to all States, prohibiting slaughter of cow and its progeny. Violation of the Law should be made a non-bailable and cognizable offence. Xxx xx14. Theuse and production of chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides should be discouraged, subsidies on these items should be reduced or abolished altogether. The use of organic manure should be subsidized and promoted."Thus the Commission is of the view that there should be a complete prohibition on slaughter of cow progeny. Importance of Bovine Dung

The Report of the National Commission on Cattle, ibid, refers to an authority namely, Shri Vasu in several sub-paragraphs of para 12. Shri Vasu has highlighted the unique and essential role of bovine and bovine dung in our economy and has pleaded that slaughter of our precious animals should be stopped. He has in extenso dealt with several uses of dung and its significance from the point of view of Indian society. Dung is a cheap and harmless fertilizer in absence whereof the farmers are forced to use costly and harmful chemical fertilizers. Dung also has medicinal value in Ayurved, the Indian system of medicines.

Continuing Utility of Cattle : Even if the utility argument of the Quareshi's judgment is accepted, it cannot be accepted that bulls and bullocks become useless after the age of 16. It has to be said that bulls and bullocks are not useless to the society because till the end of their lives they yield excreta in the form of urine and dung which are both extremely useful for production of bio-gas and manure. Even after their death, they supply hide and other accessories. Therefore, to call them 'useless' is totally devoid of reality. If the expenditure on their maintenance is compared to the return which they give, at the most, it can be said that they become 'less useful'.(Report of the National Commission on Cattle, July 2002, Volume I, p. 279.) The Report of the National Commission on Cattle has analyzed the economic viability of cows after they stopped yielding milk and it also came to the conclusion that it shall not be correct to call such cows 'useless cattle' as they still continue to have a great deal of utility. Similar is the case with other cattle as well.

"37. Economic aspects:

37.1 The cows are slaughtered in India because the owner of the cow finds it difficult to maintain her after she stops yielding milk. This is because it is generally believed that milk is the only commodity obtained from cows, which is useful and can be sold in exchange of cash. This notion is totally wrong. Cow yields products other than milk, which are valuable and saleable. Thus the dung as well as the urine of cow can be put to use by owner himself or sold to persons or organizations to process them. The Commission noticed that there are a good number of organizations (goshalas) which keep the cows rescued while being carried to slaughter houses. Very few of such cows are milk yielding. Such organizations use the urine and dung produced by these cows to prepare Vermi-compost or any other form of bio manure and urine for preparing pest repellents. The money collected by the sale of such products is normally sufficient to allow maintenance of the cows. In some cases, the urine and dung is used to prepare the medical formulations also. The organizations, which are engaged in such activities, are making profits also.

37.2 Commission examined the balance sheet of some such organizations. The expenditure and income of one such organization is displayed here. In order to make accounts simple the amounts are calculated as average per cow per day.

It is obvious that expenditure per cow is Rs. 15-25 cow/day.While the income from sale is Rs. 25-35 cow-day.

37.3 These averages make it clear that the belief that cows which do not yield milk are unprofitable and burden for the owner is totally false. In fact it can be said that products of cow are sufficient to maintain them even without milk. The milk in such cases is only a byproduct.

37.4 It is obvious that all cow owners do not engage in productions of fertilizers or insect repellents. It can also be understood that such activity may not be feasible for owners of a single or a few cows. In such cases, the cow's urine and dung may be supplied to such organizations, which utilize these materials for producing finished products required for agricultural or medicinal purpose. Commission has noticed that some organizations which are engaged in production of agricultural and medical products from cow dung and urine do purchase raw materials from nearby cow owner at a price which is sufficient to maintain the cow." (Report of National Commission on Cattle, July 2002, Vol. II, pp.68-69)

A host of other documents have been filed originating from different sources such as Governmental or Semi-governmental, NGOs, individuals or group of individuals, who have carried out researches and concluded that world-over there is an awareness in favour of organic farming for which cattle are indispensable. However, we do not propose to refer to these documents as it would only add to the length of the judgment. We have, apart from the affidavits, mainly referred to the reports published by the Government of India, whose veracity cannot be doubted.

We do not find any material brought on record on behalf of the respondents which could rebut, much less successfully, the correctness of the deductions flowing from the documented facts and statistics stated hereinabove.

The utility of cow cannot be doubted at all. A total ban on cow slaughter has been upheld even in Quareshi-I. The controversy in the present case is confined to cow progeny. The important role that cow and her progeny play in the Indian Economy was acknowledged in Quareshi-I in the following words:

"The discussion in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establishes the usefulness of the cow and her progeny. They sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet. The working bullocks are indispensable for our agriculture, for they supply power more than any other animal. Good breeding bulls are necessary to improve the breed so that the quality and stamina of the future cows and working bullocks may increase and the production of food and milk may improve and be in abundance. The dung of the animal is cheaper than the artificial manures and is extremely useful. In short, the back bone of Indian agriculture is in a manner of speaking the cow and her progeny. Indeed Lord Linlithgow has truly said "The cow and the working bullock have on their patient back the whole structure of Indian agriculture." (Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India, p. 20). If, therefore, we are to attain sufficiency in the production of food, if we are to maintain the nation's health, the efficiency and breed of our cattle population must be considerably improved. To attain the above objectives, we must devote greater attention to the preservation, protection and improvement of the stock and organise our agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines."

