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 …………….. RESPONDENT
VS.
INDIVIDUAL PERSON ………………PETITIONER
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 RESPONDENT

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’?
(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
V VERSUS

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

2019
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Article 32 in The Constitution of India:-
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part III of the
Constitution.
Article 32 (1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court by “appropriate
proceedings” for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution.
Clause (2) of Article 32 confers power on Supreme Court to issue appropriate

directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
Clause (3) of Article 32 Parliament may by law empower any other court to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or of the powers exercisable by
the Supreme Court under clause (2).
Clause (4) of Article 32 says that rights guaranteed by Article 32 shall not be
suspended except as otherwise provided for the Constitution. Article 32 thus
provides for an expeditious and inexpensive remedy for the protection of
fundamental rights from legislative and executive interference.

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. 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. 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 contravention of the
provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be
slaughtered.

2019
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:-

The Animals have their own Fundamental Rights. Article 48 lays down that;
The State shall endeavour to organize 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. Requiring persons carrying on the business of a farrier to be licensed and

registered by such authority;
6. Precautions to be taken in the capture of animals for purposes of sale,
export or for any other purposes;
7. Precautions to be taken in the transport of animals, whether by rail, inland,
waterway,
8. Requiring persons owing or in charge of premises in which animals are kept
or milked to register such premises, to comply with such conditions as may
be laid down in relation to the boundary walls o surroundings of such
premises;
SECTION 38:-
It provides that if any persons contravenes, or abets the contravention of, any
rules made by the Central Government, he shall be punishable with fine,
which may extend to Rs.100 or with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to 3months or with both.
RULE 22-The Pr Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960:-
The notification was turned out to be most controversial as it tries to ensure

that sale and purchase of cattle in designated animals markets can only be
done for agricultural purposes and not for slaughtering.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market)

Rules:-
This rule has run into strong headwinds. These rules, which effectively
prohibit the sale of cows.
1) What is the penalty for killing a cow in India?

Under an amendment to the state’s Animal Preservation Act, those found
guilty of transporting beef will also be jailed for 10 years. The Cow is
considered sacred by India’s Hindu majority, and killing cows is illegal in
many cases.

2019
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.
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.
3
1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629
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.
Sri Ramratan Jhawar V Government of A.P. And Anr. On 19 April, 20026

Article 48 prohibits the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught
animals. It enjoins upon the State to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on
modern scientific lines and also to take steps for preserving and improving the
cattle breeds.
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.
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.
5
AIR 1986 SC 1213
6
AIR 2003 AP 84, 2002 (3) ALD 804, 2002 (4) ALT 176

2019
ISSUE-2
TO WHAT EXTENT STATE CAN INTERFERE WITH FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS?
No, State cannot interfere with fundamental rights of individual according to
Fundamental Rights given in The Constitutional law of India.
Fundamental Rights7:-
The incorporation of formal declaration of Fundamental Rights in Part III of the

Constitution is deemed to be a distinguishing feature of a democratic State.
These rights are prohibition against the State. The State cannot make a law which
takes away or abridges any of the rights of the citizens guaranteed in Part III of the
Constitution. If the passes such a law it may be declared unconstitutional by the
courts.
But mere declaration of certain Fundamental Rights will be no use if there is

machinery for their enforcement.
Our Constitution has the nature of wits Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition,
Quo Warranto and Certiorari whenever these rights are violated.
Fundamental rights are those rights which are essential for intellectual, moral and
spiritual development of individuals. As these rights are fundamental or essential
for existence and all-round development of individuals, hence, it's called as
'Fundamental' rights according to Sumit Sathapathy. These are enshrined in Part III
(Articles 12 to 35) of the Constitution of India.
These include individual rights common to most, such as, equality before the law,
freedom of speech and freedom of expression Religious and cultural freedom,
Freedom of assembly(peaceful assembly) Freedom of religion(freedom to practice
religion), right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights by means
of writs as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto.
Fundamental rights apply universally to all citizens, irrespective of race, birthplace,
religion, caste or gender. The Indian Penal Code and other laws prescribe
punishments for the violation of these rights, subject to the discretion of
7
The Constitutional Law of India- Dr. J. N. PANDEY

