1

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -II

THE LEGAL BATTLE AROUND BEEF BAN IN INDIA

IV TRIMESTER

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

AMULYA UPADHYAY PROF. KULDEEP KAUR

ROLL NO. 2017 BALLB 126 LLb (Hons.) (University Of London)
Bar Finals (Lincoln’s Inn)(Barrister-at-Law)
 2

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my gratitude towards Prof.Kuldeep Kaur for assigning me such a topic for
research work that is the legal battle around beef ban in India and for helping me to go in
furtherance with this topic. Without her support this work could not be possible.
I would also like to thank my batch mates, seniors, friends and relatives for their valuable support
and guidance that helped me to reach on the conclusion.

Without the help all these people, this project would not have been possible and I would not have
been able to reach on the conclusion so here by, I acknowledge their helpful contributions.

- AMULYA UPADHYAY
 3

Contents
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................6
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules 2017.........................7
THE BAN IS CONTRARY TO THE PARENT ACT.....................................................................................7
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.................................................................................8
FREEDOM OF TRADE..........................................................................................................................8
RIGHT TO LIFE.................................................................................................................................11
RIGHT TO PRIVACY....................................................................................................................11
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION...................................................................................................12
APPLICATION OF BAN IN STATES............................................................................................14
KERALA AND THE NORTH-EAST........................................................................................................15

NORTH AND THE WEST……..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................................19
 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The project uses doctrinal method to study the evolution of basic structure theory in Constitution of
India. Methodology of research includes systematic method , collection of the facts. The project
include landmark cases analysis relevant to this topic. Legal principles and legal provisions were also
involved in study. Data was collected from the secondary sources like newspaper, legal articles,
internet, and relevant books on this subject.
 5

OBJECTIVES

 To study the impact of beef ban on fundamental rights.

 To study right to life, freedom of trade and occupation and freedom of religion in context of
beef ban.
 To study these rights in context of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock
Markets) Rules 2017.
 6

INTRODUCTION

The legal battle around beef and it’s subsequent ban in India has been a heated topic of debate not
only within the country but outside the country as well. With global news media media giants such as
the BBC and the New York Times covering the topic, it has evidently garnered the attention of
people all across.

Article 48 of the Constitution of India mandates the state to prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves
and other milch and draught cattle. On 26 October 2005, the Supreme Court of India, in a landmark
judgement upheld the constitutional validity of anti-cow slaughter laws enacted by different state
governments in India.1 20 out of 29 states in India currently have various regulations prohibiting
either the slaughter or sale of cows. Kerala, Goa, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram,
Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura are the states where there are no restrictions on cow slaughter. As
per existing meat export policy in India, the export of beef (meat of cow, oxen and calf) is
prohibited.

The laws governing cattle slaughter in India vary greatly from state to state. State legislatures have
exclusive powers to legislate the prevention of slaughter and preservation of cattle. 2 Some States
allow the slaughter of cattle with restrictions like a "fit-for-slaughter" certificate which may be issued
depending on factors like age and gender of cattle, continued economic viability etc. Others
completely ban cattle slaughter, while there is no restriction in a few states. `

On 26 May 2017, the Ministry of Environment of Indian Central Government led by Bhartiya Janata
Party (BJP) imposed a ban on the sale and purchase of cattle for slaughter at animal markets across
India, under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals statutes. The ban resulted in the shutting down of
various slaughterhouses. Small shops selling goat and chicken have also been forced to shut, despite
the slaughter of these animals being legal. Many communities who had traditionally earned their
livelihood through the meat trade, are now facing unemployment. Most butchers are Muslims and
many suspect that they are being targeted unfairly. They allege that their businesses are being shut on

1
State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, 2005,(8) SCC 534
2
Entry 15, 7th Schedule ,Constitution Of India
 7

technicalities. The question now arises that whether such an Act is reasonable in the eyes of the law
or whether it violates the inherent fundamental rights of the citizens.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules 2017

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules 2017 notified by the
Central government, with effect from 23.05.2017, imposes ban of sale of cattle in animal markets for
the purpose of slaughter.

The Rules predominantly contain provisions to control cruel behaviour meted out to cattle, which are
laudable. However, the prohibition imposed in the Rules for selling cattle for slaughter (vide Rule
22(b)(iii), 22(e)(i)) sticks out like a sore thumb, as the said prohibition does not fit in logically into
the scheme of the Rules.

