http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 4937-4940 of 1998

PETITIONER:

State of Gujarat

RESPONDENT:

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/10/2005

BENCH:

A.K. MATHUR

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

With

C.A. No.4941-44 of 1998 and C.A. No.4945 of 1998

A.K. MATHUR, J.

I have gone through the erudite judgment by Hon'ble Chief Justice.

But I regret I cannot support the view taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice.

Basic question that arises in these petitions are whether there is need

to over-rule the earlier decisions which held the field right from 1958-1996,

is the ground realities have materially changed so as to reverse the view held

by successive Constitutional Benches of this Court or those decisions

ceased to have any relevance.

It is true that life is ever changing and the concept which was useful

in 18th century may not be useful in this millennium. We have gone from

cartage to space age. New scientific temper is a guiding factor in this

millennium. But despite the changing pattern of life it cannot be said that

the decision delivered in the case of Mohd. Qureshi followed by subsequent

decisions have outlived its ratio. In my respectful view the material which

has been placed for taking a contrary view does not justify the reversal of

earlier decisions.

The detailed history of the legislation and various decisions bearing

on the subject has been dealt with by Hon'ble Chief Justice in most

exhaustive and pains-taking manner. Therefore, there is no need to repeat

those legislative as well as judicial history here. My endeavor in this

opinion will be to show that the situation which existed right from 1958

till this date there is no material change warranting reversal of the judgments

bearing on the subject from 1958-96.

The whole controversy arose in the writ petition filed in the Gujarat

High Court challenging the validity of the Bombay Animal Preservation

(Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to Gujarat Act No. 4

of 1994). By this amendment the age of bulls and bullocks which was

existed at that time that is bull below the age of 16 years and bullocks below

the age of 16 years can not be slaughtered was deleted. By this amendment

the age restriction was totally taken away and that means that no bull and

bullock irrespective of age shall be slaughtered. This amendment was

challenged before the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court after

dealing with all aspects in detail held that amendment is ultra vires.

Hence, the present petition alongwith the other petitions came up before

this Court by Special Leave Petition.

The matter was listed before the three Judges' Bench. Thereafter, it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

was taken by the Constitution Bench and the Constitution Bench realizing

difficulty that there are already Constitution Bench judgments holding the

field, referred the matter to the seven Judges' Bench for reconsideration of

all the earlier decisions of the Constitution Benches. Hence these matters

are before seven Judges' Bench.

Hon'ble the Chief Justice has already reproduced the objects and

reasons for amendment therefore same need not be reproduced here. This

amendment brought about to effect directive principles of the State Policy

under Articles 47, 48 of the Constitution and Clause (b) and (c) of Article

39 of the Constitution.

Thereafter, Hon'ble Chief Justice has also reviewed all the cases

bearing on the subject which can be enumerated as under:

1. AIR 1958 SC 731 ( Mohd. Hanif Qureshi & Ors. Vs. State of

Bihar)

2. AIR 1961 SC448 ( Abul Hakim Vs. State of Bihar)

3. 1969 (1) SCC 853 ( Mohd. Faruk Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

4. 1986 (3) SCC 12 ( Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi Vs. State of

Gujarat

5. 1996 (4) SCC 391 ( Hashmattullah Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

In these cases, this very question was agitated & by series of

decisions it was answered in the negative.

In Mohd. Hanif Qureshi's case this Court upheld a total prohibition

of slaughter of the cows of all ages and calf of buffalows (male and

female) & she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks, without

prescribing any test of requirement as to their age. But so far as bull &

bullocks are concerned when they ceased to have draughtability

prohibition of their slaughter was not upheld in public interest. Hon'ble S.R.

Das, CJ speaking for the Court exhaustively dealt with all the aspects which

practically covers all the arguments which have been raised before us,

especially, the utility of the cow-dung for manure as well as the cow urine

for its chemical qualities like Nitrogen Phosphates and Potash. His Lordship

recognized that this enactment was made in discharge of State's obligation

under Art. 48 of the Constitution to preserve our livestock.

His Lordship has discussed the question of reasonable restriction

under Article 19 (6) and after considering all material placed before the

Court, and adverting to social, religious, utility point of view in most

exhaustive manner finally concluded thus :

"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 analyze 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

analyzing 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 Art. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be

supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public."

