PROJECT REPORT ON TOPIC OF “JUSTIFICATION OF BEEF BAN”

SUBMITTED TO –
Mr. RAJDEEPAK RASTOGI
(ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENRAL OF INDIA)
SUBMITTED BY -
MUKUL BAJAJ
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my gratitude to MR. RAJDEEPAK RASTOGI sir who gave me the
golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic JUSTIFICATION OF BEEF
BAN, which has helped me in learning many new things and clarified my knowledge of law
on COW SLAUGHTER
I would also like to thank my group member who has helped me in making this project.

MUKUL BAJAJ
Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................5
JUSTIFICATION OF BEEF BAN........................................................................................................6
 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT.....................................................................................................6
Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 38A of the Draft Constitution..............................................7
SUPREME COURT ON BEEF BAN....................................................................................................9
BEEF BAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED........................................................................................................15
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................16
WEBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................17
 INTRODUCTION
India is a religious country. Although the topic which we are dealing with is not only
religious but also about economy, sociology and biology of the country. Beef when we hear
this term then we see the controversy going on the name of cow. People say that government
is taking their right to eat but is it really so? People also say that govt. is imposing their
hindutava agenda on them but is it really so? People also say that govt. is diverting their focus
from development to these things but is it really so?
We have to see different aspects regarding this matter. We are going to see both the aspects
why beef ban is justified or not? So in this project we are going to see different aspects.
As we see in recent times first state to ban beef in recent times is Maharashtra. After this
there was somewhere agitation or somewhere happiness. In this we are going to see
constitutional aspect, the supreme court judgement and also the pros and cons of beef ban.
After Maharashtra, the other state ruled by BJP also ban cow slaughter like Madhya Pradesh,
Rajasthan etc. latest development in this topic is the ban imposed by central govt. on sale of
cows and other animals. But Madras high court has stayed on this notification and supreme
court also put a stay on it.
After this the main reason for this beef ban politics is the religious beliefs of majority of
India. We are also going to see that aspect1.
So I briefly discussed about the topics which we are going to discuss.

1
Thehindu.com/beefban
JUSTIFICATION OF BEEF BAN
By following points we can justify the beef ban in India:
 It will ends riots related to cow slaughter in India because it will be seen as legal
offence not religious offence. When it becomes a legal offence gradually people starts
following it.
 When there is ban on hunting of various animals and many NGO’s are working
against cruelty to animals like dogs, cats etc. but when a person talks about protection
of cow then suddenly he becomes communal. Cow is also an animal and majority of
this country worship cow as mother. So sentiments of them should not be hurted.
 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT:
It is written in article 48 that 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. Although this article is a directive principle
of state policy so it is not binding on govt. to make laws compulsory but if it is added
in constitution then there must be some view of the makers of constitution.
The Centre on May 26 banned the sale and purchase of cattle from animal markets for
slaughter, a move that is expected to hit exports and trade of meat and leather. The
notification met with protests across the country. In April 2017, senior advocate
Arvind Datar weighed in on where the Constitution stands on the issue of the ‘holy
cow’.
Recently, Gujarat amended its Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 to prescribe life
imprisonment for those found guilty of slaughtering cows, calves, bulls and bullocks.
Interestingly, during the Constituent Assembly debates, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava
cited Mahatma Gandhi, in whose opinion, cow slaughter and manslaughter were two
sides of the same coin (CAD 24 November 1948). Indeed, the amendment brought
forth by the Gujarat government is a true reflection of Mahatma Gandhi’s opinion.
In fact, there are many states in India which have banned cow slaughter, either
partially or in total, with strict penal consequences attached to it. This is done by
resorting to Article 48, which is a Directive Principle of State Policy.2

