Gujarat National Law University

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF

MAHESHWAR

IN THE MATTER OF

Maheshwar Butchers’ Association, Registered Society and Others

……Petitioners

VS

State of Maheshwar and Others

……Respondents

WRIT PETITION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION
Written petition ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
on behalf of respondent

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIAL NUMBER TOPIC PAGE NUMBER

1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2 LIST OF ABBREVEATIONS
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 ISSUES RAISED
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8 PRAYER

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

HKVHVHV

3
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVATION FULL FORM

Art Article
Acc According
Govt Government
& And
Ors Others
Hon’ble Honourable
Acc According
Anr. Another
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
AIR All India Reporter

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDCITION

The Counsels of the petitioner have approached the Honourable High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. India is a democratic country with a written constitution which came into force in
1950. Our constitution has adopted Parliamentary system wherein President is
the executive Head of the govt . India is characterized by diversity of religious
beliefs and practices .
2. The constitution of India lay down the fundamental rights under Part IV and
fundamental duties for its citizen .Constitution also lay down some Directive
principles of State Policy .
3. This directives are not enforceable in court of law ,nevertheless these principles
are to be looked into while formulating any policy and enacting any law. Our
country comprises of many religions with diverse culture, practices and food
habits of which beef eating is one.
4. State of Maheshwar situated in western region of India and second most
populous state of India. One community considers milch animals as “Holy”
according to their religion while consuming the flesh of cow is the only source of
protein for minority X and cost effective nature of beef makes them rely on it.. As
the degree of poverty is higher in community ‘x” beef eating was an easy source
of protein for them..
5. State of Mahaeshwar enacted a law Maheshwar Animal Preservation Act 1978
which In 1995,amendements were made and received the assent of President in
2015 and came into force immediately .The amendment make following changes
in act of 1978
6. It extend the ban on the slaughter of cows and calves to bulls and bullocks.Seek to
prohibit the transport (from state of Maheshwar to another state),the export as well
as purchase, sale and disposal of cows,bulls and bullocks for purposes of slaughter
It prohibit the possession of flesh of cow ,bull or bullock slaughtered in
contravention of provision of the act.
7. Criminalizes the possession of beef per se, whether or not this was obtained
through lawful slaughtere from another state.

6
8. The amendement put the burden on accused that he/she was not in contravention
of provision of the act.The amendement also stipulated punishment for
contravention of the act.

9. Meanwhile political turmoil was there in throughout the country in which

various religious organization started large scale mobilization against slaughtered
of cows and attacked on accusation that they stored cow-flesh in there home... But
with the new amended law by the state of Maheshwar , x community were
deprieved of their sources.

10. In this regard Maheswar Butchers Association filed a petition in High Court of
Mahashwar for protection of fundamental rights and also state the grievance of the
community X
.

7
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the amendment in Maheshwar Animal Preservation Act , 1978 is violative of

Article 21 of the constitution of India ?
2. Whether the ban extended to bull and bullocks is violating the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) ?
3. Whether the amendment in Maheshwar Animal Preservation Act, 1978 is violating
Article 25 of the constitution of India ?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The rights which are essential for life are included in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, and the rights which are not essential are not included therein. The right to life
and liberty includes every right which makes the life meaningful, it would mean only
core rights or essential rights and not fringe rights.

2. The act does not violate the fundamental right guaranteed to Article 19(1)(g) of the
constitution that is to practice their trade and occupation freely in the country because
of (A) reasonable restriction is valid restriction As this right is subject to Article 19(6)
which permit reasonable restriction to be imposed on it in interest of general public.

3. The protection under Article 25 of the Constitution is with respect to only to such
religious practice which forms an essential and integral part of the religion.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

Whether the amendment is in violation of article 21 of the constitution of

India (personal liberty and right to consume food of ones choice) ?

Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”1

 This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and

foreigners alike.
 Article 21 provides two rights:

Right to life

Right to personal liberty

The rights which are essential for life are included in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the rights which are not essential are not included
therein. the right to life and liberty includes every right which makes the life
meaningful, it would mean only core rights or essential rights and not fringe
rights. The fringe rights are the one which are merely desirable to make the life
comfortable or more comfortable or luxurious. It is submitted that in the present
case, the Petitioner is not only claiming the right to food but claiming the right
to a particular food in a particular geographical area, the State of Maheshwar ,
which right is not protected by the Constitution of India.
The words "right to eat", when equated with the words like the right to sleep,
breathe or drink, carry a specific emphasis. They are concerned with the right of
every person to have access to food in order to nourish his body and sustain his
life. It cannot be stretched by any means to cover the right to choose a particular
kind of food. Assuming therefore that the right to eat is a part of the right to
privacy, which might be a part of the right to life and liberty, it cannot be
extended to mean that the right to eat beef is a fundamental right to eat