2019
the judiciary. Though the rights conferred by the constitution other than
fundamental rights are also valid rights protected by the judiciary, in case of
fundamental rights violations, the Supreme Court of India can be approached
directly for ultimate justice as per Article 32. The Rights have their origins in many
sources, including England's Bill of Rights, the United States Bill of
Rights and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man. There are six fundamental
rights recognized by the Indian constitution:
1. Right to equality(Articles. 14-18)
2. Right to freedom (Articles. 19-22)
3. Right against exploitation (Articles. 23-24)
4. Right to freedom of religion (Articles. 25-28)
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles. 29-30), and
6. Right to constitutional remedies (Articles. 32-35)
1. The right to equality includes equality before the law, the prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, gender or place of birth, equality
of opportunity in matters of employment, the abolition of untouchability and
abolition of titles.
2. The right to freedom includes freedom of speech and expression, assembly,
association or union or cooperatives, movement, residence, and right to practice
any profession or occupation.
3. The right against exploitation prohibits all forms of forced labour, child labour
and trafficking of human beings.
4. The right to freedom of religion includes freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice, and propagation of religion, freedom to manage religious
affairs, freedom from certain taxes and freedom from religious instructions in
certain educational institutes.
5. Cultural and educational rights preserve the right of any section of citizens to
conserve their culture, language or script, and right of minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice.
6. The right to '''constitutional remedies''' is present for enforcement of fundamental
rights.
The right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 (the Right to Freedom) that
protects the life and liberty of the citizens.

2019
The right to privacy is the newest right assured by the Supreme Court of India. It
assures the people's data and personal security.
2) 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.

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
Article 21 and Article 25(1) of The Constitutional Law of India.
ARTICE 21:- of Constitution says that;
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”8
The total prohibition is in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner’s

and other persons similarly situated under Article 21 as it infringes their personal
liberty.
Article 25(1) in The Constitution Of India:-
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this
Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely
to profess, practise and propagate religion.
Article 19(1) (g) and 19(6)9- The Constitution of India:-
guarantees that all citizens shall have the right “to practice any profession, or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business.”
However, the right to carry on a profession, trade or business is not unqualified. It

can be restricted and regulated by authority of law. Thus the State can under clause
(6) of Article 19 makes any law-
8
The Constitutional Law of India
9
ibid

2019
(a) Imposing reasonable restriction on this right ‘in the interest of

public’,
(b) Prescribing professional or technical qualifications necessary for
practicing profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or
business to the exclusion of citizens wholly or partially.
RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS10
In the name of religion no act can be done against public order, morality and health
of the public. Thus the Section 34 of Police Act prohibits the slaughter of cattle or
indecent exposure one’s person in a public place. These acts cannot be justified on
plea of practice of religious rites.
Likewise, in the name of religion untouchability or traffic in human beings. This

freedom is also subject to the “other provisions of this Part”, e.g., right to freedom
o speech and expression, freedom of assembly and association, freedom to carry on
a profession, trade and business.
Restriction imposed on fundamental rights is reasonable restrictions within Article

19 (1) (g) and valid.
Grounds of Restrictions.-
Under clause (6) of Article 19 the State is authorized to impose reasonable

restrictions on the right to carry on a trade, profession or business. The condition is
that the restrictions must be-
1. Reasonable, and
2. In the interest of general public.
Animal Welfare and Animals Rights Act 1966:-
As human beings have their fundamental rights animals too have their fundamental
under Animal Rights in Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism
Robert Garner writes that both Hindu and Buddhist societies abandoned animal
sacrifice and embraced vegetarianism from the 3rd century BCE. Several kings in
10
The Constitutional Law of India. Pg no.336

2019
India built hospitals for anima111ls, and the emperor Ashoka (304–232 BCE)
issued orders against hunting and animal slaughter, in line with Ahinsa, the
doctrine of non-violence. Garner writes that Jainism took this idea further. Janis
believes that no living creature should be harmed, and they are known to clear
paths in front of them by sweeping them to protect any insect life that may be
present.
In 2014, the Jain pilgrimage destination of Palitana City in Indian state
of Gujarat became the first city in the world to be legally vegetarian. It has
outlawed, or made illegal, the buying and selling of meat, fish and eggs, and also
related jobs or work, such as fishing and penning 'food animals'
Ahimsa in Jainism is a fundamental principle forming the cornerstone of its ethics
and doctrine. The term Ahimsa means nonviolence, non-injury and absence of
desire to harm any life forms. Vegetarianism and other nonviolent practices and
rituals of Jains flow from the principle of Ahimsa.
Furthermore, the Jains extend the concept of ahimsa not only to humans but to all
animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life
is sacred and everything has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential.
Legal actions in the 21st century:-
Paul Waldau writes that, in 2000, the High Court in Kerala used the language of
"rights" in relation to circus animals, ruling that they are "beings entitled to
dignified existence" under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The ruling said
that if human beings are entitled to these rights, animals should be too. The court
went beyond the requirements of the Constitution that all living beings should be
shown compassion, and said: "It is not only our fundamental duty to show
compassion to our animal friends, but also to recognize and protect their rights."
Waldau writes that other courts in India and one court in Sri Lanka have used
similar language.
In 2012, the Indian government issued a ban on the use of live animals in
education and much research.
For some the basis of animal rights is in religion or animal worship (or in
general nature worship), with some religions banning killing of any animal; One of
the most important sanctions of the Jain, Hindu and Buddhist faiths is the concept
of ahimsa, or refraining from the destruction of life. According to Buddhist belief,
humans do not deserve preferential treatment over other living beings.