On the basis of the available material, we are fully satisfied to hold that the ban on slaughter of cow progeny as imposed by the impugned enactment is in the interests of the general public within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution.Part - IIIStare Decisis

We have dealt with all the submissions and counter submissions made on behalf of the parties. What remains to be dealt with is the plea, forcefully urged, on behalf of the respondents that this Court should have regard to the principle of stare decisis and should not upturn the view taken in Quareshi-I which has held field ever since 1958 and has been followed in subsequent decisions, which we have already dealt with hereinabove.

Stare decisis is a Latin phrase which means "to stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudication". This principle is expressed in the maxim "stare decisis et non quieta movere" which means to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled. This was aptly put by Lord Coke in his classic English version as "Those things which have been so often adjudged ought to rest in peace". However, according to Justice Frankfurter, the doctrine of stare decisis is not "an imprisonment of reason" (Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyer, 3rd Edition 2005, Volume 4, p. 4456). The underlying logic of the doctrine is to maintain consistency and avoid uncertainty. The guiding philosophy is that a view which has held the field for a long time should not be disturbed only because another view is possible.

The trend of judicial opinion, in our view, is that stare decisis is not a dogmatic rule allergic to logic and reason; it is a flexible principle of law operating in the province of precedents providing room to collaborate with the demands of changing times dictated by social needs, State policy and judicial conscience.

According to Professor Lloyd concepts are good servants but bad masters. Rules, which are originally designed to fit social needs, develop into concepts, which then proceed to take on a life of their own to the detriment of legal development. The resulting "jurisprudence of concepts" produces a slot-machine approach to law whereby new points posing questions of social policy are decided, not by reference to the underlying social situation, but by reference to the meaning and definition of the legal concepts involved. This formalistic a priori approach confines the law in a strait-jacket instead of permitting it to expand to meet the new needs and requirements of changing society (Salmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition, at p.187). In such cases Courts should examine not only the existing laws and legal concepts, but also the broader underlying issues of policy. In fact presently, judges are seen to be paying increasing attention to the possible effects of their decision one way or the other. Such an approach is to be welcomed, but it also warrants two comments. First, judicial inquiry into the general effects of a proposed decision tends itself to be of a fairly speculative nature. Secondly, too much regard for policy and too little for legal consistency may result in a confusing and illogical complex of contrary decisions. In such a situation it would be difficult to identify and respond to generalized and determinable social needs. While it is true that "the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience" and that we should not wish it otherwise, nevertheless we should remember that "no system of law can be workable if it has not got logic at the root of it" (Salmond, ibid, pp.187-188).

Consequently, cases involving novel points of law, have to be decided by reference to several factors. The judge must look at existing laws, the practical social results of any decision he makes, and the requirements of fairness and justice. Sometimes these will all point to the same conclusion. At other times each will pull in a different direction; and here the judge is required to weigh one factor against another and decide between them. The rationality of the judicial process in such cases consists of explicitly and consciously weighing the pros and cons in order to arrive at a conclusion. (Salmond, ibid, pp. 188).

In case of modern economic issues which are posed for resolution in advancing society or developing country, the court cannot afford to be static by simplistically taking shelter behind principles such as stare decisis, and refuse to examine the issues in the light of present facts and circumstances and thereby adopt the course of judicial "hands off". Novelty unsettles existing attitudes and arrangements leading to conflict situations which require judicial resolution. If necessary adjustments in social controls are not put in place then it could result in the collapse of social systems. Such novelty and consequent conflict resolution and "patterning" is necessary for full human development. (See - The Province and Function of Law, Julius Stone, at pp.588, 761and 762)

Stare decisis is not an inexorable command of the Constitution or jurisprudence. A careful study of our legal system will discern that any deviation from the straight path of stare decisis in our past history has occurred for articulable reasons, and only when the Supreme Court has felt obliged to bring its opinions in line with new ascertained fact, circumstances and experiences. (Precedent in Indian Law, A. Laxminath, Second Edition 2005, p. 8).

Given the progressive orientation of the Supreme Court, its creative role under Article 141 and the creative elements implicit in the very process of determining ratio decidendi, it is not surprising that judicial process has not been crippled in the discharge of its duty to keep the law abreast of the times, by the traditionalist theory of stare decisis (ibid, p. 32). Times and conditions change with changing society, and, "every age should be mistress of its own law" and era should not be hampered by outdated law. "It is revolting", wrote Mr. Justice Holmes in characteristically forthright language, "to have no better reason for a rule of law than it was so laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past". It is the readiness of the judges to discard that which does not serve the public, which has contributed to the growth and development of law. (ibid, p. 68)The doctrine of stare decisis is generally to be adhered to, because well settled principles of law founded on a series of authoritative pronouncements ought to be followed. Yet, the demands of the changed facts and circumstances dictated by forceful factors supported by logic, amply justify the need for a fresh look.

