High CourtDivision Bench2008-02-26Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside;...

AbdulSattar Yusuffbhai Qureshi & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2002

Neutral Citation:[2008] 3 S.C.R. 438

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2008-02-26
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; the notification under the Gujarat Act and the Gujarat Amendment Act, 1994 held intra vires; writ petitions dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

AbdulSattar Yusuffbhai Qureshi & Ors.

Respondents

State of Gujarat

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Fakhruddin
• W. A. Nomani
• Imtiaz Ahmed
• Naghma Imtiaz

Counsels for Respondents

• Saurav Kirpal
• Hemantika Wahi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abdulsattar Yusuffbhai Qureshi & Ors. v. State of Gujarat concerns a government notification under the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 that restricted slaughter and sale of meat of bulls and bullocks. The appellants, engaged in slaughter and sale of meat, challenged the notification as beyond the State’s powers and violative of fundamental rights to carry on a trade and, potentially, to life. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the restriction as a reasonable means to drastically reduce slaughter of bulls and bullocks. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the notification and the Gujarat Amendment Act, 1994 are intra vires and within the State’s legislative competence. In its reasoning, the Court cited, and found supportive, State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. (2005) and discussed Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2006) to delineate the scope of permissible restrictions on slaughter. The Court distinguished the AP case as not controlling, noting that AP does not impose a total ban on buffalo slaughter while Gujarat’s framework aims at cattle preservation within constitutional bounds. The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s judgment is set aside; writ petitions are dismissed, thereby upholding the restrictive regime on slaughter under the 1958 Act as amended.

Provisions of Law Cited

Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958; s. 4(1)(b); s. 4(1)(g); s. 4(2); s. 5(1)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine of reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights (Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6))

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the notification under the Gujarat Act was beyond the State’s powers and infringed fundamental rights to carry on the trade of slaughter and sale of meat, including the right to life. They contended that the restriction amounts to an unlawful prohibition and is not a valid or reasonable restriction under the Constitution. They relied on prior judgments to challenge the breadth and legality of the notification and argued that the 1994 amendments, though within the state's legislative competence, must still be consonant with constitutional rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that the notification is within the powers conferred by the Gujarat Act and serves the legitimate objective of reducing slaughter and protecting cattle. It argued that the restrictions are reasonable and proportionate to the aim of cattle preservation and public interest. Relying on earlier decisions, the State asserted that the Act as amended is intra vires and that the High Court correctly held the restrictions to be reasonable.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors.	2005 (8) SCC 534	Positive	Cited as supporting authority for the intra vires validity of the Gujarat Amendment and for upholding the restrictions within constitutional limits.
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A P & Ors.	2006 (4) SCC 162	Distinguished	Cited to discuss related issues but distinguished due to material differences (AP Act does not impose a total ban on buffalo slaughter) and thus not controlling.
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar	AIR 1958 SC 731	Mentioned Only	Cited in the course of argument but not treated as controlling precedent for the present case; noted for context on total bans and fodder/resource considerations.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against AbdulSattar Yusuffbhai Qureshi & Ors. v. State of Gujarat and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 438 8 ... A ## ABDULSATIAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. _v._ ## STATE OF GUJARAT (Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2002) ## FEBRUARY 26, 2008 **[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]** c D _Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958- s. 4 (1) (b) and (g); 4(2) and_ 5 _(1)-Notification underPutting restriction on slaughter and selling of meat of bulls and bullocks_ - _High Court upholding the Notification on the ground that restriction was reasonable issued for the purpose of reducing the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks_ - _On appeal, order of High Court upheld._ _State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors._ **2005 (8) SCC 534;** _Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A.P and Ors._ **2006 (4) sec 162 - relied on.** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2002 E From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.2001 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in W.P. S.C:A. No. 4343/1996. Fakhruddin, W.A. Nomani, lmtiaz Ahmed and Naghma lmtiaz (for _Mis_ Equity Lex Associates) for the Appellants. F Saurav Kirpal and Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent. • The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court G dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Appellants are engaged in the business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls, bullocks and other animals. In the writ petition, they challenged the validity of Notification dated 11.12 .1989 published in Government Gazette dated 13 .12 .1989 by the State H 438 H • 439 ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. _v._ _.k_ .. STATE OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT, J.] of Gujarat. The Notification was purported to have been issued A in exercise of its powers conferred under clause (b) of sub section (1) and clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 and clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 5 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act of 1958') as applicable to the State of Gujarat. B B 2. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that reasonable restriction was imposed for drastically reducing the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the c Notification was beyond the powers of the State government and affected the fundamental rights of the appellants of carrying on their business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls and bullocks and other animals and also affected their right to life. .. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand D submitted that the matter has been conclusively decided by several judgments of this Court. 5. In _State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat_ & _Ors._ (2005 (8) SCC 534), it was inter-alia observed E as follows: "' ... "10. This was followed by the impugned legislation, the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994. The Bombay Act of 1954 referred to as "the principal Act" was further amended by Section 2 of the amending F Act which reads as•under: "2. In the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act'), in Section 5- ' G (1) in sub-section (1-A), for clauses _(c)_ and _(cf),_ the following clauses shall be substituted, namely- '(c) a bull; ( _d_ ) a bullock.' H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A (2) in sub-section (3)- ( i) in clause ( a ), sub-clauses ( _ii)_ and ( _iii)_ shall be deleted; B _(it)_ in clause ( _b_ ), after the words 'calf of a cow', the words 'bull or bullock' shall be inserted." Xx xx c D E F G H 142. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot accept the view taken by the High Court. All the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vi res the Constitution. All the writ petitions filed in the High Court are directed to be dismissed." 6. Similarly in _Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A P_ & _Ors._ (2006(4) sec 162) it was observed as follows: "64. Before concluding this issue, let us deal with Submission ( _h_ ) made by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in CA No. 3968 of 1994. On behalf of Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in Submission ( _h_ ) it was urged that the decision in _Mohd. Hanif Quaresht_ v. _State of Bihar (AIR 1958_ SC _731)would_ not help Al Kabeer in any way as the position at present is completely different. In that decision, total ban on slaughter of old cattle was struck down on the ground that there was scarcity of fodder resources, which however, according to Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh, does not exist any longer. In _State of Gujarat_ v. _Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005(8)_ SCC _534)_ it has also been held that in view of the position that exists now i.e adequate availability of cattle feed resources. the question of striking down total ban on slaughter of old cattle for scarcity of fodder resources would not arise at all. In ou~ view, this position cannot be disputed. However. 1n the present case, we are concerned with the A.P Act, 1977 which does not impose a total ban on slaughter of a • ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. _v._ 441 STATE OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT, J.] • .... particular type of bovine animal, whereas in _Mirzapur_ case A (supra) this Court dealt with the provisions of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 which imposes a total ban on slaughter of cow and its progeny. So far as the A. P. Act, 1977 is concerned, there is no total ban on slaughter of buffaloes. Therefore, in our view, this B submission of the Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh cannot at all be accepted, as we are not concerned with the case of striking down a particular provision which imposes an absolute prohibition of slaughter of particular types of bovine animals. In _Mirzapurcase (supra),_ it was, however, c not held that permitting slaughter of bovine cattle by itself is unconstitutional. This being the position, we are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that -Submission (h) can come to their assistance for the purpose of banning of slaughter of buffaloes by Al Kabeer." D 7. Above being the position, this appeal is without merit, deserves dismissal which we direct. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.