Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. Heard Smt. Jayasree Sarathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry for the respondents.
2. The writ petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner questioning the constitutional validity of Section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 (Act No. 11 of 1977) (for short the 'Act') so far as it permits the slaughter of animals mentioned in the Act under certificates given by the competent authority appointed under the Act. According to the petitioner, the Act is not giving effect to the policy enshrined in Article 48 of the Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution of India.
3. The aforesaid Act makes a declaration that it was passed for giving effect to Article 48 of the Directive Principle of State Policy. Article 48 prohibits the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught animals. It enjoins upon the State to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern scientific lines and also to take steps for preserving and improving the cattle breeds.
4. According to the petitioner, Article 48 lays down absolute and unconditional principle without any vagueness or ambiguity that the milch and draught animals of all kinds including cows and calves should be prohibited from slaughter and that only in the State of Andhra Pradesh the provisions of the Act is being abused and cows, calves and buffaloes, bulls and bullocks are being slaughtered indiscriminately without any norms in collusion with the competent authorities under the Act. It was further stated that under the garb of industry, several slaughter houses are being established and are managed by private people and that some of them are being managed by the Government Corporations, In the universal declaration of rights of animals adopted in London in September, 1977, reference has been made to the crimes that are being perpetrated by man on animals and Article 6 of the said declaration categorically declares that all companion animals have the right to complete their natural span of life and it was also stated that the rights of animals are like human rights and should enjoy protection. The word 'genocide' has been used in the London declaration with regard to animals. Article 51(A)(g) of the Constitution stresses that every citizen of India should show compassion to living creatures.
5. The question whether there is a direct and reasonable nexus between the law and the impugned provisions of Section 6 of the Act is always open for judicial review and that since there is no effective enforcement of the Act, the indiscriminate killings of cows and calves and breeding animals and draught animals are taking place. Under Section 5 of the Act cows and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes are protected from slaughter and under Section 6 of the Act, animals other than calf, female or male of a she-buffalo can be slaughtered under certificates issued by the competent authority. The object of Article 48 will not be fulfilled by later part of Section 6 of the Act, which permits slaughter of animals under certificates. The object of Article 48 is to see that no cattle should be slaughtered even after they ceased to be useful or milch or draught purposes since their dung will be natural manure. Section 5 of the Act imposes total ban only on the slaughter of cows and calves of she-buffaloes and under Section 6 all the other cattle can be killed under certificates. In the State and in many other States, animals are not being allowed to complete their span of life up to 15 years. The State under the guise of protecting slaughter of cows made enactments to facilitate people to slaughter all other cattle in gross violation of prohibition under Article 48. When the State is violating Article 48, it is the duty of the Courts to interpret Article 48 and do justice to the animal world. Therefore, the later part of Section 6 of the Act should be declared as bad and unconstitutional since it failed to achieve the object enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution. It is further stated that there is a clear conflict between the object of the Act and later part of Section 6(1) of the Act and the injustice done to the animal world will be further aggravated if the said provisions are allowed to remain in the statute book. The killing of the other animals like bulls, bullocks, buffaloes, male and female, under the certificates should be banned otherwise the object of preservation of animals enshrined in Article 48 would be defeated.
6. With the above averments, the writ petition was filed for a writ of mandamus to the respondents striking down the later part of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the A.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 reading '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' and the consequential provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of Act, 1977 as violative of Article 48 of the Constitution of India etc.
