Statement Of Jurisdiction

The Hon'ble High Court Of Mahastha has jurisdiction over the present matter under Article
226 Of Constitution Of Aryavrat.

Article 226 Of Constitution Of Aryavrat reads as follows -

Article 226 -Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

1. Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose

2. The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation
to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of
such person is not within those territories

3. Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in
any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause
(1)without

(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea
for such interim order; and

(b)giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of
the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the
date on which the copy of such application ,is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the
interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid
next day, stand vacated

The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power
conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32
 Statement Of Facts

1. The Republic Of Aryavrat is a democratic and secular country with a written

constitution. It has 28 states and 9 Union territories. The majority of the popu ation
of the country belongs to Hindu religion. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism and
Sikhism are the other major religions which are followed by the people of Republic
of Aryavrat. The Republic Of Aryavrat is a secular country and thus characterized by
diversity of religious beliefs and practices, dressing, cultural outlook, food-habits etc.

2. Since 1950 Republic Of Aryavrat and its various states enacted laws for protection
of cows. Some of these laws are specifically enacted for protection of cows while
some are directed towards protection of animals from cruelty in general. Slaughter
and protection of cows is matter of great disharmony between different religions of
the Republic Of Aryavrat since long time.

3. State Of Mahastha is situated in western region of country of Aryavrat. In 1978 it

enacted the Mahastha Animal Preservation Act, 1978. In 1995, amendments were
made in 1978 Act and Amendment Act of 1995 was reserved for the assent of the
President.

4. The Object of the act as given is prohibition of slaughter 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 and to provide for matters connected therewith. Therefore it was
enacted to give effect to one of The Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 48 of
Constitution of Mahastha provides for the said object.It states that “states shall
endeavor to organize animal husbandryand agriculture on modern and scientific lines
and shall take steps in particular for improving and preserving the breeds,and
prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattles”.

5 Therefore It can be seen that it was enacted to give effect to one of the Fundamental
Duty given under Article 51(g) of Constitution Of Mahastha which states that "It
shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests. lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for
living creatures"

5. This act extended prohibition on slaughter of cows and calves to bulls and bullocks
which was previously limited to prohibition on slaughter of cows and calves.

6. The said act also prohibited transport and export of cows, bulls & bullocks in State
Of Mahastha.
7. The said act also prohibited purchase, sell and disposal of cows, bulls & bullocks for
the purpose of slaughter.

8. The said act also prohibited possession of flesh of cows, bulls & bullocks which are
slaughtered in contravention of provision of the said act.

9. The said act also prohibited possession of flesh of cows, bulls & bullocks which are
slaughtered outside the State.

10. The said act provides that in trial for any offence for which punishment is provided
Burden Of Proof shall lie on the person accused of slaughter, transport, Export
outside the State, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock that he
has not done anything which is in contravention of the Mahastha Animal
Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995.

11. The Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 was on statute book till
2015 and came into force immediately on receiving the assent of President Of
Aryavrat in 2015.

12. Meanwhile there was a political turmoil throughout the country. Various religious
organizations started large scale mobilization against slaughter of cows. Few
individuals were attacked on the accusation that they stored cow –flesh in their
home. More particularly. a minority community ‘X’ was affected drastically as beef
eating was their common food habit. Moreover beef was less costly as compared to
other non-vegetarian foods.

13. As the degree of poverty is higher in community ‘X’ beef eating was an easy source
of protein for them. But with the new amendment law by the state of Mahastha, they
were deprived of this source.

14. In this background, writ petitions were filled by various assocaiations and
individuals before the Hon’ble High Court of Mahastha challenging the
constitutional validity of Amendment act of 1995. Maharashtra Butchers Association
is one of the petitioners working for the protection of interests of community ‘X’.
15. TheWrit petition is now posted for final arguments and disposal on 20 november
2020.
 Statement Of Issues

ISSUE: 1

Whether Writ Petition under Article 226 Of Constitution Of Aryavrat is maintainable?

ISSUE : 2

Does petitioner have locus standi to file Writ Petition on behalf of Community 'X'.

ISSUE: 3

Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment)Act 1995

are extraneous with aims & objects of Article 48 Of the Constitution Of Aryavrat?

ISSUE :4

Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995
are extraneous with Fundamental Duty provided under Article 51(g) Of Constitution Of
Aryavrat?

ISSUE: 5

Whether the prohibitions imposed by the State Of Mahastha on import & export ofCows,
Bulls or Bullocks outside the state of Mahastha as well as sell, Purchase and disposal of them
for the purpose of slaughter is in contravention of Article 301 Of Constitution Of Aryavrat ?