Sir John Salmond, while dealing with precedents and illustrating instances of departure by the House of Lords from its own previous decisions, states it to be desirable as 'it would permit the House (of Lords) to abrogate previous decisions which were arrived at in different social conditions and which are no longer adequate in present circumstances. (See Salmond, ibid, at p.165). This view has been succinctly advocated by Dr. Goodhart who said: "There is an obvious antithesis between rigidity and growth, and if all the emphasis is placed on absolutely binding cases then the law looses the capacity to adapt itself to the changing spirit of the times which has been described as the life of the law". (ibid, p.161) This very principle has been well stated by William O' Douglas in the context of constitutional jurisprudence. He says: "So far as constitutional law is concerned, stare decisis must give way before the dynamic component of history. Once it does, the cycle starts again". (See Essays on Jurisprudence from the Columbia Law Review, 1964, at p.20)

We have already indicated that in Quareshi-I, the challenge to the constitutional validity of the legislation impugned therein, was turned down on several grounds though forcefully urged, excepting for one ground of 'reasonableness'; which is no longer the position in the case before us in the altered factual situation and circumstances. In Quareshi-I the reasonableness of the restriction pitted against the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or business determined the final decision, having been influenced mainly by considerations of weighing the comparative inconvenience to the butchers and the advancement of public interest. As the detailed discussion contained in the judgment reveals, this determination is not purely one of law, rather, it is a mixed finding of fact and law. Once the strength of the factual component is shaken, the legal component of the finding in Quareshi-I loses much of its significance. Subsequent decisions have merely followed Quareshi-I. In the case before us, we have material in abundance justifying the need to alter the flowof judicial opinion.Part - IVQuareshi-I, re-visited :

Having dealt with each of the findings recorded in Quareshi-I, which formed the basis of the ultimate decision therein, we revert to examine whether the view taken by the Constitution Bench in Quareshi-I can be upheld.

We have already pointed out that having tested the various submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners on the constitutional anvil, the Constitution Bench in Quareshi-I upheld the constitutional validity, as reasonable and valid, of a total ban on the slaughter of : (i) cows of all ages, (ii) calves of cows and she-buffaloes, male or female, and (iii) she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are as milch or draught cattle. But the Constitution Bench found it difficult to uphold a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls or bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals, on the material made available to them, the ban failed to satisfy the test of being reasonable and "in the interests of the general public". It is clear that, in the opinion of the Constitution Bench, the test provided by clause

(6) of Article 19 of the Constitution was not satisfied. The findings on which the above-said conclusion is based are to be found summarized on pp.684-687. Para-phrased, the findings are as follows:

(1)The country is in short supply of milch cattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks, essential to maintain the health and nourishment of the nation. The cattle population fit for breeding and work must be properly fed by making available to the useful cattle in presenti in futuro. The maintenance of useless cattle involves a wasteful drain on the nation's cattle feed.

(2) Total ban on the slaughter of cattle would bring a serious dislocation, though not a complete stoppage, of the business of a considerable section of the people who are by occupation Butchers (Kasai), hide merchant and so on.

(3)Such a ban will deprive a large section of the people of what may be their staple food or protein diet.

(4)Preservation of useful cattle by establishment of gosadan is not a practical proposition, as they are like concentration camps where cattle are left to die a slow death.

(5)The breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffaloes) do not require as much protection as cows and calves do.

These findings were recorded in the judgment delivered on 23rd April, 1958. Independent India, having got rid of the shackles of foreign rule, was not even 11 years old then. Since then, the Indian economy has made much headway and gained a foothold internationally. Constitutional jurisprudence has indeed changed from what it was in 1958, as pointed out earlier. Our socio-economic scenario has progressed from being gloomy to a shining one, full of hopes and expectations and determinations for present and future. Our economy is steadilymoving towards prosperity in a planned way through five year plans, nine of which have been accomplished and tenth is under way. We deal with the findings in Quareshi-I seriatim.

Finding 1 : We do not dispute that the country is in short supply of milch cattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks and that they are essential to maintain the health and nourishment of the nation as held in Quareshi-I. Rather we rely on the said finding which stands reinforced by the several documents which we have referred to hereinbefore.

In the Quareshi-I era, there was a shortage of fodder in the country. Various plans were drawn up in the direction of exploring potential fodder areas for the future. Although, the planning was there; implementation was lacking. The Report of National Commission on Cattle, July 2002 (Vol. II) reveals that the existing fodder resources of the country can sustain and meet 51.92% of the total requirements to sustain its livestock population. But we have to take into consideration the fodder potential of the country. We have vast culturable waste land which with some efforts can be developed into good pasture land. Major part of the fallow land can be put under the plough for having fodder crops such as Jowar, Bajra and smaller millets. The combined area of several categories of land which can be developed as potential fodder area is 58.87 million hectares. If managed properly, there are areas in the country which can be developed into a "Grass Reservoir of India for use as pasture land". One very big potential area lies in Jaisaelmer District of Rajasthan (spread over 22,16,527 hectares). The Commission has recommended 23 steps to be taken by the State Government and the Central Government for development and conservation of food and fodder (See paras 37-41 of the report at pages 130-135).

So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, we have already noticed, while dealing with the documentary evidence available on record, that fodder shortage is not a problem so far as this state is concerned and cow progeny, the slaughtering whereof has already shown a downward trend during the recent years, can very well be fed and maintained without causing any wasteful drain on the feed requisite for active milch, breeding and draught cattle.