7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, it is stated that Article 48 is not enforceable as no right is conferred on the citizens under Article 48. The impugned Act is not violative of the fundamental rights, of the petitioner. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that keeping in view the objects and commands of Article 48 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has promulgated A.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 prohibiting slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle and that the State Government have taken up restructuring of breeding programme, balanced feed supply, health coverage fodder development activities etc., for total welfare of cattle in the State. It has been enacted taking into consideration all the factors including economic welfare of animals and the State is taking every endeavour to protect and preserve the cattle. There are 260 Veterinary Hospitals, 1424 Livestock Supervisor Units, 2565 Rural Livestock Units, 22 Animal Health Centres and 20 Veterinary Policy clinics in the State. A lion share of outlay of Animal Husbandry Department is earmarked for animal health coverage to protect all the animals against contagious diseases through timely vaccinations etc. As per the provisions of the Act, the competent authority i.e., Veterinary Officer has power to issue a certificate for slaughtering some animals which are not fit for (1) breeding, (2) draught or any kind of agricultural operations, (3) giving milk or giving off springs. The Act totally prohibits slaughter of cows, heifers and male or female calves of cows. The state has focused attention on development of animal husbandry and achieved good results. It is further stated that there is no explicit provision to ban completely slaughter of any animal. If the animal is found to be unproductive no farmer maintain it and sells it, which ultimately go to slaughter house. Slaughtering is the profession of the butchers' community and if it is totally prohibited, they will be thrown out of employment. Only the animals which are not fit for (1) breeding (ii) draught or any agricultural operations (3) giving milk or breeding offsprings are considered for slaughtering by Veterinary Officers.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that cows, calves and buffaloes, bulls and bullocks are being slaughtered indiscriminately without any norms in collusion with the competent authorities under the Act who are empowered to issue certificates to slaughter the animals. She submits that the object of Article 48 will not be fulfilled by the later part of Section 6(1) of the Act as it permits slaughter of animals under certificates. The object of Article 48 is to see that no cattle should be slaughtered even after they ceased to be useful or milch or draught purposes. She further submits that the Supreme Court in M.H. Quareshi v. State of Bihar, : [1959]1SCR629 , though protected rights of butcher community, such fundamental rights cannot be protected now in view of Article 31C which has got a protective umbrella for Article 48. Whether there is a direct and reasonable nexus between the law and the impugned provisions of Section 6 of the Act is always open for judicial review under Article 31C as it existed prior to 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. The later part of Section 6(1) is totally inconsistent and unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by the Act as slaughtering cannot be treated as a fundamental right. Article 48 imposed blanket ban on slaughter of all categories of cattle and under the guise of protecting slaughter of cows made enactments to facilitate people to slaughter all other cattle in violation of Article 48.
9. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Article 48 does not contemplate total prohibition of slaughtering and the Apex Court in Quareshi's case has vividly explained the same. The Act has been enacted for improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle and the State has taken all the steps for the preservation of the animal world. Only those cattle, which are certified by the competent authority as unproductive, will be permitted to be slaughtered as per the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Quareshi's case, a total prohibition of slaughtering is not permissible as it offends the fundamental rights of the butcher community and therefore, the later part of Section 6(1) cannot be said to be as violative of Article 48 of the Constitution of India.
10. Before considering the rival submissions, it is useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the said Act. The A.P., Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 received the assent of the President on 30-4-1977. The Act was enacted to provide for the prohibition of the slaughter of cows, calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes and for preservation of certain other animals suitable for milch, breeding draught or agricultural purposes in the State of Andhra Pradesh and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(i) defines 'animal' to mean bull, bullock, buffalo, male or female or calf, whether male or female, of a she-buffalo. Section 2(ii) defines 'cow' to include heifer, or a calf, whether male or female, of a cow. Under Section 4 of the Act, the Government may, by notification, appoint a person or a body of persons to perform the functions of a competent authority under the Act for such local area as may be specified in such notification. Section 5 which provides for prohibition of slaughter of cow or calf of she-buffalo reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, or usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter or otherwise intentionally kill or offer or cause to be offered for killing any cow or calf, whether male or female, or a she buffalo.
11. Section 6 deals with prohibition against slaughter of animals without certificate from competent authority. It reads thus:
6(1) Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter any animal other than a calf, whether male or female of a she-buffalo, 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 the animal is or likely to become economical for the purpose of
(a) breding, or
(b) draught or any kind of agricultural operations or
(c) giving milk or bearing offspirng.
Provided that no certificate under Sub-section (1) shall be refused to be granted unless the reasons for refusal recorded in writing.
(2) A certificate under this Section shall be granted in such form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
12. Section 9 empowers the competent authority or any person authorised by the competent authority to enter and inspect any premises where the competent authority or the authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is likely to be committed. Section 10 provides that whoever contravenes any of the provisions of the Act on conviction shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Section 11 says that offences under the Act shall be cognisable.
13. Section 15 which provides for exemptions reads as follows:
15. Exemptions:--Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf, the provisions of this Act shall not apply to--
(a) any animal operated upon for vaccine, lymph, serum or any experimental or research purpose at an institution established, conducted or recognised by the Government;
(b) any cow or animal--
(i) slaughter of which is certified by a Veterinary Officer authorised by the Government to be necessary in the interests of the public health;
(ii) which is suffering from any disease which is certified by a Veterinary Officer authorised by the Government as being contagious and dangerous to other animals.