2
State of Gujarat v. mirzapur moti kureshi kassab jamat 2005(8) SCC 534
 However, without mixing religion and politics, and especially when there is no special
ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, it is imperative to study the
constitutionality of a total ban on cow slaughter, if at all envisaged under Article 48,
and its effect on citizens’ rights under Part III of the Constitution.
The clamour for banning cow slaughter is increasing as it is a politically attractive
position. However, the extent of the total prohibition on any kind of cow slaughter
requires careful examination of the relevant constitutional provisions.
Recently, the Bombay High Court judgement upheld amendments to the Maharashtra
Animal Preservation Act, 1976 to strike down sections 5D and 9B of the Act. Both
these sections were struck down. They read as follows:-
 5D. No person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull or bullock
slaughtered outside the State of Maharashtra.
 9B. 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 of possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock was not
in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be on the accused.
The appeals against this judgement are pending in the Supreme Court.
Applicable Constitutional Provisions
The imposition of ban on cow slaughter is based on Article 48 of the Constitution of
India which reads as follows:
The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern
and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the
breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught
cattle.
This article was based on Article 38A of the Draft Constitution. The State enactments
prohibiting cow slaughter is based on Entry 15 of List II of Schedule VII of the
Constitution which reads as follows:
“Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal disease;
veterinary training and practice.”
It is also suggested that the provisions on cow slaughter are relatable to Entry 17 of
List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution, which deals with prevention of cruelty to
animals.
Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 38A of the Draft Constitution
The Constituent Assembly debated Article 38A extensively on 24 November 1948.
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava gave a lengthy speech on the importance of cow in the
Indian economy. He said:
A cow, whether it be a milch cow or not, is a moving manure factory, and so, as far as
cow is concerned, there can be no question of it being useless or useful. It can never
be useless.
Though there was a lengthy debate on the contribution of the cow to the Indian
economy, primarily in terms of supply of milk etc., there was no clear conclusion on
whether the ban on cow slaughter was a complete ban or not. In fact, Seth Govind Das
moved an amendment on the same day calling for prohibition of slaughter of any cow,
be it useful or useless. This amendment was negatived.
Further, during the last stages of the Constituent Assembly Debates, on 19 November
1949, Prof Shibban Lal Saksena, while speaking on the new Constitution of India,
observed:
I wish the ban on the slaughter of cow, which is the Kama Dhenu – the mother of
plenty, had been made absolute, and given a place in the Fundamental Rights.
On the other hand, Rev JJM Nichols Roy, on the same day, made the following
comment:
“…Here is a provision regarding the prohibition of cow slaughter. I was wondering
whether this provision would mean the prohibition of cow slaughter at all times and of
every kind of cows and cattle… it would place a terrible burden on the State.
Think of the millions of cows that will float round the country without any fodder,
and sickly, and the amount of money that will be spent on them and the terrible
burden it would be on any country.
Hundreds of them will die in the fields without being taken care of. It will not be
economic at all for any State to prevent the slaughter of cows under all circumstances.
I consider that this article would only prevent the slaughter of cows which are milch
cows and draught cattle, which will be of benefit to people. If it be otherwise, I
consider that that would be a blot in this Constitution and an oppression also to some
of the people, especially to the Hill people of Assam, who eat beef and who keep
cattle for the sake of eating.
 It would also be an oppression to the people who slaughter cows in sacrifices like the
Moslems: even the Hindu Gurkhas of Assam sacrifice buffaloes at the time of the
Durga Puja…”
Neither Dr Ambedkar nor Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava replied to the above
observations. Thus, the Constituent Assembly Debates do not give us a clear picture
on whether Article 48 envisages a complete ban on cow slaughter or not.
Z.H. Lari, one of the Muslim representatives in the Assembly, stated that his
community would not stand in the way of the majority’s desire, but nonetheless asked
that the majority “express itself clearly and definitely”, so that Muslims could know
exactly what the position was on cow slaughter. However, clear and definite
expression on the issue of cow slaughter was one thing that the Assembly was
unwilling to commit to. Article 48, a provision that was grafted out of a compromise
that left nobody satisfied, came into being with the rest of the Constitution, on January
26, 19503.

SUPREME COURT ON BEEF BAN

The first major litigation involving the interpretation of Article 48 was decided by the
Supreme Court in 1958 in MH Quareshi v State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731, wherein Pandit
Bhargava was an amicus curiae.
This is indeed an interesting case because in para 6 of the judgement, Chief Justice SR Das
observed that the protection recommended by Article 48 is confined only to cows and calves
and to those animals which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk or of doing
work as draught cattle. However, in para 44, the Supreme Court held as follows:
…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…
It further added:
(ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks as
long as they are as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid and (iii) that a total
ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease
to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be
supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

3
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p12.htm
In Hasmattullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2076, a bench of three-judges held
that a total ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks would impose an unreasonable restriction
on the fundamental rights of butchers.
Significantly, the Supreme Court noted the various articles which supported the view that
bulls and bullocks continue to be useful even after they became aged. The article referred to
in the 1996 judgement, points out that each aged cattle can give up to 3000 kgs of dung and
2000 litres of urine which can be used to generate substantial quantity of bio-gas, organic
fertilisers and organic pesticides!
The Supreme Court also deprecated the repeated attempts made by the State of Madhya
Pradesh to nullify the decision of the Supreme Court and held that there was no reason to
reconsider the decision in MH Quareshi (supra).
The 1996 decision concluded that prohibiting the slaughter of “bull or bullock” would be an
unreasonable restriction of the fundamental rights of butchers. Consequently, the total ban on
the slaughter of cows, calves of cow and calves of she-buffaloes was upheld.