1
ARTICLE 21 – Constitution o India

10
The Amendment Act has been enacted by the legislature keeping in view the
directive principles of the State Policy embodied in Articles 48 and 48A and the
fundamental duties enshrined in Clause (g) of Article 51A of the Const. of India

Article 48 in The Constitution Of India 19492

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

Article 51 A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including

forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

In the case of Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagraja3 the Apex Court has held
that as far as the animals are concerned, life means something more than mere
survival or existence. In this case the Apex Court held that the animals have
right to lead life with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity
It should be considered that the economy of Maharashtra was still
predominantly agricultural and cow progeny is its backbone . Bulls and bullocks
are useful not only as drought animal but also for agricultural purposes and
breeding. They never cease to be useful as their dung is also a form of rich
manure . Considering their usefulness, it is necessary to preserve and protect
this cow progeny , including bulls and bullock

The Apex Court in the case of Intellectual Forum v. State of Andhra Pradesh
4
held that Article 48-A and Article 51A are not only fundamental in the
governance of the country but that it is a duty of the State to apply these
principles in making the laws. These two Articles are to be kept in mind to
understand the scope and purport of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India including Articles 14, 19 and 21 thereof.
2
ARTICLE 48 – Constitution Of India
3
Animal Welfare Board vs A. Nagraja and Ors,1949
4
Intellectual Forum vs State of andhra

11
 ISSUE 2

Whether the ban extended to bull and bullocks violate the

fundamental right guaranteed to X community under Article
19(1)(g) and was not reasonable and valid restrictions on their
right?
The counsel on the behalf of the respondent most humbly submitted that the
impugned enactment act does not violate the fundamental right guaranteed to
the Maheshwar Association under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution that is to
practice their trade and occupation freely in the country because of (A)
reasonable restriction is valid restriction . As this right is subject to Article 19(6)
which permit reasonable restriction to be imposed on it in interest of general
public`

REASONABLE RESTRICTION
The message of Keshavananda Bharati vs State of Kerela 51973 4 SCC 225 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 6itself 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 an fundamental right, aimed at securing directive
principles will be 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 1 of the Constitution.

VALID RESTRICTION

5
Keshavnanda Bharti vs State of Kerela, AIR 1973 4 SCC
6
Article 19 – Constitution Of India

12
Bulls, bullocks no doubt the most important cattle for agriculture economy of
this country . In the Supreme court declared in the case of State of Gujarat vs
Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat7 as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of
all ages and calves of cows and buffaloes , male and female , is constitutionally
valid . the backbone of Indian agriculture is the cow and her progeny n a way .
the whole structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system is
indirectly dependent on cows . In order to give effect to the policy of the state
towards securing the principles laid down in Article 47, 48 and clauses (b) and
(c) of Article 39 of the constitution , it was considered necessary to impose total
prohibition against slaughter progeny of cow , court stated that in the light of
the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape from the
conclusion that the protection conferred by the impugned enactment on cow
progeny is needed in the interest of the nation’s economy . Merely because it
may cause “inconvenience” or some “dislocation” to the butchers , restriction
imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the
general public. The former must yield to the latter .
In the case of Mohd Hanif Quereshi vs State of Bihar 8, The Hon’ble Supreme
Court heard the petition challenging the slaughter of cattle in the states of Uttar
Pradesh , Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. The laws banning cow slaughter was
challenged on three grounds . The grounds included that it was against the
interest of General Public , it violated the right to trade of butchers under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian constitution and lastly that the ban offended other
religion who required the sacrifice of cow for religious purposes . The supreme
court held that the total ban of cow slaughter is valid and in consonance with the
Directive Principles of state policies under article 48 provided that they are
capable of use as milch or draught animals. Regarding the ground of sacrifice
being a part of religion , the court stated that no evidence was laid before the
court which states that sacrifice of cow a cow is obligatory overact, therefore
the court stated that total ban is within the scope of Article 19(6).
Article 48
Guarantees organization of agriculture and animal husbandry . Article 48 of the
constitution is reasonable and was inserted in the constitution from the
economic point of view and not to hurt the sentiments of people or to restrict
freedom to trade , occupation and business and thus , maintaining the secular
nature, the need of cattle for Indian economy holds greater purpose than a mere
inconvenience to the butchers, therefore this law serve the purpose of the
general public thus is constitutionally valid.
7
State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC
8
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Others vs The State of Bihar 1958 AIR 731