Issue:6

Whether Fundamental Rights Of Community X' are violated?

ISSUE: 7

Whether the Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 is Ultra Vires the
constitution Of Aryavrat?
 Summary Of Arguments

Issue - 1

Whether Writ Petition under Article 226 Of Constitution Of Aryavrat against State Of
Mahastha & Others is maintainable ?

It is humbly submitted before Hon'ble High Court Of Mahastha that present Writ Petition
under Article 226 of Constitution Of Aryavrat is not maintainable against State Of Mahastha
& Others because there has been no gross violation of Fundamental as well constitutional
rights of the petitioner and on account of which relief is sought.

Issue – 2

Does petitioner have locus standi to file Writ Petition on behalf of Community 'X'.

It is humbly submitted before Hon'ble High Court Of Mahakaala that the petitioners have No
locus standi to file writ petition under article 226 on behalf of community ‘X' because there is
no violation of constitutionl, legal or fundamental rights of that community .

Issue – 3

Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahakaal Animal Preservation (Amendment)Act

1995 are extraneous with aims & objects of Article 48 Of the Constitution Of Aryavrat?

It Is humbly submitted before Hon'ble High Court that the prohibitions imposed by the
amended act of 1995 are not extraneous with aims & objects of article 48 of Constitution Of
Aryavrat which provides for organization of agriculture and animal husbandry as well as
prohibition of cow slaughter and preserving and improving the breed of cow and other milch
and draught cattle.

Issue – 4

Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act

1995 are extraneous with Fundamental Duty provided under Article 51(g) Of
Constitution Of Aryavrat?
It is humbly submitted before Hon'ble High Court that the said act is not extraneous and is in
consonance with Fundamental Duty provided under article 51(g) of constitution of Aryavrat.

Issue – 5

Whether the prohibitions imposed by the State Of Mahastha on import &export of

Cows, Bulls or Bullocks outside the state of Mahastha as well as Sell, Purchase and
disposal of them for the purpose of slaughter is in contravention of Article301 & 304(B)
Of Constitution Of Hindikaala?

It is humbly submitted before Hon'ble High Court that the prohibition imposed by amended
act of 1995 on import and export of cows, bulls or bullocks as well as purchase, sale and
disposal of them for purpose of slaughter are reasonable, just and fair and put restriction on
Freedom Of Trade & Commerce according in reasonable and fair way which is given under
Article 301 Of Constitution Of Aryavrat.

Issue - 6

Whether Fundamental Rights of Community 'X' are violated?

It is humbly submitted before Hon'ble High Court that Mahastha Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act 1995 which imposes prohibition on possession of cows, calves, bulls or
bullocks is in consonance with Article 21 of Constitution Of Aryavrat which includes right to
eat food in it. Section 5A & 5B are also in consonance since it impose restriction on Right to
carry on trade, Bussinnes & Occupation as given under Article 19 (1) (g) Of Constitution Of
Aryavrat since it is done for the larger good of public.

Issue - 7

Whether the Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 is Ultra Vires to
the constitution Of Aryavrat?

It is humbly submitted before Hon'ble High Court that because Mahastha Animal
Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 does not violates any Fundamental as well as
Constitutional Rights Of Community 'X' and the said act is also consonance with aims
&objects of Article 48 and it has reasonable nexus with the object of Article 48 so it is not
UltraVires to the Constitution Of Aryavrat.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Whether Writ Petition under Article 226 Of Constitution Of Aryavrat against State Of
Mahastha & Others is maintainable?

Article 226 (1) Of Constitution Of Aryavrat states that -

"Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose".

However it is humbly stated before the hon’ble Court that the Amendment Act, 2015 is not
ultra vires the Constitution of Aryavrat. FIRSTLY, by virtue of provisions envisaged under
entry 15 and entry 16 of Schedule VII, the State is empowered to bring in the present
impugned legislation. SECONDLY, the directive principles of state policy are positive and
explicit in asserting a ban on slaughter of several categories of animals. THIRDLY, none of
the fundamental rights listed in Part III of the Constitution are violated by the State of
Mahastha. It is humbly submitted that the State of Mahastha is empowered to legislate on the
impugned Act by virtue of 15th & 16th entry of list II in Schedule VII of the Constitution.
State has the power to make laws regarding beef ban in Aryavrat. The lawmakers which
framed the Constitution itself in 1950 were against the ban of beef in Country. a ban on cow
slaughter is linked to the constitutional goal of preserving cattle for agricultural purposes

Therefore writ petition under article 26 of constitution of Aryavrat against the state is not
mainatainable.