14. Section 17 provides for establishment of institutions for taking care of cows or other animals. Section 18 empowers the Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
15. At this stage it is also relevant to refer to Article 48 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:
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.
16. The object undrelined in the above Article was that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern lines and it shall also take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibit slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle. In our view the directive was specific in that only cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle are exempted from slaughter. It has not contemplated a total ban of slaughter of all animals as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is only a restrictive prohibition.
17. It is seen that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the objects and the commands of Article 48 of the Constitution of India and for the purpose of prohibiting slaughter of cow, claves and other milch and draught cattle. From a perusal of Section 5, it would be clear that no person shall slaughter or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter or otherwise intentionally kill or offer or cause to be offered for killing any cow or calf, whether male or female, of a she-buffalo. Therefore, the Act completely prohibits killing of any cow or calf of a she-buffalo subject to the exemption provided under Section 15(b). Under Section 15(b) a cow may be permitted to be slaughtered if it is certified by a Veterinary Officer authorised by the Government to be necessary in the interests of the public health and in the case when the cow is suffering any disease if it is certified by a Veterinary Officer authorised by the Government as being contagious and dangerous to other animals. Under no other circumstances, a cow or calf of a she-buffalo is permitted to be slaughtered under the provisions of the Act.
18. Even in regard to the slaughtering of other animals, Section 6 provides that no person shall slaughter or caused to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter any animals, other than a calf, whether male or female, of a she-buffalo 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. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 clearly states that no such certificate shall be granted under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 if in the opinion of the competent authority the animal is or is likely to become economical for the purpose of (a) breeding or (b) draught or any kind of agricultural operation or (c) giving milk or bearing offspring. Therefore sufficient safeguard is provided as regards the economical use of the animal before a certificate as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 is issued by the competent authority for slaughter of the animals. In our considered view, the safeguard provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act in regard to the determination of the economical use of the animal by the competent authority appointed for the area before a certificate in writing stating that the animal is fit for slaughter is issued, is in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the State under Article 48 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the later part of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is violative of Article 48 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any conflict between the object of the Act and the later part of Section 6(1) or it is inconsistent or unrelated to the object sought to be achieved. The object underlined under Article 48 would be achieved by the operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. Further, as already noticed, under Section 9 the competent authority or any person authorised by the competent authority has power to enter and inspect any premises where the competent authority or the person authorised has reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is likely to be committed.
19. As already noticed, the impugned Act was made by the State in discharge of the obligation laid on it by Article 48 to endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry and in particular to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of certain specified animals. It is true that these directive principles are not enforceable by any Court of law but nevertheless they are fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the duty of the State to give effect to them. The directive contained in the latter part of the Article 48 is quite specific and enjoins the prohibition of slaughter of any of the species of cattle mentioned, irrespective of their utility from the standpoint of agriculture or animal husbandry, and such prohibition cannot be held to be an unreasonable restriction upon the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g). But the protection recommended by this part of the directive is confined to cows and calves, and to those other animals which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk or doing work as draught cattle but does not extend to cattle which were at one time milch or draught cattle but which have ceased to be such.
20. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in M.H. Qureshi v. State of Bihar, : [1959]1SCR629 . The petitioners in the above case who were muslims, generally engaged in the butchers trade and its subsidiary undertakings, challenged the constitutional validity of the Acts passed by the Legislatures of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh banning the slaughter of certain animals including cows. These enactments were - the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act (2 of 1953), the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (1 of 1956) and the M.P. Acts 23 of 1951 and 10 of 1956 amending the CP and Berar Animals Preservation Act (52 of 1949).
21. Under the Bihar Act, in the State of Bihar there is a total ban on slaughter of all categories of animals of the species of bovine cattle. In Utter Pradesh there is, under the U.P. Act, a total ban on the slaughter of cows and her progeny that include bulls, bullocks, heifer or calves. The buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) are completely outside the protection of the Act. In the Madhya Pradesh State, there is a total ban on the slaughter of cow, male or female calves of a cow, bulls, bullocks, or heifers and the slaughter of buffaloes (male or female adults or calves) are controlled in that their slaughter is permitted under certificate granted by the proper authorities mentioned in the Act.