Therefore, their Lordships have summarized the whole concept of

preservation of the cattle life in India with reservation that those cattle head

which have lost their utility can be slaughtered specially with regard to

draught cattle, bulls, bullocks & buffaloes so as to preserve the other

milching cattle for their better breed and their better produce.

Subsequently in another decision, in the case of Abdul Hakim vs.

State of Bihar reported in AIR 1961 SC 448 the ban was imposed by the

States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and U.P. which came up for consideration

before this Court and in this context it was observed as under:

"The test of reasonableness should be applied to each

individual statute impugned and no abstract standard, or general

pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all

cases. The nature of the 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 at the

time, should all enter into the judicial verdict."

Their Lordship also emphasized that the legislature is the best Judge

of what is good for the community, by whose suffrage it comes into

existence, the ultimate responsibility for determining the validity of the law

must rest with the Court and the Court must not shirk that solemn duty cast

on it by the Constitution.

It was observed that the unanimous opinion of the experts is that

after the age of 15, bulls, bullocks and buffaloes are no longer useful for

breeding, draught and other purpose and whatever little use they may have

then is greatly off-set by the economic disadvantage of feeding and

maintaining unserviceable cattle.

Section 3 of the Bihar Act in so far as it has increased the age limit

to 25 in respect of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes, for the purpose of

their slaughter imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right

of the butchers to carry on their trade and profession. Moreover the

restriction cannot be said to be in the interests of the general public, and to

that extent it is void.

Then again in the case of Mohd. Faruk vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

and Ors. reported in 1969 (1) SCC 853, Constitution Bench was called

upon to decide the validity of the notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh

Government under Municipal Corporation Act. Earlier, a notification was

issued by the Jabalpur Municipality permitting the slaughter of bulls and

bullocks alongwith the other animals. Later on State Government issued

notification cancelling the notification permitting the slaughter of bulls and

bullocks. This came up for a challenge directly under Art. 32 of the

constitution before this Court, that this restriction amounts to breach of

Art. 19(1)(g) of the constitution. In that context, their Lordship observed:

"That the sentiments of a section of the people may be hurt by

permitting slaughter of bulls and bullocks in premises

maintained by a local authority. But a prohibition imposed on

the exercise of a fundamental right to carry on an occupation,

trade or business will not be regarded as reasonable if it is

imposed not in the interest of the general public but merely to

respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the

people whose way of life belief or thought is not the same as

that of the claimant. The notification issued must, therefore, be

declared ultra virus as infringing Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

Then again in the case of Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi & Ors.

vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1986) 3 SCC 12, the insertion of Section 5

(1-A) (c) and (d) was made under the Bombay Animal Preservation

(Gujarat amendment) act 1979) came up for consideration. By virtue of this

insertion by the Gujarat State, it was laid down that there will be ban of

slaughter of bulls, bullocks below the age of 16 years. It was contented that

this prohibition is unreasonable and violative of Art. 19(1)(g). Their

Lordships upheld the restriction under Art. 19(6) with reference to Art. 48

of the constitution. Their Lordships upheld the contention of the State of

Gujarat that with the improvement of scientific methods cattle up to the

age of 16 years are used for the purpose of breeding and other agricultural

operation. But by this Act of 1994 this age restriction has now been totally

taken away by the Act of 1994 (which is subject matter of challenge in these

petitions).

Then again the matter came up before this Court in the case of

Hashmattullah vs. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 1996 (4) SCC 391.

This time the provisions of the M.P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act,

1959 came up for consideration. This Act was amended by Amending Act

of 1991 and a total ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks came to be

imposed. And this was challenged being violative of Art. 19 (1)(g) of the

constitution.

Their Lordships after reviewing all earlier cases on the subject and

taking into consideration the uselessness of these bulls and bullocks after

they have attained a particular age for agriculture operation like manure as

well as bio-gas and ecology, observed in para 18 as under:

"We are pained to notice the successive attempts made by the

State of Madhya Pradesh to nullify the effect of this Court's

decisions beginning with Mohd. Hanif's case and ending with

Mohd. Faruk's case, each time on flimsy grounds. In this last

such attempt, the objects and reasons show how insignificant

and unsupportable the ground for bringing the legislation was.