2. Does petitioner have locus standi to file Writ Petition on behalf of Community ‘X’

The Official purpose of the impugned Act is to discourage cruelty to animals, considering
slaughter to be a cruel act. The Act was enacted in pursuance of the directive principles of
State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution. The impugned Act is constitutional and
valid as it was made in consonance with the directive principles. The directive in Art. 48
envisages for for the State to take steps for preventing the slaughter of animals. This directive
is quite explicit and positive and contemplates a ban on the slaughter of the several categories
of animals specified therein, namely, cows and calves and other cattle which answer the
description of milch or draught cattle. Further, Article 51-A (g) gives the state power to enact
laws banning cow slaughter to help improve the fundamental compassion towards living
creatures. The directive principles of State policy set out in Part IV of the Constitution have
to conform to and run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights in Part III. The prohibition on
slaughter of cows was extended to bulls and bullocks only because such cattle assist in
agricultural work or breeding &continue to provide dung and urine that can either be used by
farmers as manure and fertiliser, or can be sold by the owners.

As there is no breach of any fundamental rights so the petitioner also has no locus standi to
file a writ petition on behalf of community ‘X’

3. Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment)

Act 1995 are extraneous with aims & objects of Article 48 Of the Constitution Of
Aryavrat and article 48 is violative of article 14,21,25 & 29.

DOES NOT INFRINGE ART. 14 : Art. 14 guarantees that no person shall be denied
equality before the law. Arbitrary laws frustrate this guarantee. As per Art. 14 likes are to be
treated alike. Thus, what Art. 14 prohibits is discrimination between persons who are
substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. Thus, in the present case the Amendment
Act, 2015 applies to all those within the territory of Mahastha.

DOES NOT INFRINGE ART. 19(1)g : It is well established that in determining the
question of the reasonableness of restrictions imposed on the fundamental rights conferred
by Art. 19(1)(g) the Court cannot proceed on a general notion of what is reasonable in the
abstract or even on the consideration of what is reasonable from the point of view of the
person or persons on whom the restrictions are imposed. What the Court has to do is to
consider whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interests of the general public.
The test of reasonableness has been laid down in State of Madras v. I.G. Row. Though a
constitutional question cannot be decided on the grounds of the sentiment of a section of the
people, it has to be taken into consideration, though only as one of the elements, in arriving at
a judicial verdict as to the reasonableness of the restrictions.

• Further, in the case of Jalan Trading co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha it was held that
equal treatment of unequal objects, transactions or persons is not liable to be struck down as
discriminatory unless there is simultaneously absence of rational relation to the object
intended to be achieved by law. The object to be achieved is clear with regard to the
impugned act

The impugned Acts can be justified under cl. (6) of Art. 19. The country is in short supply of
milch cattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks, and a total ban on the slaughter of these
which are essential to the national economy for the supply of milk, agricultural working
power and manure is a reasonable

• In the case of Mirzapur Moti Kureshi v. State of Gujarat the court repelled all arguments
on the grounds of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19(1) (g) by stating that, “In the
light of the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape from the conclusion
that the protection conferred by the impugned enactment on cow progeny is needed in the
interest of the nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause “inconvenience” or some
“dislocation” to the butchers, restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease
to be in the interest of the general public. The former must yield to the latter.” restriction in
the interests of the general public.

• DOES NOT INFRINGE ARTICLE 21- The expression “ procedure established by law”
means procedure laid down by statute or procedure prescribed by the law of the State. In
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court interpreted the expression
‘procedure established by law’ in Art. 21 and held that Art. 21 would no longer mean that
law could prescribe some semblance of procedure, however arbitrary and fanciful, to deprive
a person of his personal liberty. The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable and the court
has the power to judge the fairness and justness of the procedure established by law to
deprive a person of his personal liberty. The expression “procedure established by law”
extends both to substantive as well as procedural law. A procedure not fulfilling these
attributes is no procedure at all in the eyes of Art. 21. In the present case before the hon’ble
Court the restrictions are reasonable and in public interest.

• Relying on the judgment delivered in Mirzapur Moti Kureshi v. State of Gujarat

“Merely because it may cause “inconvenience” or some “dislocation” to the butchers,
restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the
general public. The former must yield to the latter.” Article 39(a) of the Constitution,
enunciated as one of the Directive Principles, fundamental in the governance of the country,
requires the State to direct its policies towards securing that all its citizens have the right to an
adequate means Of livelihood.

