Md&champ-1p 2nd Moot

VASANTRAO PAWAR LAW COLLEGE, BARAMATI.
MOOTCOURT
2019
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDIA
P. (CIVIL)
CIVIL.NO. ---/20
THE REPUBLIC …………….. PETITIONER
VS.
………………RESPONDENT
A WRIT PETITION UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

OF HIGH COURT OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE SAID
COURT.
BALLB - 04
1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

VASANTRAO PAWAR LAW COLLEGE, BARAMATI. MOOTCOURT
2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr.No Particular Page No.

1. Table of contents
2. Index of Authorities List of Abbrevations
3. List of Abbrevations
4. Statement of jurisdiction
5. Statement of fact
6. Statement of issue
7. Summary argument
8. Argument Advanced
(1) Issue 1: Whether the Act is constitutionally valid or
not?
(2) Issue 2: To what extent State can interfere with the
fundamental rights of Individuals?
(3) Issue 3: Can a petitioner seek remedy for violation of
his fundamental rights while legislation seeks to
achieve ‘compelling public interest’?
(4) Issue 4: For implementation of Directive Principles of
State Policy, can a Fundamental Right be restricted?
(5) Issue 5: Whether the cow slaughter is an offence or not?
8. Prayer
9. Bibliography.
10. Webliography.

2019
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

2019
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
SC SUPREME COURT
HC HIGH COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL
SCR SUPREME COURT

REPORTER
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
LJ LAW JOURNAL
Sec SECTION
Art ARTICLE
u/s UNDER SECTION

2019
V VERSUS
Ors OTHERS
Anr ANOTHER
IC INDIAN CASES
Hon’ble HONORBLE
Edn/Ed EDITION
Etc ETCETERA
Id IBID

2019
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

2019
STATEMENT OF FACT
The Republic of Hindus (“The Republic”) is located in the South Asian Region of
Asia. Hindus was a British Colony for about 150 Years. It achieved Independence
in the year 1947. Now the Republic of Hindus has its own Constitution, Parliament
and Independent Judiciary. Although, majority of the population belongs to Hindu
Religion, many other religions like Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism and
Christianity are followed by the people of the Republic.
The Republic is characterized by a diversity of beliefs, practices, dressing, cultural

outlook and food habits. The food habits and the emotions associated therewith are
so strong and deep in the people that it paved the way for the first war of
independence against British. The Constitution of the Republic, declared itself to
be a Secular Nation, has conferred on all persons the fundamental right to freely
Profess, Practice and Propagate any religion of his/her choice. The Apex Court of
the Republic expanded the meaning of ‘Right to Life and Personal Liberty’ to
include every aspect that has connection with the person’s meaningful life
including religious faith and food habits.
The Republic has enacted the Hindus Animal Protection Act, 2018. The salient
features of the Act are as under:-
1. It bans the slaughter of Cow, Calves, Bulls and Bullocks.
2. It prohibits the Purchase, Sale, Disposal or Transport of Cows, Calves, Bulls and
Bullocks for the purpose of slaughter.
3. It prohibits the possession of the flesh of the Cow, Calves, Bulls and Bullocks.
4. It criminalizes the possession of beef per se.
5. Presumption of law as to guilt is against accused. In the meanwhile, there was a

political turmoil throughout the Republic. Various religious organizations started
large scale mobilization against ban on eating /preserving beef in the name of
Prevention of Cow Slaughter. For some of the minority communities, eating beef is

2019
a common food habit. Moreover, beef is cheap when compared to other non-
vegetarian food. For poor masses, beef eating is one of the easy sources of protein.
In this background, a writ petition was filed before Supreme Court under Article
32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the Act.

2019
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
1. Whether the Act is constitutionally valid or not?
2. To what extent State can interfere with the fundamental rights of

Individuals?
3. Can a petitioner seek remedy for violation of his fundamental rights

while legislation seeks to achieve ‘compelling public interest’?
4. For implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy, can a

Fundamental Right be restricted?
5. Whether the cow slaughter is an offence or not?

2019
SUMMARY ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the Act is constitutionally valid or not?

2. To what extent State can interfere with fundamental rights of
Individuals?
3. Can a petitioner seek remedy for violation of his fundamental rights
while legislation seeks to achieve ‘compelling public interest’?
4. For implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy, can a
Fundamental Right be restricted?
5. Whether the cow slaughter is an offence or not?