Finding 2 :The finding suffers from two infirmities. First, Quareshi-I has not felt the necessity of finding whether a 'total prohibition' is also included within 'restriction' as employed in Article 19(6). It is now well-settled that 'restriction' includes 'prohibition'. Second and the real fallacy in Quareshi-I is that the ban limited to slaughtering of cow progeny has been held at one place to be a 'total prohibition', while in our opinion, is not so. At another place, the effect of ban has been described as causing 'a serious dislocation, though not a complete stoppage of the business of a considerable section of the people'. If that is so, it is not a 'total prohibition'. The documentary evidence available on record shows that beef contributes only 1.3% of the total meat consumption pattern of the Indian society. Butchers are not prohibited from slaughtering animals other than the cattle belonging to cow progeny. Consequently, only a part of their activity has been prohibited. They can continue with their activity of slaughtering other animals. Even if it results in slight inconvenience, it is liable to be ignored if the prohibition is found to be in the interest of economy and social needs of the country.

Finding 3 :In the first and second Five Year Plans (Quareshi-I era), there was scarcity of food which reflected India's panic. The concept of food security has since then undergone considerable change.47 years since, it is futile to think that meat originating from cow progeny can be the only staple food or protein diet for the poor population of the country. 'India Vision 2020' (ibid, Chapter 3) deals with 'Food Security and Nutrition : Vision 2020'.

We cull out a few relevant findings and observations therefrom and set out in brief in the succeeding paragraphs. Food availability and stability were considered good measures of food security till the Seventies and the achievement of self-sufficiency was accorded high priority in the food policies. Though India was successful in achieving self-sufficiency by increasing its food production, it could not solve the problem of chronic household food insecurity. This necessitated a change in approach and as a result food energy intake at household level is now given prominence in assessing food security. India is one of the few countries which have experimented with a broad spectrum of programmes for improving food security. It has already made substantial progress in terms of overcoming transient food insecurity by giving priority to self-sufficiency in foodgrains, employment programmes, etc. The real problem, facing India, is not the availability of food, staple food and protein rich diet; the real problem is its unequal distribution. The real challenge comes from the slow growth of purchasing power of the people and lack of adequate employment opportunities. Another reason for lack of food and nutrient intake through cereal consumption is attributable to changes in consumer tastes and preferences towards superior food items as the incomes of the household increases. Empirical evidence tends to suggest a positive association between the calorie intake and nutritional status. The responsiveness is likely to be affected by the factors relating to health and environment. It is unclear as to how much of the malnutrition is due to an inadequate diet and how much due to the environment. India achieved near self-sufficiency in the availability of foodgrains by the mid-Seventies. The trend rate of foodgrain production improved 2.3 per cent during the 1960s and 1970s to 2.9 per cent in the Eighties. The recent economic survey of 2005 has also pointed out that the per capita availability of the milk has doubled since independence from 124 gms/day in the year 1950-51 to 229 gms/day in the year 2001-02. (Report of National Commission on Cattle. Vol. II, p. 84.)

A complete reading of the research paper on Food Security and Nutrition (Chapter 3 in India Vision 2020) is a clear pointer to the fact that desirable diet and nutrition are not necessarily associated with non-vegetarian diet and that too originating from slaughtering cow progeny. Beef contributes only 1.3% of the total meat consumption pattern of the Indian society.

Consequently a prohibition on the slaughter of cattle would not substantially affect the food consumption of the people. To quote (ibid. p.209) : "Even though the question of desirable diet from nutritional perspective is still controversial, we can make certain policy options to overcome the nutritional deficiencies. The most important problem to be attended is to increase the energy intake of the bottom 30 per cent of the expenditure class. The deficiency of energy intake of the bottom 30 per cent can be rectified by increasing agricultural productivity in rain fed areas, making available food at an affordable price through the Public distribution system (PDS), and other poverty alleviation programmes. The micro-nutrient deficiency can be cost-effectively rectified by supplementary nutritional programmes to the children and the expectant and lactating mothers."

The main source of staple food which is consumed both by vegetarians and non-vegetarians is supplied by vegetables. Synthetic staple food has also been made available by scientific researches. It will, therefore, not be correct to say that poor will suffer in availing staple food and nutritional diet only because slaughter of cow progeny was prohibited.

Finding 4 : Quareshi-I itself reveals a very general opinion formed by the Court as to the failure of gosadans and their inability to preserve cattle. The statistics made available before us are a positive indicator to the contrary that gosadans and goshalas are being maintained and encouraged so as to take up both useful and so-called useless cattle, if the owner is not willing to continue to maintain them. Quareshi-I relied on a Report of an Expert Committee, which has certainly become an outdated document by the lapse of 47 years since then. Moreover, independent of all the evidence, we have in this judgment already noticed that cattle belonging to the category of cow progeny would not be rendered without shelter and feed by the owner to whom it had served throughout its life. We find support from the affidavits and reports filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat which state inter alia "farmers love their cattle".National Commission on Cattle in its Report (ibid) has incorporated as many as 17 recommendations for strengthening of goshalas (para 20 at pages 120-122)

We have already noticed in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat that, in the State of Gujarat adequate provisions have been made for the maintenance of gosadans and goshalas. Adequate fodder is available for the entire cattle population. The interest exhibited by the NGOs seeking intervention in the High Court and filing appeals in this Court also indicates that the NGOs will be willing to take up the task of caring for aged bulls and bullocks.