• As far as the right to cheap source of protein is concerned, the State shall be committed to
provide alternate sources of protein to the vulnerable sections through methods like food
fortification. Article 47 spells out the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and
standard of living of its people as a primary responsibility.

• DOES NOT INFRINGE ART. 25: Art. 25 of the Constitution of India allow the freedom of
conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion. The impugned Act does
not violate the freedom of conscience and at the same time does not intervene in one’s right
to profess, practice and propagation of religion. The ban on the slaughter of cows even on the
slaughter day does not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 25 it has
not been established that the sacrifice of a cow on that day was an obligatory overt act for a
Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. The Supreme Court laid down the
precedent with respect to cattle slaughter in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. Bihar, wherein a
petition was filed by three thousand Muslim butchers. The petitioners argued that the
prohibition on the slaughter of cattle, imposed through the CP and Berar Animal Preservation
Act, 1949 as well the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,1955, curtailed their
enjoyment of the fundamental freedom of occupation as well as denied them of their religious
customs of killing goats and sheep during Bakrid.

A five-judge Bench held that the state is allowed to restrict fundamental freedoms in order to
uphold the Directive Principles of State Policy. A restriction, however, must be reasonable.
Insofar as this petition was based on the right to freedom of religion, however, it was rejected
outright due to the lack of any evidence that cattle slaughtering was a religious duty in Islam.
The court, however, left the question of whether “total ban” was within the scope of the
restrictions placed by Article 19 (6). The apex court held that a general ban on keeping
uneconomic cattle under its jurisdiction was unjustified and violated the right of the butcher
to freedom of trade and occupation. But, revisiting its own decision of 1958, the Supreme
Court, in the case of Mirzapur Moti Kureshi v. State of Gujarat , overruled its almost 50-
year-old reasoning that ceasing to produce milk, breed 17 or be used as a drought animal did
not make bovine cattle useless. This is the most important case with respect to the issue of
banning cow slaughter. The petition was challenging the amendments in section 5 of the
Bombay Animal Preservation, which was also applicable to the state of Gujrat. The
amendments changed the ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks under the age of 16 to a
complete ban. The petition challenged the amendment because of the belief that bull and
bullocks over the age of 16 tend to become economically unbeneficial.

4. Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment)

Act 1995 are extraneous with Fundamental Duty provided under Article 51A (g) Of
Constitution Of Aryavrat ?

Article 51-A (g) gives the state power to enact laws banning cow slaughter to help improve 4
the fundamental compassion towards living creatures. The directive principles of State policy
set out in Part IV of the Constitution have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the
fundamental rights in Part III. The prohibition on slaughter of cows was extended to bulls and
bullocks only because such cattle assist in agricultural work or breeding & continue to
provide dung and urine that can either be used by farmers as manure and fertiliser, or can be
sold by the owners.

Cow protection is the remedy for agricultural failure and human health.

Whether the prohibitions imposed by the State Of Mahastha on import & export of
Cows, Bulls or Bullocks outside the state of Mahastha as well as Sell,Purchase and
disposal of them for the purpose of slaughter is in contravention of Article 301 & 304 (B
Of Constitution Of Aryavrat ?

DOES NOT INFRINGE ART. 19(1)g : It is well established that in determining the question
6 of the reasonableness of restrictions imposed on the fundamental rights conferred by Art.
19(1)(g) the Court cannot proceed on a general notion of what is reasonable in the abstract or
even on the consideration of what is reasonable from the point of view of the person or
persons on whom the restrictions are imposed. What the Court has to do is to consider
whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interests of the general public. The test
of reasonableness has been laid down in State of Madras v. I.G. Row . Though a
constitutional question cannot be decided on the grounds of the sentiment of a section of the
people, it has to be taken into consideration, though only as one of the elements, in arriving at
a judicial verdict as to the reasonableness of the restrictions.

• The impugned Acts can be justified under cl. (6) of Art. 19. The country is in short supply 9
of milch cattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks, and a total ban on the slaughter of these
which are essential to the national economy for the supply of milk, agricultural working
power and manure is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public.

In the case of Mirzapur Moti Kureshi v. State of Gujarat the court repelled all arguments
on the grounds of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19(1) (g) by stating that, “In the
light of the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape from the conclusion
that the protection conferred by the impugned enactment on cow progeny is needed in the
interest of the nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause “inconvenience” or some
“dislocation” to the butchers, restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease
to be in the interest of the general public. The former must yield to the latter.”