22. The challenge was made on three grounds before the Supreme Court, namely, that they offended the fundamental rights guaranteed to them by Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 25. Speaking through a Constitutional Bench, the Hon'ble Chief Justice S.R. Das (his Lordship then was) referring to the objects of Article 48 of the Constitution held:
Suffice it to say that there is no conflict between the different parts of this article and indeed the two last directives for preserving and improving the breeds and for the prohibition of slaughter of certain specified animals represent, as is indicated by the words 'in particular', two special aspects of the preceding general directive for organising agriculture and animal husbandry on modem and scientific lines. Whether the last two directives are ancillary to the first as contended for by learned Counsel for the petitioners or are separate and independent items of directives as claimed by Counsel on the other side, the directive for taking steps for preventing the slaughter of the animals is quite explicit and positive and contemplates a ban on the slaughter of the several categories of animals specified therein, namely, cows and calves and other cattle which answer the description of milch or draught cattle. The protection recommended by this part of the directive is, in our opinion, confined only to cows and calves and to those animals which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk or of doing work as draught cattle but does not, from the very nature of the purpose for which it is obviously recommended, extend to cattle which at one time were milch or draught cattle but which have ceased to be such. It is pursuant to these directive principles and in exercise of the powers conferred by Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with entry 15 in list 11 of the Seventh Schedule thereto that the, Legislatures of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, have respectively enacted the statutes which are challenged as unconstitutional. In order properly, to appreciate the meaning and scope of the impugned Acts it has to be borne in mind that each one of those Acts is a law with respect to preservation, protection and improvement of stock', and their constitutional validity will have to be judged in that context and against that background. Keeping this consideration in view, we proceed now to examine the relevant provisions of the three Acts.
23. The Supreme Court in extenso dealt with the fundamental rights of the petitioners therein vis-a-vis the provisions of the enactments impugned before it. It was held:
The presence of a large number of old and useless animals also has a bad effect on the quality of the breed. There is a tendency for this population to multiply and bring into being progeny of a very inferior kind which is bound to adversely affect the production of milk or bullock power. It is absolutely necessary that this surplus cattle should be separated from the good and robust animals and a total ban on slaughter of cattle and buffaloes will contribute towards worsening the present condition....
The country is in short supply to milch cattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks. If the nation is to maintain itself in health and nourishment and get adequate food, our cattle must be improved. In order to achieve this objective our cattle population fit for breeding and work must be properly fed and whatever cattle food is now at our disposal and whatever more we can produce must be made available to the useful cattle which are in present or will in future be capable of yielding milk or doing work. 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 breeds. Total ban on the slaughter of cattle, useful or otherwise, is calculated to bring about a serious dislocation though not a complete stoppage, of the business of a considerable section of the people who are by occupation butchers (Kasais), hide merchants and so on. Such a ban will also deprive a large section of the people of what may be their staple food. At any rate, they will have to forgo the little protein food which may be within their means to take once or twice in the week. Preservation of useless cattle by establishment of Gosadans is not, for reasons already indicated, a partical proposition. Preservation of these useless animals by sending them to concentration camps to fend for themselves is to leave them to a process of slow death and does no good to them. On the contrary, it hurts the best interests of the nation in that the useless cattle deprive the useful ones of a good part of the cattle food, deteriorate the breed and eventually affect the production of milk and breeding bulls and working bullocks, besides involving an enormous expense which could be better utilised for more urgent national needs.-
It was further held:
After giving our most careful and anxious consideration to the pros and cons of the problem as indicated and discussed above and keeping in view the presumption in favour of the validity of the legislation and without any the least disrespect to the opinions of the Legislatures concerned we feel that in discharging the ultimate responsibility cast on us by the Constitution we must approach and analyse the problem in an objective and realistic manner and then make our pronouncement on the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the impugned enactments. So approaching and analysing the problem, we have reached the conclusion (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female, is 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 as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported us reasonable in the interest of the general public.
24. It was also held that the breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffaloes) do not require as much protection as cows and calves do.