Finding 5In Quareshi-I, vide para 42, the Constitution Bench chose to draw a distinction between breeding bulls and working bullocks, on the one hand and cows and calves, on the other hand, by holding that the farmers would not easily part with the breeding bulls and working bullocks to the butchers as they are useful to the farmers. It would suffice to observe that the protection is needed by the bulls and bullocks at a point of time when their utility has been reduced or has become nil as they near the end of their life. That is what Article 48, in fact, protects, as interpreted in this judgment.

India, as a nation and its population, its economy and its prosperity as of today are not suffering the conditions as were prevalent in 50s and 60s. The country has achieved self-sufficiency in food production. Some of the states such as State of Gujarat have achieved self-sufficiency in cattle-feed and fodder as well. Amongst the people there is an increasing awareness of the need for protein rich food and nutrient diet. Plenty of such food is available from sources other than cow/cow progeny meat. Advancements in the field of Science, including Veterinary Science, have strengthened the health and longetivity of cattle (including cow progeny). But the country's economy continues to be based on agriculture. The majority of the agricultural holdings are small units. The country needs bulls and bullocks.

For multiple reasons which we have stated in very many details while dealing with Question-6 in Part II of the judgment,we have found that bulls and bullocks do not become useless merely by crossing a particular age. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, apart from other evidence available, clearly conveys that cow and her progeny constitute the backbone of Indian agriculture and economy. The increasing adoption of non-conventional energy sources like Bio-gas plants justify the need for bulls and bullocks to live their full life in spite of their having ceased to be useful for the purpose of breeding and draught. This Statement of Objects and Reasons tilts the balance in favour of the constitutional validity of the impugned enactment. In Quareshi-I the Constitution Bench chose to bear it in mind, while upholding the constitutionality of the legislations impugned therein, insofar as the challenge by reference to Article 14 was concerned, that "the legislature correctly appreciates the needs of its own people". Times have changed; so have changed the social and economic needs. The Legislature has correctly appreciated the needs of its own people and recorded the same in the Preamble of the impugned enactment and the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to it. In the light of the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape from the conclusion that the protection conferred by impugned enactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest of 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.

According to Shri M.S. Swaminathan, the eminent Farm Scientist, neglect of the farm sector would hit our economy hard. According to him "Today, global agriculture is witnessing two opposite trends. In many South Asian countries, farm size is becoming smaller and smaller and farmers suffer serious handicaps with reference to the cost-risk-return structure of agriculture. In contrast, the average farm size in most industrialized countries is over several hundred hectares and farmers are supported by heavy inputs of technology, capital and subsidy. The on-going Doha round of negotiations of the World Trade Organisation in the field of agriculture reflects the polarization that has taken place in the basic agrarian structure of industrialized and developing countries. Farming as a way of life is disappearing and is giving way to agribusiness." (K.R. Narayanan Oration delivered by Dr. Swaminathan at the Australian National University, Canberra, published in 'The Hindu', October 17, 2005, p.10)

"In India, nearly 600 million individuals are engaged in farming and over 80 per cent of them belong to the small and marginal farmer categories. Due to imperfect adaptation to local environments, insufficient provision of nutrients and water, and incomplete control of pests, diseases and weeds, the present average yields of major farming systems in India is just 40 per cent of what can be achieved even with the technologies currently on the shelf. There is considerable scope for further investment in land improvement through drainage, terracing, and control of acidification, in areas where these have not already been introduced." (ibid)

Thus, the eminent scientist is very clear that excepting the advanced countries which have resorted to large scale mechanized farming, most of the countries (India included) have average farms of small size. Majority of the population is engaged in farming within which a substantial proportion belong to small and marginal farmers category. Protectionof cow progeny will help them in carrying out their several agricultural operations and related activities smoothly and conveniently. Organic manure would help in controlling pests and acidification of land apart from resuscitating and stimulating the environment as a whole.

Having subjected the restrictions imposed by the impugned Gujarat enactment to the test laid down in the case of N.M. Thomas (supra) we are unhesitatingly of the opinion that there is no apparent inconsistency between the Directive Principles which persuaded the State to pass the law and the Fundamental Rights canvassed before the High Court by the writ petitioners.

Before we part, let it be placed on record that Dr. L.M. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel for one of the appellants, initially tried to build an argument by placing reliance on Article 31C of the Constitution. But at the end he did not press this submission. Similarly, on behalf of the respondents, the Judgment of the High Court has been supported only by placing reliance on Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the law was not disputed either in the High Court or before us. Result.

For the foregoing reasons, we cannot accept the view taken by the High Court. All the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vires the Constitution. All the writ petitions filed in the High Court are directed to be dismissed.

AWBI REPORT ON INSPECTION OF SLAUGHTER HOUSES AND STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RULES UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF HONORABLE SUPEREME COURT OF INDIA - By Dr. S.K. Mittal

PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) have filed the Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of India with regard to several violations of different Acts & Rules of Union & State Governments in transportation, inspection and Slaughter of Animals. PETA has listed Union of India, Animal Welfare Board of India & all the States in India as the respondents.