2019
ARGUMENT ADVANCE
ISSUE 01
WHETHER THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
Yes, The Act is Constitutionally valid under Maharashtra Animal Preservation

(Amendment) Act, 1995. and The Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954
SECTION 2: Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1955.-
In the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (Mah. IX of 1977) (hereinafter

referred to as " the principal Act"), in the long title, for the portion beginning with
the words "of cows" and ending with the words "agricultural purposes", the
following shall be substituted, namely :
"and preservation of cows, bulls and bullocks useful for milch, breeding, draught
or agricultural purposes and for restriction on slaughter for the preservation of
certain other animals suitable for the said purposes".
SECTION 5A: Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1955.-
Prohibition On Transport And Export Of Cow, Bull Or Bullock For

Slaughter.-
(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported

cow, bull or bullock from any place within the State to any place outside
the State for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions
of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so
slaughtered.
(2) No person shall export or cause to be exported outside the State of
Maharashtra cow, bull or bullock for the purpose of slaughter either directly
or through his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf, in

2019
contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will
be or is likely to be slaughtered.
SECTION 5B:
Prohibition On Sale, Purchase, Disposal In Any Other Manner Of Cow, Bull

Or Bullock.-
(1) No person shall purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase,

sell or otherwise dispose of any cow, bull or bullock for slaughter or
knowing or having reason to believe that such cow, bull or bullock shall be
slaughtered.
SECTION 5C:
Prohibition on Possession of Flesh Of Cow Bull Or Bullock.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no
person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull or bullock slaughtered in
contravention of the provisions of this Act.
SECTION 5D:
Prohibition on Possession of Flesh of Cow, Bull or Bullock Slaughtered
Outside The State of Maharashtra.-
No person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull or bullock
slaughtered outside the State of Maharashtra.
SECTION 9A:
Penalty for contravention of sections 5C, 5D or 6.-
Whoever contravenes the provisions of sections 5C, 5D or 6 shall on conviction be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine
which may extend to two thousand rupees.

2019
SECTION 05: Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 Complete Act1 -
PROHIBITION AGAINST SLAUGHTER WITHOUT CERTIFICATE

FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY:-
(1) Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any usage to the
contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any animal 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.
(1A) No certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in respect of"
(a) a cow;
(b) the calf of a cow, whether male or female and if male, whether castrated or not;
(c) a bull below the age of sixteen years;
(d) a bullock below the age of sixteen years.
(2) In respect of an animal to which sub-section (1A) does not apply no certificate]
shall be granted under sub-section (1), if in the opinion of the Competent
Authority"
(a) the animal, whether male or female, or is useful or likely to become useful for
the purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural operations;
(b) the animal, if made, is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of
breeding;
(c) the animal, if female, is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of
giving milk or bearing offspring,
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to
(a) the slaughter of any of the following animals for such bonafide religious
purposes, as may be prescribed, namely:"
(i) any animal above the age of fifteen years other than a cow, bull or bullock;
(ii) a bull above the age of fifteen years;
(iii) a bullock above the age of fifteen years;
(b) the slaughter of any animal not being a cow of or a calf of a cow, on such
religious days as may be prescribed:
1
Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1994 Complete Act-Bare Act

2019
Provided that a certificate in writing for the slaughter referred to in clause (a) or (b)
has been obtained from the Competent Authority.
(4) The State Government may, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to
the legality or propriety of any order passed by a Competent Authority granting or
refusing to grant any certificate under this section, call for and examine the records
of the case and may pass such order in reference there to as it thinks fit.
(5) A certificate under this section shall be granted in such form and on payment of
such fee as may be prescribed.
(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) any order passed by the Competent
Authority granting or refusing to grant a certificate, and any order passed by the
State Government under sub-section (4) shall be final and shall not be called in
question in any Court.
ANIMAL PRESEVATION ACT, 1995.-
No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported cow, bull
or bullock from any place within the State to any place outside the State for the
purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the
knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaughtered.
Article 48: The Constitution of India 1949.-

48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall endeavour to
organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and
shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and
prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
Rules Made Under The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960:-

The Central Government is empowered to make rules for all or any of the
following matters2
1. The maximum load to be carried or drawn by any animals;
2. The conditions to be observed for preventing the overcrowding of animals;
3. The period during which, and the hours between which, any class of animals
shall not be used for draught purposes;
4. Prohibiting the use of any bit or harness involving cruelty to animals;
2
Section 38, id.

2019
5. Re
 What is the penalty for killing a cow in India?