As per Rule 22(b)(iii), a person bringing cattle to an animal market for sale has to furnish a written
declaration that cattle have not been brought for sale for slaughter.3
Rule 22(e)(i) prohibits a purchaser from further selling the cattle for slaughter.4

THE BAN IS CONTRARY TO THE PARENT ACT.

The Rules are made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, particularly in exercise of
powers under Section 38(1)5, which enables the Central government to make Rules to carry out the
purposes of the Act. The objective of the Act, as revealed by its preamble is to prevent infliction of
unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.

It is important to note that the Act does not prevent slaughtering of animals. In fact, the Act saves
and permits killing of animals for the purposes of food. It is very clear from the proviso
of Section 116, which excludes acts done for destruction of any animal for food of mankind, on the
condition that such destruction was not accompanied by unnecessary pain and suffering.

3
Rule 22(b)(iii), Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017.
4
Rule 22(e)(i), Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017.
5
Section 38(1), Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
6
Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
 8

When Parliament makes a law it delegates to the government the power to make rules for its
implementation. The rules cannot exceed the scope of the Act under which it is made. They cannot
propound a policy which is not germane to the parent law.7

The slaughter of animals for purposes of food is permissible under the Act. Hence, the restrictions of
cattle sale imposed by the Rules are ultra vires, as these are repugnant to the Act and traverse beyond
the objectives of the Act.

The ban of sale of cattle for slaughter introduced in the Rules is void, inoperative and ultra-vires.

VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

FREEDOM OF TRADE
Our constitution has provided right to freedom of trade under article 19 of the constitution. Article
19(1)(g) guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation,
trade or business8. But this right is not absolute in nature. State is not prevented from making a law
imposing, in the interest of general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of above right 9.
Article 19(6) talks about these restriction which states that “Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said
clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from
making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub
clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State
from making any law relating to,

(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on
any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade,
business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise”

The expression ‘reasonable restriction’10 seeks to strike a balance between the Freedom guaranteed
by sub-clause (1)(g) of the Article 19 and the social control Permitted by the Clause (6). The
expression “reasonable restriction” signifies that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment
7
Shiv Kirpal Singh vs. V.V. Giri ,1970 , AIR 2097, 1971 SCR (2) 197
8
Article 19(1) (g), the Constitution of India.
9
Mp Jain, Indian Constituitonal Law, 7th edition.
10
Habibullah v Gulam Ahmed Baba; 1979 kashmir Law Journal 309.
 9

of the right should not be arbitrary or unreasonable 11 or of an excessive nature beyond what is
required in the interest of the public.12 Moreover, In order to be reasonable the restriction must have a
reasonable relation with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not go in excess
of that object.13 As Supreme Court held in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar that the
prohibition of slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she buffalos below the age of twenty-five years is an
unreasonable restriction on the butchers right to carry on their trade as well as not in public interest
as these animals cease to be useful after the age of 15 years. 14 Further the supreme also stated in
Abdul Hakim v. State of Bihar that “the maintenance of useless cattle involves a wasteful drain on
the nation’s cattle feed. To maintain them is to deprive the useful cattle of the much-needed
nourishment. The presence of so many useless animals tends to deteriorate the breed”. 15 In the case
of Municipal Corporation Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed16, the court held that ban on slaughter of
cows and buffalo during festival of Jains is reasonable in the interest of general public as the ban was
only for few days and not a complete ban. Hence it can be deduced from above decisions that a
complete ban on trade of beef is arbitrary as it affects the right of individuals engaging in such trade.
THE RULES violate the freedom of trade of butcher community who are engaged in trade of beef
for their livelihood. As it puts a complete ban on possession or slaughter or import of beef. They
can’t even get the imported beef. So, it is unreasonable.

Hence it is clear from above decisions that a state can put a reasonable restriction on right of butchers
in the interest of general public and also on the basis of utility of breeding animals. As in the case of
Haji Usmanabhai Hasan Bhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat,17 the court found that these animals
could be used for breeding, draught and agricultural purposes up to the age of 16 years and their
slaughter thereafter could not be banned. Referring to Art. 4818, a directive principle, the court
observed that absolute ban on slaughter of bull and bullocks is not necessary to comply with Art. 48 19
which talks about organization of agriculture and animal husbandry. Hence an absolute ban such as
imposed by THE RULES is unreasonable and it violates right to freedom of trade.