The main thrust of the objects and reasons for the legislation

seems to be that even animals which have ceased to be capable

of yielding milk or breeding or working as draught animals can

be useful as they would produce dung which could be used to

generate non-conventional sources of energy like bio-gas

without so much as being aware of the cost of maintaining such

animals for the mere purpose of dung. Even the supportive

articles relied upon do not bear on this point. It is obvious that

successive attempts are being made in the hope that some day it

will succeed as indeed it did with the High Court which got

carried away by research papers published only two or three

years before without realizing that they dealt with the aspect of

utility of dung but had nothing to do with the question of the

utility of animals which have ceased to be reproductive of

capable of being used as draught animals. Besides, they do not

even reflect on the economical aspect of; maintaining such

animals for the sole purpose of dung. Prim facie it seems

farfetched and yet the State Government thought it as sufficient

to amend the law."

And their Lordships declined to review the ratio laid down in Mohd. Hanif

Qureshi's case & reiterated the same.

This is a survey of the judicial determination on the subject. And in

the last case their Lordships frowned on unsuccessful attempt by the State to

somehow nullify the ratio laid down in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi's case and

subsequent decisions following Qureshi's case. But this time, the State of

Gujarat has come up to seek the review of earlier decisions. Now I shall

examine the material which has been placed by the State of Gujarat to

justify the total prohibition of slaughter of bulls and bullocks.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice the

affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat which has been reproduced by the

Hon'ble Chief Justice on page 56 in his opinion onwards. Therefore, I

need not reproduce the whole of the affidavit. Mr. J.S.Parikh, Deputy

Secretary, Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Department of

the State of Gujarat has in his affidavit stated that almost in 50% of the

agricultural operation by tractor is not possible because of small holdings in

the State of Gujarat. Therefore, for such small holdings the draught

animals are best used for cultivation purposes. It was also stated that the

total cultivated area of Gujarat State is about 124 lakh hectares and a pair

of bullocks is required for ploughing 10 hectares of land. Therefore,

5.481million and approximately equal number is required for carting of

whole land. In accordance with livestock census, the Gujarat State has

availability of indigenous bullocks around 2.84 millions that means that a

State has only 25% of their requirement and it is also stated that each bull is

required for this purpose. He has also stated that bull or bullocks at every

stage of life supplies 3500 kg. of dung and 2000 ltrs. of urine and this

quantity of dung can supply 5000 cubic feet of biogas, 80 M.T. of organic

fertilizer and the urine can supply 2000 ltrs of pesticides and the use of it in

farming increases the yield very substantially. That in recent advancement

of technology use of biogas has become very useful source of energy and the

biogas can be prepared out of the cow dung and other inputs. It was pointed

out that there are 19362 biogas plants installed in the State during 1995-97.

Similarly, an additional affidavit was filed by Mr. D.P. Amin, Joint

Director of Animal Husbandry, Gujarat State. He has mentioned that the

number of the slaughter houses have declined during the year 1982-83 to

1996-97. The average number of animals slaughtered in regulated

slaughter houses was 4,39,141. It is also stated that there is a reduction in

slaughter of the bull and bullocks above the age of 16 years. Almost 50

per cent of the land holdings are less than 2 hectares; tractor operation is not

affordable to small farmers. For tractors operation one should have large

holding of land. Such land holders are only around 10 per cent of the total

land holders. Hence the farmers with small land holdings require bullocks

for their agricultural operations and transport. There is reduction in

slaughter of bulls and bullocks above the age of 16 years reported in the

regulated slaughter houses of Gujarat State. As reported in the years from

1982-83 to 1996-97, the slaughter of bulls and bullocks above the age of 16

years was only 2.48% of the total animals of different categories slaughtered

in the State. This percentage has gone down to the level of only 1.10%

during last 8 years i.e. 1997-98 to 2004-05 which is very less significant to

cause or affect the business of butcher communities. He has also stated that

the bullock above the age of 16 years can generate 0.68 horse power

draught output while the prime bullock generates 0.83 horse power per

bullock during carting/hauling draught work. Considering the utility of

bullocks above 16 years of age as draught power a detailed combined study

was carried out by Department of Animal Husbandry and Gujarat

Agricultural University (Veterinary Colleges S.K. Nagar & Anand). The

study covered different age groups of 156 (78 pairs) bullocks above the age

of 16 years age generated 0.68 horse power draught output per bullock while

the prime bullock generated 0.83 horse power per bullock during

carting/hauling draught work in a summer with about more than 42: F temp.