Killing cows or transporting beef in states such as Haryana, Jharkand or Jammu
and Kashmir is punishable by large fines and up to 10 years' prison.
SUPREME COURT ON CATTLE SLAUGHTER

Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on
23 April, 19583
The present case before the Supreme Court is not the first one in which the
petitioner has challenged the regulation of cattle slaughter - directly or indirectly -
by the government. In 1958, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court decided a
case.
The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1956 imposed a total
ban on the slaughter of all categories of animals belonging to the species of bovine
cattle. The petitioner challenged the law on the grounds of violation of right to
freedom of religion, right to freedom of trade and occupation and that the total ban
was not good for general public.
The Supreme Court bench ruled that a total ban on the slaughter of bovine cattle
was reasonable, valid and in consonance with the directive principles laid down in
Article 48.
It further said that a ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or
working bullocks as long as they are capable of being used as milch or draught
cattle was also reasonable and valid.
However, the apex court held that a blanket ban keeping uneconomic cattle under
its purview was unjustified and violated a butcher's right to freedom of trade and
occupation.
3
1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629

2019
Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab vs State of Gujarat And Ors On 16

April,19984
Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 was adopted and modified by the Gujarat
Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1960. It was amended
by Gujarat Act 16 of 1961 and then by Act 23 of 1979. The State Government
issued Ordinance 4 of 1993 to amend the Act. By that amendment, slaughter of
bulls and bullocks was totally banned in the State of Gujarat.
Haresh M. Jagtiani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 April, 2015

Bench: V.M. Kanade
The State of Maharashtra, thereafter, enacted Animal Preservation (Amendment)

Act, 1995. However, it remained on the statute book and the assent was not
obtained from the President until 26/02/2015, after which it was published in the
Government Gazette on 04/03/2015. Various provisions of the original Act were
amended and a total prohibition was sought to be imposed not only on the
slaughter of cows but also on bulls and bullocks and a further prohibition has been
imposed on slaughtering of these animals in the State of Maharashtra and for sale
and consumption of flesh of these animals in the State of Maharashtra. It further
has imposed a complete ban under Section 5D on the import of flesh of these
animals which are slaughtered outside the State of Maharashtra and sought to be
imported in Maharashtra. Further, the said Act also seeks to make the said offence
of slaughtering of cows, bulls and bullocks in Maharashtra a punishable offence. It
also makes sale of the flesh of these slaughtered animals punishable, including
import of such flesh from other States or from other countries in the State of
Maharashtra and a person who contravenes Section 5D, if convicted, can be
which may extend to Rs 2000/-. The offence is made non-bailable and
cognizable.
4
AIR 1998 Guj 220, (1999)3 GLR 2007

2019
Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi v. The State of Gujarat5
"... It is clear that because of various scientific factors, namely better cattle feeding,
better medical health and better animal husbandry services, the longevity of cattle
in the State of Gujarat has increased and in this context it is correct to say that if
the scientific test were to be applied bulls and bullocks up to sixteen years of age
can be said to be useful for the purposes of breeding, draught and other agricultural
purposes.
ISSUE-2
TO WHAT EXTENT STATE CAN INTERFERE WITH FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS?
No, Stae cannot interfere with fundamental rights of individual according to
 Fundamental Rights are those rights given by constitution and so no one

have right to violate or interfered during enjoyment of such rights of any
individual, i.e either State or any individual. So any individual by these
courts can enforce his fundamental rights which are violated or interfered.
5
AIR 1986 SC 1213

2019
ISSUE 03
CAN A PETITIONER SEEK REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF HIS

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WHILE LEGISLATION SEEKS TO ACHIEVE
‘COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST?
Yes, the petitioner can seek remedy for violation of his fundamental rights under
NOTIFICATION VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?
Petitioner in the Supreme Court and many critics outside have objected to the new
rules saying that these violate the fundamental right guaranteed to the butchers
under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution, that is, to practice their trade and
occupation freely in the country.