2019
Jainism, Buddism, and Hinduism:-
The respect for animal rights in Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism derives from
the doctrine of ahimsa. The Dharmic interpretation of this doctrine prohibits the
killing of any living being.
Islam:-
Animal rights were recognized early by the Sharia (Islamic law). This recognition
is based on both the Qur'an and the Hadith. In the Qur'an, there are many
references to animals, detailing that they have souls, form communities,
communicate with God and worship Him in their own way. Muhammad forbade
his followers to harm any animal and asked them to respect the rights of animals. It
is a distinctive characteristic of the Shariah that all animals have legal rights.
RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS11
In the name of religion no act can be done against public order, morality and health
of the public. Thus the Section 34 of Police Act prohibits the slaughter of cattle or
indecent exposure one’s person in a public place. These acts cannot be justified on
plea of practice of religious rites.
Likewise, in the name of religion untouchability or traffic in human beings. This

freedom is also subject to the “other provisions of this Part”, e.g., right to freedom
o speech and expression, freedom of assembly and association, freedom to carry on
a profession, trade and business.
The freedom to practice religion cannot affect the exercise of these freedoms by
others.
These rights are subject to the reasonable restrictions under clause (2) of Art19.
11
The Constitutional Law of India. Pg no.336

2019
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Qureshi Kasab Jamat12
The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the ‘Bombay Animal
Preservation Gujarat Amendment Act, 1994’ as applicable to the State of Gujarat
as violative of their fundamental right to carry on the business of slaughtering of
cows and calves, under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
Under the above legislation the State of Gujarat had imposed a total ban on
slaughter of cows and calves. The ban on slaughter of cow, as imposed by the Act,
is therefore, in the interest of general public and is reasonable restriction within the
meaning of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Cow is the backbone o Indian
Agriculture and economy.
R Rajagopal V State of Tamilnadu13
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.
Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors14
Upon that assumption, the question which we have to consider is whether the right
to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer to that question,
namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide
and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken
away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence,
except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the
right to life.
12
AIR 2006 SC 212
13
AIR 1995 SC 264
14
1985 3 SCC 545

2019
Ramavath Hanuma @ Hanumanthu, ... vs State Of Telangana Represented

By... on 1 March, 2017
The Constitution Bench in Qureshi-IV observed referring to Ashutosh Lahiri &

ors. Supra that it was a settled legal position that there was no fundamental right of
Muslims to insist on slaughter of healthy cows on the occasion of Bakri'd. The
contention that not only an essential religious practice under Article 25(1) of
Constitution, but even optional religious practice could be permitted, was
discarded. The Court held "We, therefore, entirely concur with the view of the
High Court that slaughtering of healthy cows on Bakri'd is not essential or required
for religious purpose of Muslims or in other words it is not a part of religious
requirement for a Muslim that a cow must be necessarily sacrificed for earning
religious merit on Bakri'd."

2019
ISSUE 04
WHETHER THE COW SLAUGHTER IS 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.-
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.
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
2019
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.

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

2019
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 Description:

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 …………….. RESPONDENT

INDIVIDUAL PERSON ………………PETITIONER

A WRIT PETITION UNDER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Sr.No Particular Page No.

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

u/s UNDER SECTION

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Article 32 in The Constitution of India:-

Clause (2) of Article 32 confers power on Supreme Court to issue appropriate

6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

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

8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

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. Whether the cow slaughter is an offence or not?

9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. Whether the Act is constitutionally valid or not?

10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

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 Slaughter.-

11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Prohibition on Sale, Purchase, Disposal in Any Other Manner of Cow, Bull or

(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 RESPONDENT

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

PROHIBITION AGAINST SLAUGHTER WITHOUT CERTIFICATE

13 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ANIMAL PRESEVATION ACT, 1995.-

Article 48: The Constitution of India 1949:-

14 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5. Requiring persons carrying on the business of a farrier to be licensed and

RULE 22-The Pr Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960:-

The notification was turned out to be most controversial as it tries to ensure

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market)

1) What is the penalty for killing a cow in India?

15 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUPREME COURT ON CATTLE SLAUGHTER

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

16 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi V. The State of Gujarat5

Sri Ramratan Jhawar V Government of A.P. And Anr. On 19 April, 20026

17 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TO WHAT EXTENT STATE CAN INTERFERE WITH FUNDAMENTAL