13
There have been many instances when the right to trade has been
infringed in the interest of public order and morality. In M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India9, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries
at Jajman near Kanpur, polluting the river Ganga. The interaction
between freedom of trade, business, occupation and profession, and
right to environment has been settled in favour of the latter in
Abhilash Textile and Sushila Saw Mill cases
Similarly in cases of prostitution, gambling etc., right to trade has
been restricted in the interest of public policy. Censorship has been
another method of restricting the right to freedom of speech and
expression and trade in light of public interest. However, when it
comes to complete ban on slaughter, this restriction tilts more towards
being unreasonable.
Therefore, whereas the right to trade and occupation of the butchers
and traders is completely violated, the practice of this right by the
leather industry has become hard. Referring to the case of Mohd.
Hanif Qureshi v. Bihar, (which has been analyzed later) the Supreme
Court has been of the view that a total ban on slaughter cannot be
justified on grounds of public interest.

ISSUE 3

Whether the amendment in Maheshwar Animal Preservation Act , 1978 is

violating Article 25 of the constitution of India?

9
M.C Mehta vs Union of India and Others 1988 AIR 1115

14
25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion

(1) 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

With regard to the question of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under

Article 25 of the Constitution of India, counsel would like to rely upon the
judgement of The honourable Apex Court in the case of Mohmmed Hanif
Quareshi v. The State of Bihar 10 . The Apex Court held that the slaughter of
cows on BakrI'd day was not an essential religious practice for Muslims and,
therefore, a total ban on cow's slaughter on all days including Bakri Eid day
would not be violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India.

In this case, the petitioners from the Quareshi community were engaged in the
butcher’s trade and therefore were not given allowance to carry on their
business as it violated the state legislature acts. The petitioners challenged the
constitutional validity of the three acts that imposed a total ban on the slaughter
of cows, bulls, bullocks, and calves namely, The Bihar Preservation and
Improvement of Animals Act, 1955 and The  U.  P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955 and The Central Provinces and Berar Animal Preservation
Act, 1949.

The petitioners claimed that the acts have violated their basic fundamental
rights under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), and Article 25 of the Constitution and
claimed that if there is any kind of a clash between the state laws and the center
laws, then the center laws shall prevail. The respondents on the other hand
affirmed the standing of the petitioners and stated that the acts that have been
introduced and enacted by the State legislature are directly acting in compliance
with Article 48 of the constitution of India, which deliberately states the
importance of the protection of animals and were superior to the fundamental
rights of the Constitution of India.

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the acts did not violate citizens’ fundamental
rights and that the ban on the slaughter of cows was reasonable and valid, citing
Art. 25 of the Indian Constitution, which stated that the ban did not violate the

10
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Others vs The State of Bihar 1958 AIR 731

15
provisions of Article 25 because the sacrifice of the cow on Bakra-eid was not
mandatory.

State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri11, In this case, the petitioners

challenged Section 12 of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act,
1950 stating that it violated Article 25, which has been guaranteed by the
Constitution of India. The petitioners stated that Section 12 barred the slaughter
of healthy cows on the day of Bakr-id which was a mandatory practice and
hence the state should amend the act. In State of W.B. v. Ashutosh Lahiri, an
important decision was rendered by a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court. It
was contended that the State of West Bengal had wrongly invoked Section 12 of
the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950, when it exempted from
the operation of the Act, the slaughter of healthy cows on the occasion of
BakrI’d on the ground that such exemption was required to be given for the
religious purpose of Muslim community. The power to grant such an exemption
was challenged. The Calcutta High Court held that such slaughter of cows by
members of Muslim community on BakrI’d day was not a requirement of
Muslim religion and, therefore, such exemption was outside the scope of Sec 12
of the act.e Consequently , the impugned order was held to be de hors the
statute . The supreme court upheld the decision of the High Court.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited
the Respondent requests the Hon’ble High Court to find, adjudge and declare that:

11
State of West Bengal vs Ashutosh Lahiri 1995 AIR 464

16
 1. The amendment in Maheshwar Animal Preservation Act, 1978 is not violative of
Article 21( Right to life and personal liberty) of the constitution of India.
2. The ban extended to bull and bullocks is not violating the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g).
3. The amendment in Maheshwar Animal Preservation Act, 1978 is not in violation of
Article 25 of the constitution of India.

In respectful submission before the High Court.

Counseld on behalf of State of Maheshwar and Others………..

(Respondents)

17