2019
The question is before the Supreme Court to settle finally. But, rules find their
backing in some of the provisions of the Constitution even though they are not
'enforceable' in nature.
Article 48 of the Constitution expects governments to "take steps for preserving

and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and the
other milch and drought cattle."
It is established that the Directive Principles for State Policies cannot be enforced
through court of law but the DPSPs were meant to be read with fundamental rights
in such a way that the former don't become hollow declarations of the Constitution.
Moreover, Article 48 of the Constitution is considered to be inspired by the

philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi.
R Rajagopal V State of Tamilnadu6
Court held that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty
guaranteed by Article 21. It is a `right to be let alone.
6
AIR 1995 SC 264

2019
ISSUE 04
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE

POLICY, CAN A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BE RESTRICTED?
A five-judge bench of the SC in

Mohd Hanif Quareshi7 (1958 AIR 731) partly upheld the validity of the
laws, as far as they banned slaughter of cows and calves. However, it
said these laws were “void in so far as they totally prohibit the slaughter
of breeding bulls and working bullocks without prescribing any test or
requirement as to their age or usefulness“. It said a law enacted to
honour a Directive Principle provision could not violate fundamental

2019
rights.
ISSUE 05
WHETHER THE COW SLAUGHTERIS AN OFFENCE OR NOT?
Yes, the cow slaughter is an offence under Section 9 of Maharashtra Animal

(Amendment) Act, 1955.
SECTION 9A: Maharashtra Animal (Amendment) Act.-
Section 9A-
It is provided that violation of Sections 5C, 5D or 6 shall be an offence. By

amending Section 9, even violation of Sections 5A and 5B has been made
an offence.
Penalty for contravention of sections 5C, 5D or 6.-

2019
Whoever contravenes the provisions of sections 5C, 5D or 6 shall on conviction be

which may extend to two thousand rupees
SECTION 9B:
Burden of Proof on Accused.-
In any trial for an offence punishable under sections 9 or 9A for

contravention of the provisions of this Act, the burden of proving that the
slaughter, transport, export outside the State, sale, purchase or possession of
flesh of cow, bull or bullock was not in contravention of provision of this
Act, shall be on accused.
PRAYER
In the light of fact pleaded, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited
and taking into the consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
therefore, humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased.
(1) Kindly allow the writ petition.
And
To pass any other just and necessary order as the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

2019
S/d……………..
Counsel for Petitioner
BIBLIOGRAPHY

2019
WEBLIOGRAPHY
 htt://www.indiankanoon.org
 htt://www.casemine.com
 www.lawoctopus.com
 www.legalserviceindia.com
DICTIONARY
Oxford Dictionary.

2019

2019

2019

2019

Md&champ-1p 2nd Moot

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Md&champ-1p 2nd Moot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VASANTRAO PAWAR LAW COLLEGE, BARAMATI.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDIA

THE REPUBLIC …………….. PETITIONER

A WRIT PETITION UNDER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Sr.No Particular Page No.

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL

SCR SUPREME COURT

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

u/s UNDER SECTION

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The Republic is characterized by a diversity of beliefs, practices, dressing, cultural

1. It bans the slaughter of Cow, Calves, Bulls and Bullocks.

4. It criminalizes the possession of beef per se.

5. Presumption of law as to guilt is against accused. In the meanwhile, there was a

7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. Whether the Act is constitutionally valid or not?

2. To what extent State can interfere with the fundamental rights of

3. Can a petitioner seek remedy for violation of his fundamental rights

4. For implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy, can a

5. Whether the cow slaughter is an offence or not?

9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. Whether the Act is constitutionally valid or not?

10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

WHETHER THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?

Yes, The Act is Constitutionally valid under Maharashtra Animal Preservation

SECTION 2: Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1955.-

In the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (Mah. IX of 1977) (hereinafter

SECTION 5A: Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1955.-

Prohibition On Transport And Export Of Cow, Bull Or Bullock For

(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported

11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Prohibition On Sale, Purchase, Disposal In Any Other Manner Of Cow, Bull

(1) No person shall purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase,

Prohibition on Possession of Flesh Of Cow Bull Or Bullock.-

12 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SECTION 05: Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 Complete Act1 -

PROHIBITION AGAINST SLAUGHTER WITHOUT CERTIFICATE

13 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ANIMAL PRESEVATION ACT, 1995.-

Article 48: The Constitution of India 1949.-

Rules Made Under The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960:-

14 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 What is the penalty for killing a cow in India?

SUPREME COURT ON CATTLE SLAUGHTER

15 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab vs State of Gujarat And Ors On 16

Haresh M. Jagtiani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 April, 2015

The State of Maharashtra, thereafter, enacted Animal Preservation (Amendment)

16 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi v. The State of Gujarat5

TO WHAT EXTENT STATE CAN INTERFERE WITH FUNDAMENTAL

 Fundamental Rights are those rights given by constitution and so no one

17 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

CAN A PETITIONER SEEK REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF HIS

NOTIFICATION VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?