CASE ANALYSIS OF MOHD HANIF QURESHI V.

STATE OF BIHAR (1958)

BY

JAYDEEP FINDORIA

INTERN

1st YEAR

PARUL INSTITUTE OF LAW, PARUL UNIVERSITY

VADODARA

MOBILE - 7069865887

E-MAIL- jaydeepfindoria2510@gmail.com
 BAN ON COW SLAUGHTER AND ITS IMPACT ON SOCIETY

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In 1958, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court decided a case Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar on the
question that whether ban on sale of cattle for slaughter is unconstitutional.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 law was challenged on the ground 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. Questioning on the reasonability the
Supreme Court bench ruled that a total ban on the slaughter of cattle was reasonable, valid and is in accordance to the
directive principles laid down in Article 48 during the same era.Peeking into the summarized part, it further said that a
ban on the slaughter of buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks as long as they are in capacity of being used as
mulch or draught cattle was also considered as reasonable and valid. In addition, the apex court held that a blanket ban
keeping uneconomic cattle under its validity was unjustified and violated right to freedom of trade and occupation
under Article 19, The Indian Constitution, 1949 in accordance to that of butchers’ right. Along with Bihar, the cattle
slaughter laws of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh were questioned whether they infringe the fundamental rights of
the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

FACTS& ISSUES OF THE CASE

The petitioners were the members of the Muslim Qureshi Community who were mainly engaged in the butchers’
trade. The petitioners had this occupation as an occupation which was carried from ages in their tradition. According
to their religion this is considered to be valid and cattle slaughter is basically done in order to prosper trade and
occupation. Dealing with the facts from the other side the religion which is majorly followed in India is Hinduism, it
considers cows as pious animals believing that they have auspicious presence of God. Henceforth animals are
considered essential as they provide milk and many more things and thus humans should be thankful to them on
morality basis. The above given fact prohibits the humans to slaughter cattle as it is considered to be immoral on the
basis of humanitarian grounds. Mohd Hanif Qureshi filed petition in 1958 in Supreme Court regarding infringement of
his fundamental rights by prohibiting him from cow slaughter in Bihar as per the Bihar laws 1 regarding animals. The
issues which were raised are as follows-
 Whether fundamental rights are infringed by prohibiting the petitioner to proceed with the cattle slaughter?
 Whether prohibition of cow slaughter is reasonable in context to that of general public?
 Questioning the constitutionality of the prohibition of the same on basis of regional laws?

1
The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1956
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
According to Article 19, The Indian Constitution, 1949 Clause 1(g) freedom of trade and occupation is one of the
fundamental rights given to the citizens of India. Henceforth with reference to the above said right, the petitioner has
the right to proceed with the cattle slaughter. Prohibition of it ultimately harms the trade and occupation of the
petitioner and it has to eradicate.
According to Article 14 of India’s Constitution which ensures Right to Equality 2 which is also one of the fundamental
rights is also said to be infringed as the morality of only one community is considered in prohibition of the cow
slaughter and henceforth it is unconstitutional and discriminatory.
According to Article 25 of India’s Constitution which ensures right to profess, practice and propagates any religion the
citizens prefer which is also one of the fundamental rights is also harmed as the religion of Muslim Community has
not been properly considered while prohibiting the cattle slaughter.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
According to the Directive Principles of State Policy which is in Article 48 of India’s Constitution it is prohibited to
do cow slaughter based on the reason that these animals have milk yielding capacity and henceforth they cannot be
slaughtered.
It is stated to be valid as well as reasonable to prohibit the same as though morality and law have different purviews
but ultimately consideration of both the valid connotations is very essential.
All the articles which are stated to be infringed have some reasonable restrictions henceforth in nutshell it is merely
acceptable that the prohibition of cow slaughter is valid and it is for the welfare of public in general which the ultimate
goal oriented from fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy as both of them are supplementary and
complimentary to each other.
The state in response to the petitioner’s argument also argued that the constitutional issue before the Court could not
be decided on the mere grounds of the sentiment of the Hindu Community. In nutshell, the decision is not upheld
discriminatory and no community is given priority, the decision is unanimously taken in order to propagate the public
welfare in general.
COMPARISION WITH OTHER CASES
1. After Mohd. Hanif Qureshi, many states and localities attempted to circumvent the decision to allow the
slaughter of some cattle through various changes in state-level laws, which led to a number of subsequent cases. In
response to this decision, certain amendments were made to the cattle slaughter laws of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and
Madhya Pradesh, which allowed the slaughterof bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes on the issuance of a fit for
slaughter certificate only if they were above the age of 20 or 25 and if they were “permanently unfit” or “useless.”