The study proves that 93% of aged bullock above 16 years of age are still

useful to farmers to perform light and medium draught works. The

importance of organic manure as a source of humus and plant nutrients to

increase the fertility level of soils has been well recognized. The organic

matter content of cultivated soils of the tropics and sub-tropics is

comparatively low due to high temperature and intense microbial activity.

The crops remove annually large quantity of plant nutrients from soil.

Moreover, Indian soils are poor in organic matter and in major plant

nutrients. Therefore, soil humus has to be replenished through periodic

addition of organic manure for maintaining soil productivity. It was

mentioned that there is number of bio-gas plants operating in the State of

Gujarat.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

Apart from these affidavits many more published documents have

been placed on record which has been reproduced by the Hon'ble Chief

Justice of India in his opinion. But all these are general datas which only

provide the usefulness of cow dung for the purposes of manure as well as for

biogas and likewise the urine of the cows for pesticides and ayurvedic

purposes. But all those datas cannot change the reality that such an aged bull

and bullocks produce huge quantity of the cow dung manure and urine

which can alter a situation materially so as to reverse the earlier decisions of

this court. Utility of the cow dung and urine was realized and appreciated in

the earlier decision of this Court in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi's and Ors. vs State

of Bihar and Ors. (AIR 1958 SC 731) The then Chief Justice has quoted

from various scriptures emphasizing the importance of the cattle life.

Therefore it cannot be said that the earlier decisions rendered by the

Constitution Bench was oblivious of these facts.

However, so far as the affidavits filed on behalf of State of Gujarat

about the use of biogas and the usefulness of the draught animals has to be

taken with pinch of salt, in both the affidavits it has been admitted that urine

and the cow dung of the aged bull and bullocks beyond 16 years is reduced

considerably and likewise their draughtability. Therefore, it is admitted that

the bullocks which have crossed the age of 16 years their output for the

urine, cow dung and draughtability is substantially reduced. Therefore it is

explicit from their affidavits that the age of 16 years prescribed earlier was

on a very reasonable basis after proper scientific study but de hors those

scientific study the State Government brought this amendment removing the

age limit for slaughtering of the bulls and bullocks and totally prohibited

slaughtering of the same. This decision of the State Government does not

advance the public interest.

Another significant disclosure in both these affidavits is that

slaughtering of these bulls and bullocks has considerably reduced in the year

1997-98 to 2004-2005. The slaughtering of bulls and bullocks beyond the

age of 16 years was only 2.48 % of the total animals of different categories

slain in the State prior to this period. This percentage has gone down to the

level of only 1.10 % during the last 8 years i.e. 1997-98 to 2004-2005.

These details reveal that in fact the slaughtering of these bulls and bullocks

beyond the age of 16 years constituted only 1.10% of the total slaughtering

takes place in the State. If this is the ratio of the slaughtering, I fail to

understand how this legislation can advance the cause of the public at the

expense of the denial of Fundamental Right of this class of persons

(butchers). In view of facts disclosed in the affidavit filed by the two senior

officer of the State of Gujarat speaks volume that for small percentage of

1.10% can the fundamental right of this class of persons should be sacrificed

and earlier decisions be reversed. I fail to understand how it would advance

the cause of the public at large so as to deprive the handful of persons of

their rights to profession. On the basis of this material, I am of the opinion

that the earlier decisions of this Court have not become irrelevant in the

present context. The tall claim made by State looks attractive in a print but

in reality it is not so. I fail to understand that how can an animal whose

average age is said to be 12-16 years can at the age of 16 years reproduce

the cow-dung or urine which can off set the requirement of the chemical

fertilizer. In this connection reference be made to text book where average

age is 12 years. It is a common experience that the use of the chemical

fertilizer has increased all over the country and the first priority of the

farmer is the chemical fertilizer, as a result of which the production in food

grain in the country has gone up and today the country has become

surplus. This is because of the use of the chemical fertilizer only and not

the organic manure. It was observed in Mohd. Hanif's case that India has

a largest cattle head but a lower in the production of milk. It is only because

of the scientific methods employed by veterinarian which has increased the

milk production in the country not because of the poor breed of the bulls.

It is common experience that aged bulls are not used for purposes of

covering the cows for better quality of the breed. Only well-built young

bulls are used for the purpose of improving the breeding and not the aged

bulls. If the aged and weak bulls are allowed for mating purposes, the off-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

spring will be of poor health and that will not be in the interest of the

country. So far as the use of biogas is concerned, that has also been

substantially reduced after the advent of L.P.G.