The prayer in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 44/2004 includes the following:

The State Governments to appoint statutory societies in the Districts for prevention of PAIN & SUFFERING of animals as mandated by PCA (Establishment of S.P.C.A.) Rules, 2001Animal Welfare Board of India to nominate persons and / or animal welfare organization under the Rule 9 of PCA (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, to check illegal transportation of animals by road or rail or on foot and to inspect the Slaughter houses in their respective Districts and submit it’s reportRespondent 3 to 36 (States) to ensure that animals meant for slaughter conforms to transportation of Animals Rules, 1978 and PCA (Transportation on Foot) Rules, 2001Respondent 3 to 36 (States) to ensure that slaughter is conducted only in licensed / recognized slaughterhouses in their respective Municipal or local authority area, and to shut down all unauthorized slaughterhouses.Respondent 3 to 36 (States) to ensure that all slaughter houses are in conformity with the provisions of PCA (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 and to close down all other slaughter houses as may be specified by Hon’ ble Court.Respondent 3 to 36 (States) to ensure that an animal is not slaughtered within the sight of other animal. Animal, which are pregnant, delivered with in 3 months, or under the age of 3 months or Certified by the Veterinary Doctor as unfit for slaughter should not be slaughtered.Respondent 3 to 36 (States) to ensure that only authorized or licensed persons above 18 years of age) free from infectious or contagious diseases are employed in slaughterhouses.Respondent 3 to 36 (States) to ensure that reception area, resting grounds and lair ages are made available and 24 hours resting time allowed prior to slaughter as per Rules.Respondent 3 to 36 (States) to ensure that sufficient number of Veterinarians is appointed for ante mortem & post mortem certification.Penal clause in case of non-conformity to Rules and Regulation, as may be ordered by Hon` ble Supreme Court of India.

INTRODUCTION
Honorable Supreme Court of India issued directions Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) as under“ In respect of the States of Kerala and Karnataka, A.W.B.I shall conduct in detail , examination of the Slaughter Houses and file report placing on record the state of affairs of the Slaughter houses and the compliance of the Rules aforesaid

· The State Governments / Municipal Corporations and other concerned authorities were directed to fully co operate with A.W.B.I.”Secretary, Animal Welfare Board of India informed the Kerala State Government ,vide letter No. 9-5/2005 dated 8.11.2006, that Chairman AWBI has approved the inspection of slaughter Houses by Mr. S.K. Mittal, Member-AWBI and Mr. A.G. Babu, Secretary Idduki SPCA & requested Mr. S.K. Mittal for necessary Co-ordination.

· Government of Kerala, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Thiruananthpuram, issued the Order No. E2.39562/2004 Dt.7.12.2006 deputing Dr. Surendranath Sr. Vet. Surgeon for North Kerala, Dr. Umamaheshwaran-Sr. Vet Surgeon for Central Kerala & Dt. C.Ramesean Babu-Sr. Vet. Surgeon for Southern Kerala for conducting the inspection of Slaughter houses along with AWBI representatives The list of Slaughterhouses functioning under Department of Local Self Government was provided on 5th Jan., 2007. BUT, list of Slaughter Houses functioning under Gram Panchayat Dept., is not provided at all.On receipt of Kerala Government order on 27th Dec., 2006, Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Kerala was contacted and inspection tour program was finalized to start on 5th Jan., 2007.Objective and basis of Inspection in Kerala :As per the prayer made in WP (Civil) 44/2004, the main objective was decided to examine the status of :· PAIN & SUFFERING of animals.· Methods of transport of animals· Availability of resting area and lair age. the transportation of animals by road or rail or on foot,. Statutory societies in the Districts. slaughter is conducted only in licensed / recognized slaughter houses in their respectiv

· Municipal or local authority area,. slaughter houses are in conformity with the provisions of PCA (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001. ensure that an animal is not slaughtered within the sight of other animal. Animal which arpregnant or delivered with in 3 months or under the age of 3 months or Certified by theVeterinary Doctor as un fit for slaughter. only authorized or licensed persons ( above 18 years of age) free from infectious or contagious diseases are employed in slaughter houses.. reception area, resting grounds and lair ages are made available and 24 hours resting time allowed prior to slaughter as per Rules.. sufficient number of Veterinarians are appointed for ante mortem & post mortem certification.. Implementation of different State & Union Acts & Rules on animal supply, transport, slaughter houses, sale of carcass, effect on health and hygiene of consumer and exchequer.STATEMENT OF TALUKS, BLOCK & GRAM PACHAYATS, TOWN MUNICIPALITIES, CITY MUNICIPALITIES & CORPORATIONS & SLAUGHTER HOUSES IN KERALA AS PER SURVEY REPORT &

· Acts and Rules governing Slaughter houses, supply & Transportation of animal to Slaughter houses, Sale of Carcass, disposal of liquid & solid waste etc.

· Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960PCA Act -Transportation of Cattle Rules, 1978PCA Act- Transportation of animal Rules 2001PCA Act (Slaughter Houses) Rules, 2001Indian Penal Code 427 & 429 & 153-AKerala Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989 Rule No. 97Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Slaughter houses & Meat Stall Rules)Kerala Municipality Act,Keral Pollution Control Act & RulesHon’ble Supreme Court Order DT. 29.03.05 in W.P. (Civil) No.309/2003 Lakshminaryan Modi Vs. Govt. of India & others.KERALA MOTOR VEHICLE RULES, 1989KERALA PANCHAYATRAJ ACT, 1994