11
Rameshwaral Haralka v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Cal. 520.
12
P.P. Enterprises V. Union of India. 1982 S.C.C.(Cr.)341.
13
Kochuni v State of Madras, (196)3 SCR 887 (1914).
14
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 93.
15
Abdul Hakim v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 448: (1961) 2 SCR 610.
16
Municipal Corporation Ahemdabad v. Jan Mohammed, AIR 1986SC 1205.
17
Haji Usmanabhai Hasanbhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1986 SC 1213.
18
19
Article 48, Constitution of India.
 10

RIGHT TO LIFE
Art. 2120 of the constitution which reads as “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law”. The scope of Art. 21 has been increased
by Supreme Court through its various decisions. The term ‘life’ is meant something more than mere
animal existence. The inhabitation against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by
which life is enjoyed.21 Right to life includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along
with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter. 22 In the
case of Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimala Totame23 this Hon’ble Court observed that right
to life under Art. 21 would include right to food 24. In the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil
Nadu25 this Court has asserted that the right to privacy has acquired constitutional status. It is
implicit in right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution. A citizen has
a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child
bearing, and education among other matters.26

RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Recently, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India 27 that
the right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It has been held in in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat 28 , and In Re Ramlila
Incident29 that what one eats is one’s personal affair and forms part of right to privacy under Article
21.

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh30 it was observed that the right to personal
liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions, placed on his movements, but also free
from encroachments on his private life. Though the right to privacy is not absolute it can be curtailed
through procedure established by law. in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India31 this Court

20
Art. 21, the Constitution of India.
21
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877)
22
Francis Corralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi, Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746, 753.
23
Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimala Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520.
24
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051.
25
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264
26
Jane Roe v. Henry Wade, 410 US 113
27
Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
28
Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat (2008) 5 SCC 33.
29
Re Ramlila Incident (2012) 5 SCC 1
30
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 AIR 1295 AIR 1995 SC 264
31
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 597
 11

opened up new dimension and imposed a limitation upon law making as well 32, namely, that while
prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty, it must prescribe a
procedure which is reasonable, just and fair33. Hence the RULES violate art 21. It violates right to
food of citizens and encroaches in private affairs of individuals. It is one’s individual’s choice
whether they want to eat beef or not. It is their private matter. There are also certain poor non-
vegetarian communities which depends upon food for their nutrition. If such an unreasonable and
arbitrary ban is imposed then these communities would be forced to be vegetarian hence violating
their right to privacy, as in case of Hinsa Virodhi Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Ors,34
the court observed that in the force of Art. 21 to be vegetarian or non-vegetarian is once personal
affair and it is a part of individual’s right of privacy. Hence a complete ban on beef such as imposed
by the Rules is arbitrary and unreasonable. Procedure established by law is unreasonable if it
contravenes any of the fundamental right other than Art.21 35. As established above the Rules is
violating the art 19 which is a fundamental right other than art 21, hence it is unreasonable. The
procedure established by law is arbitrary and complete ban in the present case. Since the objective of
the Rules is to promote art 48 which is a Directive Principle of State Policy 36. In the case of State of
Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan37 this Court observed, if there is conflict between DPSP and
Fundamental Rights, then the Fundamental Rights would prevail over DPSP. Hence the Fundamental
Rights would have superiority over DPSP in the instant matter also. Hence in the present matter also
art 48 cannot override art 21.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Constitutionally, India is a secular country and has no State religion. However, it has developed over
the years its own unique concept of secularism that is fundamentally different from the parallel
American concept of secularism requiring complete separation of church and state, as also from the
French ideal of lacite - described as 'an essential compromise whereby religion is relegated entirely
to the private sphere and has no place in public life whatsoever. However, religious freedom has
been protected by constitution by art 25(1) of constitution which says Freedom of conscience and
free profession, practice and propagation of religion “Subject to public order, morality and health
and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and
the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion”
32
Supra, note 16.
33
Iibid
34
Hinsa Virodhi Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Ors, AIR 2008 SC 1892.
35
Makhan Singh Tarsikka v.State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 381.
36
Hereinafter DPSP.
37
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.
 12

In numerous cases the courts have commented upon, explained an interpreted the provisions of the
Constitution on equality, nondiscrimination and religious freedom. The decisions in most of these
cases have been given in the contexts of the rights of particular religious communities or under sped;
laws relating to such communities. A brief on major decisions follows:

The Constitution uses but does not define the expressions 'religion' and 'religious denomination' and
therefore the courts have found it necessary to explain the meaning and connotation of these words.
The Supreme Court has observed that: In the background of the provisions of the Constitution and
the light shed by judicial precedent we may say that religion is a matter of faith. It is a matter of
belief and doctrine. It concerns the conscience, i.e., the spirit of man. It must be capable of
expression in word and deed, such as worship or ritual.38 In the case of AS Narayana Deeshitalyu v
State of Andhrn Pradesh, the court said that the right to religion guaranteed under Articles 25 & 26
is not an absolute or unfettered right; they are subject to reform on social welfare by appropriate
legislation by the state. The Court therefore while interpreting Article 25 and 26 strikes a careful
balance between matters which are essential and integral part and those which are not and the need
for the State to regulate or control in the interests of the community. 39 The right to religion
guaranteed under Article 25 is not an absolute or unfettered right; they are subject to reform on social
welfare by appropriate legislation by the State. In the case of Seshammal v State of Tamil Nadu40
court held What constitutes an integral or essential part of a religion or religious practice is to be
decided by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and includes practices
regarded by the community as parts of its religion.

Now the question arises, whether beef ban violates the right of Muslim to practice and profess
religion or the slaughtering of cows is religious activity. Cow sacrifice has been held to be not an
obligatory overt act for a Muslim to exhibit his religious beliefs and ideas on Bakr Id day. 41
According to Hedaya, it is optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goat and that for seven goats a cow or
a camel. The very fact of an option seems to run counter to the notion of an obligatory duty. In the

38
SP Mittal v Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1.
39
AS Narayana Deeshitalyu v State of Andhrn Pradesh, (1996) 9 SCC 548.
40
Seshammal v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1972 SC 1586.
41
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 1971.
 13

case of State of West Bengal and ORS. v. Ashutosh Lahiri42 this Court has noted that sacrifice of
any animal by Mussulman 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 43. An optional religious practice is not
covered by Art. 25(1). Hence it has been ruled by the court that slaughtering of cows is not essential
practice for Muslims. Therefore, the complete ban on slaughter of cows does not violate the religious
rights of Muslim religion.

APPLICATION OF BAN IN STATES

Entry 15 of the 7th schedule of the Constitution of India empowers the states to make their own laws
regarding the prevention of slaughter and preservation of cattle. Due to this there is are wide
discrepancies in the context and form of legislation enacted. The following section will look into the

42
State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashutosh Lahiri, AIR 1995 SC 464.
43
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 93.
 14

comparative analysis between Kerala and Nagaland and on the other hand Maharashtra and Uttar
Pradesh, where the instances of Cow Vigilantes have been frequent.

KERALA AND THE NORTH-EAST

Kerala has garnered attention for its stay on the beef ban. The state’s contention is that the central
rules state that only banned sale of cattle at animal markets. The rules did not stop one from selling
cattle outside the animal market. In T.G. Sunil v Union of India the Kerala High Court validated the
same when it concluded that Article 48 only mandates a ban on the sale of cattle for slaughter in
markets. There is no law banning the sale of beef and the right to eat and slaughter beef are not
restricted under it.

In Karnataka, cows can be slaughtered if old or diseased. Possession of them is not a crime. Bill
proposed by BJP in 2010 made slaughter punishable by 7 years’ jail and Rs 1 lakh fine, but it did not
become law. Rather a jail term for 6 months along with a fine of rupees 1000 was established.44

The consumption of beef in the North East is legal. In Manipur, though it was declared illegal by a
decree45 issued by the Maharaja in 1939, it is still widely consumed. In Assam, cow slaughter banned
except on issue of ‘fit-for-slaughter’ certificate, at designated places. The cause of this lies in the
traditional conscience of the region. Most of the populace of this region follow Christianity which
also includes the tribal community of Mizos and Nagas. The Central Government’s introduction of
the above-mentioned legislation received backlash from these states in which majority governments
are of the BJP. A predominantly Christian state like Meghalaya has seen at least two state BJP
leaders – West Garo Hills district president Bernard Marak and North Garo Hills district president
Bachu Marak – quit the party in protest against the restrictions on beef.

NORTH AND THE WEST

The west has seen a stricter application of the ban as compared to its north eastern and southern
counterparts. States like Gujarat and Maharashtra have imposed imprisonment along with a hefty
fine for the violation of the ban.

44
Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2010
45
Darbar Resolution,1939
 15

The Maharashtra government introduced the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 which
restricted the slaughtering of cows. In 2015 it revised the bill with the Maharashtra Animal
Preservation (Amendment) Bill,1995, which declared the slaughtering of bulls and calves as an
offence as well. The offence is non bailable and now attracts a punishment of up to five years. the
fine imposed was also increased, with the 1976 rule mandating it to be 1000 rupees whereas the new
amendment fixed it at rupees 10,000.