Whether Fundamental Rights Of Community 'X' are violated?

DOES NOT INFRINGE ART. 21: The expression “ procedure established by law” means
procedure laid down by statute or procedure prescribed by the law of the State. In Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court interpreted the expression ‘procedure
established by law’ in Art. 21 and held that Art. 21 would no longer mean that law could
prescribe some semblance of procedure, however arbitrary and fanciful, to deprive a person
of his personal liberty. The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable and the court has the
power to judge the fairness and justness of the procedure established by law to deprive a
person of his personal liberty. The expression “procedure established by law” extends both to
substantive as well as procedural law. A procedure not fulfilling these attributes is no
procedure at all in the eyes of Art. 21. In the present case before the hon’ble Court the
restrictions are reasonable and in public interest.

Relying on the judgment delivered in Mirzapur Moti Kureshi v. State of Gujarat “Merely
because it may cause “inconvenience” or some “dislocation” to the butchers, restriction The
former must yield to the latter.” Article 39(a) of the Constitution, enunciated as one of the
Directive Principles, fundamental in the governance of the country, requires the State to
direct its policies towards securing that all its citizens have the right to an adequate means of
livelihood. imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the
general public.

• DOES NOT INFRINGE ART. 25: Art. 25 of the Constitution of India allow the freedom
of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion. The impugned Act
does not violate the freedom of conscience and at the same time does not intervene in one’s
right to profess, practice and propagation of religion. The ban on the slaughter of cows even
on the slaughter day does not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 25 it
has not been established that the sacrifice of a cow on that day was an obligatory overt act for
a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. The Supreme Court laid down the
precedent with respect to cattle slaughter in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. Bihar , wherein a 16
petition was filed by three thousand Muslim butchers. The petitioners argued that the
prohibition on the slaughter of cattle, imposed through the CP and Berar Animal Preservation
Act, 1949 as well the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,1955, curtailed their
enjoyment of the fundamental freedom of occupation as well as denied them of their religious
customs of killing goats and sheep during Bakrid.

DOES NOT INFRINGE ART. 14 : Art. 14 guarantees that no person shall be denied
equality before the law. Arbitrary laws frustrate this guarantee. As per Art. 14 likes are to be
treated alike. Thus, what Art. 14 prohibits is discrimination between persons who are
substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. Thus, in the present case the Amendment
Act, 2015 applies to all those within the territory of Mahastha.

Whether the Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 is Ultra Vires the
constitution Of Aryavrat ?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Court that the Amendment Act, 2015 is not ultra
vires the Constitution of Aryavrat. FIRSTLY, by virtue of provisions envisaged under entry
15 and entry 16 of Schedule VII, the State is empowered to bring in the present impugned
legislation. SECONDLY, the directive principles of state policy are positive and explicit in
asserting a ban on slaughter of several categories of animals. THIRDLY, none of the
fundamental rights listed in Part III of the Constitution are violated by the State of Mahastha.
It is humbly submitted that the State of Mahastha is empowered to legislate on the impugned
Act by virtue of 15th & 16th entry of list II in Schedule VII of the Constitution. State has the
power to make laws regarding beef ban in Aryavrat. The lawmakers which framed the
Constitution itself in 1950 were in favour of the ban of beef in Country. a ban on cow
slaughter is linked to the constitutional goal of preserving cattle for agricultural purposes.

The official purpose of the impugned Act is to discourage cruelty to animals, considering
slaughter to be a cruel act. The Act was enacted in pursuance of the directive principles of
State policy contained in Art. 48 of the Constitution. The impugned Act is constitutional and
valid as it was made in consonance with the directive principles. The directive in Art. 48
envisages for for the State to take steps for preventing the slaughter of animals. This directive
is quite explicit and positive and contemplates a ban on the slaughter of the several categories
of animals specified therein, namely, cows and calves and other cattle which answer the
description of milch or draught cattle.
 PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised,arguments advanced and authorities cited may this hon’ble
court be pleased to:

1. Hold that Mahastha Animal Preservation (Amendment) ACT 1995 Is not ultta vires
to the Constitution of Aryavarat.
2. Hold that the various amendments of the said act does not violate any
fundamental,constitutional or legal right of the petitioner

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of equity,justice and Good
Conscience.And for this, the petitioner as in duty bound,shall humble pray,

Counsel For The Respondent.