25. The Supreme Court held that the challenge under Article 14 could not prevail inasmuch as the Acts had adopted a classification on sound and intelligible basis and could stand the test of permissible classification. It was also held that the Acts insofar as they prohibited slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and female, were constitutionally valid and insofar as they totally prohibited the slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks, without prescribing any test of requirement as to their age or usefulness, they offended against Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court also held that the Act did not violate the fundamental rights of the Mussalmans under Article 25(1) as there was no material to substantiate the claim that the sacrifice of cow on Bakrid day was enjoined or sanctioned by Islam to exhibit a Mussalaman's religious belief and idea. The Supreme Court held that the Bihar Act is constitutionally valid insofar as it prohibits slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and female but is void insofar as it totally prohibits slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls, and working bullocks (cattle buffalo) without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness. The Act is also valid insofar as it regulates the slaughter of other animals under the certificate granted by he authority mentioned therein. The Supreme Court struck down the entire provision in Bihar Act banning the slaughter of she buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo) and upheld the provisions of the said Act insofar as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and female, as constitutionally valid. However, insofar as it totally prohibits slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo) without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness, the Supreme Court held that it infringes the rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) and to that extent it was declareds void. As regards the UP Act, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act insfoar as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows, male and female, but held that insofar as it purports totally prohibit to the slaughter of breeding bulls and working bullocks without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness, it offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to that extent it is void.
26. As regards the MP, Act, the Supreme Court likewise declared that it is constitutionally valid insofar as it prohibits slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows, male and female, but held that the Act is void insofar as it totally prohibits the slaughter of breeding bulls and working bullocks without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness.
27. Subsequent to the aforesaid decision, amendments were made to the above three enactements and the respective States fixed age limit of 20/25 years as a pre-condition for the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes. In Bihar Act a provision was also made giving a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority. The said provisions were again challenged in Abdul Hakim v. State of Bihar, : 1961CriLJ573 , on the ground that prescription of such age for slaughtering of bulls and bullocks is unreasonably high. The Supreme Court relying on the decision in State of Madras v. V.G. Row, : 1952CriLJ966 , and the decision in Quareshi's case held as follows:
The test of reasonableness should be applied to each individual statute impugned and no abstract standard, or general pattern of reasonbleness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions to the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.
28. The Apex Court held that fixing of age of 20/25 years for the slaughter of bulls, bullocks etc. practically amounts to putting a total ban on slaughtering and amounted to unreasonable restriction on rights of butchers to carry on their trade and profession and to that extent the provisions are void. While considering the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act (18 of 1959) and its validity, the Supreme Court further held that the provisions put an end to trade, namely, slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes and hence are invalid and that the clause imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the butchers to carry on their trade or profession and is void to that extent. It was also held that Section 5 insofar as it imposes a restriction to the time for the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes and Section 4(3) which gives right of appeal to a person aggrieved by the order, thus enabling any member of the public to hold up the slaughter of the animal for a long time, practically put an end to the trade of the butchers. It was held that a restriction of this kind cannot therefore, be accepted as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(g) of the Constitution and must be declared as unconstitutional. It was also held that the provisions as they are worded really put a total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes and for all practical purposes they put a stop to the profession and trade of the petitioners.
29. In Haji Usmanbhai v. State of Gujarat, : [1986]2SCR719 , the Apex Court was again dealing with a provision in Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1979 putting a ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks below 16 years. The said Act completely prohibited slaughtering of bulls and bullocks below 16 years. The Apex Court held that because of better cattle feeding, better medical health and better animal husbandry services, the longevity of cattle in the State of Gujarat has increased and the bullocks and bulls up to sixteen years of age can be said to be useful for the purpose of breeding, draught and other agricultural purposes and therefore the restriction imposed is reasonable. It was also held that the classification made between the buffaloes and their progeny on one hand and the cows and their progeny on the other is reasonable classification. It may be noted that in the Gujarat Act, no restriction of age in respect of buffaloes and their progeny was made. The Apex Court held that the same is not discriminatory.
30. The matter was again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri (Civil Appeal Nos. 6791 of 1983 and Batch). The facts obtaining in this case are somewhat different. A writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging the validity of exemption of slaughter of scheduled animals namely, cows, from the operation of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Central Act, 1950 on Bakrid-Idd day. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court took the view that such slaughter of cows by members of muslim community on Bakrid-Idd day was not a requirement of muslim religion and therefore such exemption was outside the scope of the Act. Against the said order, the State of West Bengal preferred the appeal. Referring to its earlier judgment in Quareshi's case, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court and held that the exemption clause seeks to whittle down and dilute the main provision of the Act, namely Section 4 which is the vary heart of the Act.
31. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the impugned provision Section 6(1) of the Act is violative of Article 48 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the same is in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by Article 48 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the Act clearly prohibit slaughtering of cows, calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Quareshi's case, Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the impugned Act insofar as it regulates the slaughter of animals other than cow or calf of a cow or calf of a she-buffalo under the certificates granted by the competent authority has to be held constitutionally valid. The contention of the petitioner that the object of Article 48 is to see that no cattle should be slaughtered even if they ceased to be useful or milch or draught has also no merit. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Quareshi's case explaining the object of Article 48, total prohibition of slaughter is not permissible.