The toughest law in relation to the ban has been implemented by the Gujarat government. The
Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill, 2017. The new law raised the already 7-year term to
14 years or a life term. But in no case shall this term be less than 7 years. Along with conviction a
fine ranging from rupees 1 lakh to rupees 5 lakhs is to be paid. In this way the government has
equated the killing of cows to humans. moreover, illegal ferrying of cows can attract up to 10 years
of jail time along with a penalty of rupees 1 lakh

In states like Uttar Pradesh though no new legislations have been enacted, the orders of the
Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal are firmly in place. The government has issued a
comprehensive list of steps to be followed by slaughterhouses in compliance to the Food Safety and
Drug Administration (FSDA) Guidelines. Moreover, the criteria for running a slaughterhouse is a
presence of a valid license approved from the Municipal Corporation and the FSDA. Any flouting of
the FSDA guidelines would result in the suspension of the license.

Bihar
Slaughter of cows, calves banned; of bulls, bullocks older than 15 years allowed. Violators face 6
months’ jail and/or Rs 1,000 fine.46

In Chandigarh killing a cow, storing/serving/eating beef banned; eating meat of buffalo, bullock,
ox also banned.47

In Madhya Pradesh slaughter of cow, progeny banned. Penalty raised to 7 years’ jail in 2012,
burden of proof on accused. Buffaloes can be killed.48

46
The Bihar Preservation And Improvement of Animals Act,1995
47
(Punjab) Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955
48
The Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act ,1959
 16

In Haryana as per a 2015 law, “cow”, which includes bull, bullock, ox, heifer, calf, and
disabled/diseased/barren cows, can’t be killed. Punishment: 3-10 years jail, fine up to Rs 1 lakh. Sale
of canned beef and beef products, and export of cows for slaughter banned.49

In Himachal Pradesh slaughter of all bovines punishable by 5 years’ jail. Killing is allowed in the
interest of research, or if animal has contagious disease. 50

In Jammu and Kashmir, slaughter of cow and its progeny punishable by up to 10 years’ jail.
Possession of “flesh of any of these slaughtered animal(s)” punishable by a year; killing of “he or she
buffalo” punishable with fine five times the animal’s price. 51

In Jharkhand, slaughter of cows and oxen; possession, consumption of their meat, banned.
Violators face up to 10 years’ jail and/or Rs 10,000 fine.52

CONCLUSION

It can very well be concluded from above discussion that a complete ban imposed on beef is
unreasonable. As discussed above the ban is contradictory to its parent act which in itself shall render
the rule ultra vires.

The directive principles cannot override this categorical restriction imposed on the legislative power
of the State. This does not mean that the DPSPs shall be ignored completely. A delicate balance is
necessary while interpreting them so as to avoid any clash with part III of the Constitution, for

49
The Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015. 
50
The Himachal Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1979
51
Sec. 298A,298B, Ranbir Penal Code ,1862
52
The Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005.
 17

otherwise protecting provisions of Part III will be “a mere rope of sand”. The state has been
inefficient in doing the same.

A ban such as the Rules which put a complete ban on slaughter, possession and import of cow, calf
etc. is unreasonable and arbitrary as it violates the right to freedom of trade and occupation and also
right to life. Though these rights are not absolute but the grounds on which restriction can be
imposed are not reasonable in the present case. As the fundamental rights are given constitutional
protection under Art 13 of the constitution which reads as “the State shall not make any law which
takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this
clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void”. Therefore, a complete ban on beef cannot
be justified as it violates fundamental rights which in turn violates the art 13 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the subsequent lack of uniformity in the application of the ban allows for vague and foggy
interpretation of the law. With penalties changing from state to state it becomes difficult to
concretely state whether the ban is justified or not. When analyzing the said beef ban it is important
to judge it on its applicability of the sections rather than the moral and cultural aspects of it. Though
not overtly evident, cultural ties have been alleged to be the driving force behind these laws and with
the recent cases of cow vigilantes this claim is somewhat validated.
 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
 MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law.
 DD Basu, constitutional law.

WEBSITES
 www.manupatra.com
 timesofindia.com

ARTICLES

 P D T Achary, Rules Against the Law, July 6, 2017 1:54:00 am

 Express News Service, the states where cow slaughter is legal in India, News18, October 8,
2015 9:00:34 am

 Vikas Pandey You may as well kill us': Human cost of India's meat 'ban’, BBC News, 30
March 2017

 SC upholds ban on cow slaughter, Rediff News, Reddif.com, October 26, 2005 15:07 

 Samudra Gupta Kashyap, How the Beef Ban hits the Northeast, The Indian News Express,
June 8, 2017 2:02:55 pm