· STATEMENT OF, TALUKS, BLOCK &a GRAM PACHAYATS, MUNICIPALITIES & CORPORATIONS &SLAUGHTER HOUSES IN KERALA List of S. H. functioning in Blocks & Gramas was not provided by the Govt. Total 889 Licensed Slaughter houses are reported in Sample Survey Report.But on verification number of Meat Stall Licenses are found included in this figure. As per Public information this number is crossing 3000.Many Slaughterhouses are closed by Kerala State Pollution Control Board and are in process of renovation or new Construction thanks to Directions in W. P (Civil) 309/2003 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.General ObservationsKerala 80% population i.e. more than 25 million are reported consuming Beef or Mutton @ 3.5 KGS every month or say 40 KGS / year. 40% is estimated mutton & 60 % Beef . As per this assumption 4,00,000 MT Mutton & @. RS. 180 per KGS i.e. RS. 7200 Crores & 6,00,000 MT Beef @. RS. 90/- per KGS i.e. RS. 5400 Crore or total RS. 12,600 Crore / year. Apart from huge Export turnover

· To get 4,00,000 MT Mutton app. 26.50 million Goat & Sheep and to get 6,00,000 MT- Beef app. 3 million Cattle are slaughtered in registered – unregistered – Licensed – Unlicensed – Legal – illegal – Civic administration – Gram Panchayats slaughter houses.As Kerala state do not have live stock to meet this huge requirement and it’s live stock is depleted in alarming speed. So, State is transporting Live Stock from nearby States. & Transportation of animals violating provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 PCA Act -Transportation of Cattle Rules, 1978, PCA Act- Transportation of animal Rules 2001, Indian Penal Code 427 & 429 & 153-A, Kerala Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989 Rule No. 197 etc seen in whole STATE.

· Most of the official Slaughter houses working under the control of bidders / contractor . The bid amount per year is found very negligible say RS. 20,000/- per year though responsibility of maintenance , Ante Mortem, Post Mortem etc lies with Civic administration. Unlicensed Slaughter houses are reported in each and every corner. Gross violation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, Kerala Panchayat Ran Act, 1994 (Slaughter houses & Meat Stall Rules)- Kerala Municipality Act, Kerala Pollution Control Act & Rules, Hon’ble Supreme Court Order DT. 29.03.05 in W. P. (Civil) No. 309/2003 , ( Lakshminaryan Modi Vs. Govt. of India & others.) is observed. It can be called as failure of System & Government machinery under some invisible pressures.

· This is resulting apart from violation of all Acts, Rules & Hon’ble Supreme Court Directions and resulting in supply of unhygienic food to more than 25 million consumers of the State. It may result is very bad health hazards.

· Hygiene condition of all the Slaughter houses are very poor, as can be seen in different photographs. Most of the slaughter houses are situated in residential vicinities, using same drainage system, polluting whole area and Ground Water Level. Even Cochin Slaughter house is draining waste in Sea water.

· Normal Slaughter house functioning starts early mornings. In most of the Slaughter houses, it ends before 8 AM morning. As Slaughter houses are located in residential areas and animal dealers / slaughter house contractors / meat stalls owners are localized in the same area, animals are brought same house day morning for slaughter. No resting time of minimum 24 hours is observed in any Slaughter Gross violation of PCA (Slaughter House ) Rules is observed.

· Water is important element required in plenty in this industry and this facility is found lacing in most of the Slaughter houses.

· Drinking water facilities are available through Tap water. Many places, it is used for other purposes.

· Separate enclosures for different species of animals are not available in most of Slaughter housesSlaughtering in the presence of other animals was the general scene in almost all the Slaughter houses which is a great violation of PCA Act. Halal is the uniform method adopted in all the Slaughter houses. Sticking ( cutting the major blood vessel in throat ) is the method adopted in all the Slaughter houses and blood is collected in small vessels at many places. It is reported sold to illicit liquor manufacturers.

· Skinning and hiding of animals are done mostly on the floor though hangers / hooks are seen at many places. Even mechanization was seen at number of slaughter houses with huge Government investment but same is found in destroyed and in non operative condition.

· Health Checkup of Butchers is not in practice. There is no age bar also witnessed. There is no notified regulation in implementation in whole State.

· The butchers & other persons were found using water in the tub / tank. At most of the places, no wash basin, bathroom etc were found.

· Facilities for inspection of CARCASS and VISCERA is not found in any Slaughter house.

· The Skin & hide, Offal, horn, and hooves are collected & disposed same day

· Flooring and walls even in slaughtering hall are only Cemented. At some places, in spite of washing, blood could not be washed. This inspection was not a surprised one. So, every where a trial was made to show high cleanliness. BUT a place which is not cleaned since years, can not be cleaned in one day or by sprinkling bleaching powder.

· Solid waste is found dumped in the back yards. Most of the places, it is removed by Municipal Trucks on periodical basis. Bad smell was a normal complaint from the neighbors.

· Blood and other liquid waste is seen drained through public drainage system. Open flowing was also seen at many places. Maintenance of Sanitation ad Hygiene by the Civic authorities were found to be lacking.

· Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 RULE 197 very clearly restricts the Transportation of Animals and directs the provision of Illicit slaughter is reported in whole State. Though list of app. 40 Slaughter Houses was provided but as per Sample Survey Even Government Report Number is 889 and public information crosses 3000. During the meeting with STATE level officials, it was gathered that Block & Gram Panchayats are functioning under elected representatives and functioning under their govern & dictate only.