Therefore in my opinion, in the background of this scenario, I do not

think that it will be proper to reverse the view which has been held good for

a long spell of time from 1958 to 1996. There is no material change in

ground realities warranting reversal of earlier decisions.

One of the other reasons which has been advanced for reversal of

earlier judgments was that at the time when these earlier judgments were

delivered Article 48(A) and 51(A) were not there and impact of both these

Articles were not considered. It is true that Article 48(A) which was

introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 with effect from

3.1.1977 and Article 51(A) i.e. fundamental duties were also brought about

by the same amendment. Though, these Articles were not in existence at

that time but the effect of those Articles were indirectly considered in the

Mohd. Hanif Qureshi's case in 1958. It was mentioned that cow dung can be

used for the purposes of manure as well as for the purpose of fuel that will

be more echo-friendly. Similarly, in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi's case their

Lordships have quoted from the scriptures to show that we should have a

proper consideration for our cattle wealth and in that context their Lordships

quoted in para 22 which reads as under:

"22. The avowed object of each of the impugned Acts is to

ensure the preservation, protection, and improvement of the

cow and her progeny. This solicitude arises out of the

appreciation of the usefulness of cattle in a predominantly

agricultural society. Early Aryans recognized its importance as

one of the most indispensable adjuncts of agriculture. It would

appear that in Vedic times animal flesh formed the staple food

of the people. This is attributable to the fact that the climate in

that distant past was extremely cold and the Vedic Aryans had

been a pastoral people before they settled down as

agriculturists. In Rg. Vedic times goats, sheep, cows, buffaloes

and even horses were slaughtered for food and for religious

sacrifice and their flesh used to be offered to the Gods. Agni is

called the "eater of ox or cow" in Rg.Veda (VIII,43,11). The

slaying of a great ox (Mahoksa) or a "great Goat" (Mahaja) for

the entertainment of a distinguished guest has been enjoined in

the Satapatha Brahmana (III.4. 1-2). Yagnavalkya also

expresses a similar view (Vaj.1. 109). An interesting account

of those early days will be found in Rg.Vedic Culture by Dr.

A.C. Das, Chapter 5, pages 203-5 and in the History of

Dharamasastras (Vol.II, Part II) by P.V. Kane at pages 772-773.

Though the custom of slaughtering of cows and bulls prevailed

during the vedic period, nevertheless, even in the Rg. Vedic

times there seems to have grown up a revulsion of feeling

against the custom. The cow gradually came to acquire a

special sanctity and was called "Aghnya" (not to be slain).

There was a school of thinkers amongst the Risis, who set their

face against the custom of killing such useful animals as the

cow and the bull. High praise was bestowed on the cow as will

appear from the following verses from Rg.Veda, Book VI,

Hymn XXVIII (Cows) attributed to the authorship of Sage

Bhardavaja:

"1 . The kine have come and brought good fortune;

let them rest in the cow-pen and be happy near us.

Here let them stay prolific, many coloured, and

yield through many morns their milk for Indra.

6. O Cows, ye fatten e'n the worn and wasted, and

make the unlovely beautiful to look on.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

Prosper my house, ye with auspicious voices, your

power is glorified in our assemblies.

7. Crop goodly pasturages and be prolific; drink

pure sweet water at good drinking places.

Never be thief or sinful man your master, and may

the dart of Rudra still avoid you."

(Translation by Ralph Griffith). Verse 29 of hymn 1 in Book X

of Atharva Veda forbids cow slaughter in the following words:

"29. The slaughter of an innocent, O Kritya, is an

awful deed, Slay not cow, horse, or man of ours."

Hyman 10 in the same book is a rapturous glorification of the

cow:

"30. The cow is Heaven, the cow is Eath, the cow

is Vishnu, Lord of life.

The Sadhyas and the Vasus have drunk the

outpourings of the cow.

34. Both Gods and mortal men depend for life and

being on the cow.

She hath become this universe; all that the sun

surveys is she."