32. We may also notice that a Division Bench of this Court in Satyavani v. A.P. Pollution Control Board, 0043/1993 : AIR1993AP257 , filed by Head of the Women Wing of the Society for protection of animals for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Honorary Welfare Officer of the Animal Board, Government of India against the establishment of a mechanised slaughter house i.e., Al-Kabeer Exports Limited referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Quarieshi's case upheld the decision of the Government.
33. However, it may be noticed that in Quareshi's case, the Supreme Court in categorical terms held that total prohibition of slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bulls without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness offened the fundamental rights butchers' community and that the Act is valid insofar as it regulates the slaughter of other animals under certificates granted by the authorities mentioned under the Act. In the impugned Act, no age limit has been fixed for the slaughter of bulls and bullocks etc. Therefore, in order to protect the interest of the cattle in the State, it is open to the State to impose any restriction for slaughtering of the animals such as bulls, bullocks, she-buffaloes etc., as contemplated in Section 6(1) of the Act by fixing the age limit at which they can be permitted to be slaughtered under a certificate in writing from the competent authority in line with the provisions made in the enactements made by the Legislatures of the State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, taking into consideration the ground realities prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh in relation to development of Animal Husbandry and on a scientific basis, factors like better cattle feeding, better medical health and better animal husbandry services etc.
34. We do not also find any merit in the allegation of the petitioner that the animals are being slaughtered in collusion with the authorities empowered to issue certificates for slaughtering. Except making a bald allegation no material has been placed before us to substantiate the same. Even if they are true, this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot go into such allegations. It is always open to the petitioner to make a complaint against the authorities concerned before the appropriate authority for violation of the provisions of the Act as Section 10 of the Act provides for penalties for violation of the provisions of the Act.
35. Further, it may not be out of place to mention that slaughter of any animal without obtaining licence is punishable under Section 530 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and under Section 531 there is also prohibition imposed regarding sale of animals in unauthorised private markets without sanction of the Commissioner. Under Section 548 of the said Act, slaughter of animals is to be made only in slaughter houses after duly obtaining certificates granted by Veterinary Officers to the effect that animal is fit for slaughter.
36. As per Section 4 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, (Act No. 59 of 1960) Animal Welfare Board of India was established consisting of Ex.Officio member. Similarly, at the state level, Animal Welfare Broad was constituted by the State of Andhra Pradesh through G.O.Ms. No. 85 Food and Agriculture (AH.III) Department dated 20-1-1992 consisting of various members headed by the Minister for Animal Husbandry as its Chairman along with other members and at district level a committee was constituted with District Collector as President as per G.O.Ms. No. 144, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH.III) Department dated 30-3-1998 which are being called as District Animal Welfare Committee (re-designated as District Animal Welfare Society) for the welfare and protection of the animals.
37. In our opinion, the State of Andhra Pradesh under the provisions of Article 48 of the Constitution is discharging its function and has also taken all endeavours to protect the animal health and preservation of cattle apart from prohibition of slaughter of cows and calves and other draught cattle by enacting various Acts. Further under Sections 428 and 429 IPC, whoever commit mischief by killing animals, are liable for punishment up to two years and fine. Thus, it is seen that the State of Andhra Pradesh has taken all steps to prevent illegal slaughtering and implementing the provisions of the Act. As already observed, in this case, no specific allegation is made except making bald allegation that the authorities are colluded with the traders without moving any of the authorities. As already noticed, the Supreme Court protected the interest of butchers holding that the total prohibition of slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bulls without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness offend their fundamental rights and that the Act is valid insofar as it regulates the slaughter of other animals under certificates granted by the authorities mentioned under the Act.
38. Since the matter is fully covered by aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and the object Article 48 explained by the Apex Court in extenso, it is not necessary for us to deal with the contention of the petitioner that the fundamental rights of the butchers cannot be protected in view of Article 31C. We are of the opinion that the relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
39. In the result, we uphold the impugned provisions of the Act. However, it is open to the State to make a provision as regards the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, she-buffaloes by fixing age limit at which they can be permitted to be slaughtered under the certificates issued by the competent authority in line with the statutes made by the States of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar on a scientific basis as detailed supra.
40. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.