State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat

Almost ten years later, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in State of Gujarat v
Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534, held that a species of cattle which is
milch or draught for a number of years is to be included within the expression “cows or
calves”.
It was also held that on ceasing to be milch or draught, the cattle cannot be pulled out from
the category of “other milch and draught cattle”. Accordingly, it partially overruled the
decision in MH Quareshi case.
It is submitted that this view is incorrect. Milch or draught cattle which has ceased to be
useful for these purposes cannot continue under the same category. If the intention was to
prohibit the slaughter of all cows and buffaloes, it would have been said so under Article 48
itself. The correct interpretation of Article 48 is the one provided by the Supreme Court in
para 6 of MH Quareshi (supra). Further, when there is a complete ban on slaughter of all
cattle, it violates Article 19(1)(g). As rightly pointed out by the Supreme Court in MH
Quareshi.
The directive principles cannot override this categorical restriction imposed on the legislative
power of the State. A harmonious interpretation has to be placed upon the Constitution and so
interpreted it means that the State should certainly implement the directive principles but it
must do so in such a way that its laws do not take away or abridge the fundamental rights, for
otherwise protecting provisions of Chap. III will be “a mere rope of sand”.
In this judgement 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. So cow also has an economic importance. 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.
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- 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.

In this judgement when respondent gave that argument that slaughtering of cow is their
religious right, then court asked for the evidence that where it is written in their religious
book?
 Al-Jami as-Saghir narrates that the Messenger of Allah said, “The milk of the bovine (cow)
contains healing, its fat is a medicine, and its meat a cause for sickness.”
Many muslim kings in past had banned the cow slaughtering in their regime such as Akbar
who banned cow slaughter and punishment for this
So by following points we can see that cow ban is justified.4

Environmental, scientific and Economic reasons:

4
State of Gujarat v. mirzapur moti kureshi kassab jamat 2005(8) SCC 534
 Production of beef consumes more water than any other farm and there is an imminent water
crisis in India:
Beef cattle requires 28 times more land for rearing than any other meat group. This is
intensive on land resources which would otherwise be used for farming or for rearing more
efficient meat groups. Once a given grazing ground starts going barren, new grazing grounds
have to be created which leads to cutting down of rain forests. This is a considerable
environmental damage.

BEEF BAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED

 A large number of people associated with the Beef industry will be unemployed. India
is largest exporter of beef in world. It is the source of income for the large number of
butchers in India.
  There is right to eat to every person one cannot impose restriction on anyone. It comes
under article 21 which guarantees right to life and personal liberty.

 There is also an argument that beef is a richer and cheaper source of protein. So if it is
banned that then a large number of people will be deprived of source of protein.

 There are many states where like north east states where there is culture to eat beef.
So if beef is banned then how there is justice to those people.

 Also if there is right to religion then there is right to life under article 21 and this
article can supersede any article as stated in various judicial pronouncements.
 State does not have a right to impose a certain food culture in any form on people.
 It will hamper the cattle economy. There will be no one who will nurture buffalo,
cows or bulls, which are neither useful for meat nor agricultural purposes.

CONCLUSION
So by above points we can say that that ban on beef is justified in one way and not justified in
another way. But we have to see both the facts as India is an agricultural country. So banning
of beef can be useful to agriculture as soil is being polluted by chemical fertilizers so there is
a need of fresh and natural manure to protect soil from pollution.
There is huge energy crises in India so biogas can play an important role in getting rid of this
economic crises. As we know that there is 12 crore cows in India if their waste is collected
and made into biogas then the energy crises can be solved in India.
Also major part of the country is milk drinker so if cows go on slaughtering in this way then
there will be shortage of milk. So it is important to ban slaughtering of milch animals.
Also urine of cow is used for making many medicine including serious disease like cancer.
So if cow cannot give milk then also it can give urine, also it is equally usable as a milch
animal.
But on the other hand we can see that we cannot take anyone right to eat. Many people of
country including hindus eat beef so how can we do justice to them. But there are also
religious sentiments of the majority people of this country.
So govt. should take a strong step in this direction so that peace and co-operation of this
country is maintainable.

WEBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p12.htm
2. https://www.thequint.com/opinion/2017/04/20/constitution-take-on-cow-
slaughter-beef-ban-consumption-arvind-datar
3. http://www.exportgenius.in/blog/top-beef-exporters-in-india-report-on-
beef-and-other-meat-exporters-22.php