P.V. Kane argues that in the times of the Rg.Veda only barren

cows, if at all, were killed for sacrifice or meat and cows

yielding milk were held to be not fit for being killed. It is only

in this way, according to him that one can explain and reconcile

the apparent conflict between the custom of killing cows for

food and the high praise bestowed on the cow in Rg.Vedic

times. It would appear that the protest raised against the

slaughter of cows greatly increased in volume till the custom

was totally abolished in a later age. The change of climate

perhaps also make the use of beef as food unnecessary and even

injurious to health. Gradually cows became indicative of the

wealth of the owner. The Neolithic Aryans not having been

acquainted with metals, there were no coins in current use in the

earlier stages of their civilization, but as they were eminently a

pastoral people almost every family possessed a sufficient

number of cattle and some of them exchanged them for the

necessaries of their life. The value of cattle (Pasu) was,

therefore, very great with the early Rg.Vedic Aryans. The

ancient Romans also used the word pecus or pecu (pasu) in the

sense of wealth or money. The English words, "pecuniary" and

"impecunious", are derived from the Latin root pecus or pecu,

originally meaning cattle. The possession of cattle in those

days denoted wealth and a man was considered rich or poor

according to the large or small number of cattle that he owned.

In the Ramayana king Janaka's wealth was described by

reference to the large number of herds that he owned. It

appears that the cow was gradually raised to the status of

divinity. Kautilya's Arthasastra has a special chapter

(Ch.XXIX) dealing with the "superintendent of cows" and the

duties of the owner of cows are also referred to in Ch.XI of

Hindu Law in its sources by Ganga Nath Jha. There can be no

gainsaying the fact that the Hindus in general hold the cow in

great reverence and the idea of the slaughter of cows for food is

repugnant to their notions and this sentiment has in the past

even led to communal riots. It is also a fact that after the recent

partition of the country this agitation against the slaughter of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

cows has been further intensified. While we agree that the

constitutional question before us cannot be decided on grounds

of mere sentiment, however passionate it may be, we,

nevertheless, think that it has to be taken into consideration,

though only as one of many elements, in arriving at a judicial

verdict as to the reasonableness of the restrictions."

Therefore it cannot be said that the Judges were not conscious about

the usefulness and the sanctity with which the entire cow and its progeny has

been held in our country. Though Article 48(A) and 51(A) were not there,

but their Lordships were indirectly conscious of the implication. Articles

48(A) and 51(A) do not substantially change the ground realities which can

persuade to change the views which have been held from 1958 to 1996.

Reference was also made that for protection of top soil, the cow dung will be

useful. No doubt the utility of the cow dung for protection of the top soil is

necessary but one has to be pragmatic in its approach that whether the small

yield of the cow dung and urine from aged bulls and bullocks can

substantially change the top soil. In my opinion this argument was advanced

only for the sake of argument but does not advance the case of the

petitioners/appellants to reverse the decision of the earlier Benches which

had stood the test of time.

In this connection, it will be relevant to refer the principle of stare

decisis. The expression of 'stare decisis' is a Latin phrase which means "to

stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former

adjudications". It is true that law is a dynamic concept and it should change

with the time. But at the same time it shall not be so fickle that it changes

with change of guard. If the ground realities have not changed and it has not

become irrelevant with the time then it should not be reviewed lightly. I

have discussed above the reasons which have been given by the State of

Gujarat for reconsideration of the earlier decisions on the subject, in my

humble opinion the justification so pleaded is not sufficient to change or

review the decision of the Constitution Bench by the present Bench of seven

Judges.

The principle of stare decisis is based on a public policy. This policy

is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the

law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e. that parties should be

able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable

assurance of the governing rules of law. If the courts start changing their

views frequently then there will be a lack of certainty in the law and it is not

good for the health of the nation.

Craies on Statue Law, 7th Edition, it was observed that:

"The rule is also founded more logically on the axiom statre

decisis, which was the ground of the decision in Hanau vs

Ehrlich. The case turned on the ambiguous words in the Statute

of Frauds as to agreements not to be performed within a year

from the making thereof. The House of Lords in 12912 decided

that though it may be well doubted whether an agreement for

more than one year determinable by notice within the year is

within the statute, a long course of decisions going back to

1829 in the affirmative ought not to be disturbed. And in 1945

Scott L.J. refused to decide against a decision of Malins Vs. C.

in 1870 on the ground that the construction placed by the Vice-

Chancellor on certain sections of the Companies Act 1862 had

been accepted for a long time. In 1958 Lord Evershed M.R.

said: "There is well-established authority for the view that a

decision of long standing, on the basis of which many persons

will in the course of time have arranged their affairs, should not

lightly be disturbed by a superior court not strictly bound itself

by the decision."