· The consumption pattern & number of Consumers, 95% demand is being met by these illicit Slaughter houses in violation of all applicable State & Central Acts & Rules. Apart from violation of different statutory provisions, of health & hygiene of consumers, workers & neighbors is at STAKE.

· Ante Mortem & Post Mortem of the animals and Carcass system is invisible even in all so called authorized Slaughter houses. The carcass used by millions of consumers is resulting in supply of unchecked contaminated food. Sign of diseases like Anthrax, Chicken Guinea are reported. This needs immediate attention of all concerned. One big reason is felt unaccountability. The traders, involved in this trade weather bringing animals from other States or getting slaughtered, or selling carcass in Meat Stalls, are not in any kind of Tax net, nor in any other statutory Check. They are getting control of slaughter houses also in auction, without any binding on them for maintenance, Ante Mortem or Post Mortem, waste management, Cleanliness, etc. Operation Records were not found in most of the Slaughter houses

· At some Slaughter houses, Veterinary officials of Animal Husbandry Department are called by Civic authorities either on petty honorarium or as an additional duty. Each Ante Mortem & Post mortem takes at least 5 minutes and animals are brought for slaughter same morning, than practically, one Vet. Doctor can not check animal more than 50 in a day. Whereas, in many Slaughter houses number crosses even 1000 animals / day. As a matter of fact, Slaughter houses shall be treated as an Industry and not as a free Service.

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

· PAIN & SUFFERING of animals.? Yes Very painful. Complete violation of PCA ACT seen in all the slaughter houses.

· Methods of transport of animals ? Very Cruel.

· Availability of resting area and lair age ? At few places. There also not used as per statutory requirements

· the transportation of animals by road or rail or on foot ? By Road Transport & on foot- Complete violation of PCA Transport of Cattle Rules & Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rule 74 is observed

· Statutory societies in the Districts ? . District SPCA & State Animal Welfare Board are constituted. But not functioning – as required

· Slaughter is conducted only in licensed / recognized slaughter houses in their respective Municipal or local authority area ? No- Even State Government accepts existence of unlicensed Slaughter houses though all Beef & Mutton Stalls are counted as Slaughter houses

· Slaughter houses are in conformity with the provisions of PCA (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001? NO Gross violation is seen

· Ensure that an animal is not slaughtered within the sight of other animal Animal which are pregnant or delivered with in 3 months or under the age of 3 months or Certified by the Veterinary Doctor as un fit for slaughter ? No. Not observed. No control on pregnant animal or delivered with in 3 months

· Only authorized or licensed persons(above 18 years of age) free from infectious or contagious diseases are employed in slaughter houses.? No Check & no medical check up system in practice

· Reception area, resting grounds and lair ages are made available and 24 hours resting time allowed prior to slaughter as per Rules.? No

· sufficient number of Veterinarians are appointed for ante mortem & post mortem certification? No

· Implementation of different State & Union Acts & Rules on animal supply, transport, slaughter houses, sale of carcass, effect on health and hygiene of consumer and exchequer? Gross violation of all statutory requirements are in practice

SUGGESTION & RECOMMENDATION

1. Question of not only cruelty, violation of acts & rules, loss to exchequer but it raises question of health of more than 35 million meat eaters & health of millions of residents residing nearby slaughter houses.

2. The major question is to ensure the checking of animals before & after slaughter as it relates to health of consumer. For this ante mortem & post mortem are statutory requirement but the system is failed. We want to suggest the onus be shifted from civic bodies & be put on animal owner / person offering the animal for slaughter and taking carcass to meat stall.

3. There are more than 4,000 veterinary degree holders spread in each & every corner of state. Area wise penal of these doctors shall be formed.

4. A fee per ante mortem & post mortem per animal be fixed. Say, rs. 25/- per big animal & Rs. 10 /- per small animal. Which shall be paid along with animal offered. Maximum number of ante mortem & post mortem per doctor be fixed. Say, 50 numbers a day.

5. These doctors shall certify, & shall held responsible, for fitness of animal as per all statutory requirements and shall submit their report in writing to concerned department.

6. Cost of ante mortem & post mortem on the assumed quantity of 48.50 million small animals @ rs. 10/- & 3.60 million big animals @rs. 25/- comes to rs. 57.50 crores. Against turnover of rs. 16,700 crores. I.e. 0.34% or say 0.40 paisa per kg. To ensure the health of 35 million citizen, and saving hundreds of crores of medicine bills, this cost is very meager.

7. Different government agencies shall be warned and responsibility with penal proceedings be fixed on report of violation and their non action .

8. SPCA at district level & state animal welfare board at state level shall monitor working of slaughter houses & shall report periodically to animal welfare board of india.

9. Directions issued by honorable supreme court of india in wp ( civil) . 309/2003 in laxmi narayan modi v/s govt. Of india & others are not being implemented. We bring to the kind notice of hon’ ble supreme court and suggest that status report shall be called and action be initiated against defaulting agencies.

10. In general, slaughter houses shall be treated as an industry and needed modernization shall be implemented fulfilling the norms established under different statutes & where ever, required site be shifted in interest of public health & hygiene.

11. Effective implementation of rules with regards to transportation, sale, purchase, sanitation, waste management etc. Shall be implemented by different agencies.

शनिवार, 9 जून 2012

LEGAL SAFETY TO COW FROM ILLEFAL TRANSPORTATION, ILLEGAL SLAUGHTER,ILLEGAL MARKETING