In 1919 Lord Buckmaster enunciated the principles on which

the rule of stare decisis is based. "Firstly, the construction of a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

statute of doubtful meaning once laid down and accepted for a

long period of time ought not to be altered unless your

Lordships could say positively that it was wrong and productive

of inconvenience. Secondly, that the decisions upon which title

to property depends or which by establishing principles of

construction otherwise form the basis of contracts ought to

receive the same protection. Thirdly, decisions affecting the

general conduct of affairs, so that their alteration would mean

that taxes had been unlawfully imposed or exemption

unlawfully obtained, payments needlessly made or the position

of the public materially affected, ought in the same way to

continue."

Earlier, Lord Westbury had thus stated the rule, "We must bow

to the uniform interpretation which has been put upon the

statute of Elizabeth and must not attempt to disturb the

exposition it has received \005. If we find a uniform

interpretation of a statue upon a question materially affecting

property, and perpetually recurring, and which has been

adhered to without interruption, it would be impossible for us to

introduce the precedent of disregarding that interpretation.

Disagreeing with it would thereby be shaking rights and titles

which have been founded through so many years upon the

conviction that that interpretation is the legal and proper one

and is one which will not be departed from."

The rule of stare decisis was followed in Associated

Newspapers Ltd. vs City of London Corporation, where the

House of Lords declined to overrule two old cases which

established the non-ratability of certain property in the City of

London on the construction of an Act of 1767, and in Morgan

vs Fear, where the House of Lords refused to disturb a

construction of the Prescription Act 1832, which had been

settled and acted on for forty-six years. In Cohen vs Bayley-

Worthington which turned on the construction of the Fines and

Recoveries Act, 1833, the House of Lords refused to put on that

Act a new construction, as property had been settled or

otherwise dealt with for a long period of time on the faith of the

older cases, and in Close vs Steel Co. of Wales Ltd. Lord

Morton of Henryton said: "I have always understood that when

this House clearly expresses a view upon the construction of an

Act of Parliament and bases its decision on that view, the Act

must bear that construction unless and until Parliament alters

the Act."

Therefore one of the hallmarks of the law is certainty predictability

and stability unless the ground realty has completely changed. In the present

case, as discussed above, in my opinion the ground reality has not changed

and the law laid down by this court holds good and relevant. Some

advancement in technology and more and more use of the cow dung and

urine is not such a substantial factor to change the ground realities so as to

totally done away with the slaughtering of the aged bulls and bullocks. It is

true my Lord the Chief Justice has rightly observed that principle of stare

decisis is not a dogmatic rule allergic to logic and reason; it is a flexible

principle of law operating in the province of precedents providing room to

collaborate with the demands of changing times dictated by social needs,

State policy and judicial conscience. There is no quarrel to this proposition,

but the only question is whether the earlier decisions are not logical or they

have become unreasonable with the passage of time. In my humble opinion,

those decisions still hold good in the present context also. Therefore, I do

not think that there are compelling reasons for reversal of the earlier

decisions either on the basis of advancement of technology or reason, or

logic, or economic consideration. Therefore, in my humble opinion, there is

no need to reverse the earlier decisions.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11

An argument was raised with regard to role of objects and reasons

preceding the enactment. There is no two opinion that they are useful and

for purposes of interpretation of the provisions whenever its validity is

challenged. This aspect has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Chief Justice

and I do not wish to add anything more to it.

Likewise, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has dealt in detail the relation of

Fundamental Rights with Directive Principles. His Lordship has very

exhaustively dealt with all the cases bearing on the subject prior and after

decision in Keshwanand Bharti's case. The court should guard zealously

Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens of the society, but at the same

time strike a balance between the Fundamental Rights and the larger

interests of the society. But when such right clashes with the larger interest

of the country it must yield to the latter. Therefore, wherever any enactment

is made for advancement of Directive Principles and it runs counter to the

Fundamental Rights an attempt should be made to harmonise the same if it

promotes larger public interest.

Therefore, as a result of above discussion, I am of the view that the

view taken by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court is correct and

there is no justification for reversing the view taken by the earlier

Constitution Bench decision of this Court. All appeals are dismissed. No

order as to costs.