2
The Indian Constitution, 1949
2. In 1960, in Abdul Hakim Quraishi And Others vs The State Of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the high
age requirements, the introduction of procedural hurdles, and additional appeal processes involved in issuing a
certificate imposed unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on the rights of the petitioners in the case.
3. Another case related to bylaws enacted in the municipality of Jabalpur required a license to be obtained for
the slaughter of bulls and bullocks in specific premises. In 1967, a notification was issued cancelling the bylaws,
which in effect imposed a complete ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks within the limits of the municipality.
In a 1969 case, the Supreme Court decided that the notification rescinding the bylaws infringed article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution.
4. In 1986, in Haji Usman BhaiHasan Bhai Qureshi & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, the Court upheld an
amendment to the Bombay Animal Preservation Act which banned the slaughter of bulls and bullocks below the
age of 16. The Court held that based on scientific developments since 1962, “the longevity of the cattle and their
useful span of life has increased and, therefore, the prescribed age of sixteen years can be said to be a reasonable
restriction on the right of the appellants to carry on their trade and profession as mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution.”
5. Another attempt was made by the state of Madhya Pradesh to circumvent the Mohd. Hanif
Qureshi decision when it amended the cattle preservation law to impose a complete ban on bulls and bullocks. The
state sought to justify its actions by “referring to the manifold benefits of cattle dung, which would be available to
the agriculturists and farmers even from the useless animals.”
6. However, the Supreme Court in 1996, in Haji Usman BhaiHasan Bhai Qureshi & Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat, found that “no conclusive material has been placed on record to show that the restriction now placed is to
be regarded as reasonable” or that “there is any change in the circumstances or that the decisions of this Court in
the aforesaid three cases require reconsideration.”
7. In 2005, however, in State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti QureshiKasab, a seven-judge constitutional bench
of the Supreme Court partially overturned the long line of its own precedents it had established since 1958
in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi. The Court upheld an amendment to the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, the
effect of which was to impose a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks of any age.
8. The Court noted that environmental principles and duties in articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution,
which were introduced in 1976, were not available to the bench in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi. Furthermore, the Court
held that the use of terms “Mulch and draught cattle” in article 48 was employed to distinguish or classify the
cattle and was not dependent on the cattle being able to perform a specific function. In other words, a cow does not
lose its protection if it ceases to perform its particular function or reaches a certain age. The Court goes on to state
that this argument is “further strengthened by Article 51A (g) of the Constitution” which introduces the
fundamental duty that the “State and every citizen of India must have compassion for living creatures.”
9. The Court also challenged its previous holding that a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks was
an unreasonable restriction and not in the public interest as per the test provided in article 19(6) of the
Constitution. Here the Court made reference to changes in the factual situation in the country to justify the law.
The Court held that:Fodder shortage is no longer a problem and that cow’s progeny can be “fed and maintained
without causing any wasteful drain on the feed requisite for active mulch, breeding and draught cattle.”
10. The limitation imposed on the right contained in article 19 should not be characterized as a total prohibition
since only a part of the petitioner’s business is affected in that they are “not prohibited from slaughtering animals
other than the cattle belonging to the cow progeny.”Food security was a greater concern in the past but this is no
longer the case; andbulls and bullocks remain useful past a certain age, since urine and dung are tremendously
useful for the production of manure and biogas, particularly as renewable sources of energy.
11. In a subsequent 2008 decision (Hansa, the Supreme Court also upheld a temporary nine day closure of
municipal slaughter houses during the Paryushan festival celebrated by members of the Jain religion. The Court
considered the religious sentiments of the Jain community and the public interestobjective to preserve mutual
respect and tolerance between India’s diverse communities. In doing so, the Court overturned its past position that
sentiments of a particular section of the people cannot solely be used to justify imposing a prohibition. A short
closure, which was not for a “considerable period of time,” is not an unreasonable restriction, and therefore, not a
violation of the Constitution including article 19.
ARTICLES REFERRED FROM THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 1949
ARTICLE 14 Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the lawor the equal protection
of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discriminationon grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth.
ARTICLE 19 (1) (g)Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.
(1) All citizens shall have the right-
(g) To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
ARTICLE 25Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
(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, practice and propagate any religion
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) Regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with
religious practice;
(b) Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character
to all classes and sections of Hindus
Explanation I the wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion
Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons
professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be constructed
accordingly.
ARTICLE 48Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall endeavor 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 mulch and draught cattle.
ARTICLE 51(A)Fundamental duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of India
(g) To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures;
JUDGMENT AT GLIMPSE
The Court found that the latter part of the directive in Art. 48 enjoins the state to prohibit the slaughter of cows and
calves and “…those animals which are presently or potentially capable of yielding milk or of doing work as draught
cattle but does not…extend to cattle which at one time were mulch or draught cattle but which have ceased to be
such.” The Court further held that directive principles should “conform to and run as subsidiary to the fundamental
rights” in the Constitution.
The Court held that restrictions on the slaughter of cattle did not infringe on the petitioners’ freedom to practice their
religion under article 25 since it had not been established that the sacrifice of cows on the religious holiday of Bakra-
Eid is of an obligatory or essential part of the Islamic religion as opposed to being optional.
The Court found that the “country is in short supply of mulch cattle, breeding bulls and working bullocks” and
therefore 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 to impose in the interests of the general public.
The Court also held 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 reasonable and in “consonance with the directive principles laid down in Art. 48.”
However, the Court held that a total ban on the slaughter of “useless cattle,” which “involves a wasteful drain on the
nation’s cattle feed which is itself in short supply and which would deprive the useful cattle of much needed
nourishment, cannot be justified as being in the interests of the general public.” Therefore, the Court held that a total
ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes after they had ceased to be useful was invalid under the
Constitution.The Court also noted that though the constitutional issue before the Court could not be decided on the
mere grounds of the sentiment of the Hindu community, it nevertheless, “has to be taken into consideration, though
only as one of many elements, in arriving at a judicial verdict as to the reasonableness of the restrictions.”
PANORAMIC VIEWS ON JUDGMENT
In the last several months cow slaughter has re-emerged as a major socially and politically divisive issue in India. The
regulation of cow slaughter is seen as a state matter under India’s Constitution. The list of areas for which the states
are responsible, contained in the seventh schedule of the Constitution, includes reservation, protection and
improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice.” Various state-level laws
restricting or prohibiting cattle slaughter have been justified based on a number of Directive Principles of State
Policy contained in the Constitution.Being an eminent part of legal platform and legal studies, it is very important to
study and analysis both the sides of the case that is the petitioner and the respondent. The above judgment is definitely
valid as well as constitutional as it fulfills one of the most important directive principles of state policy which is very
much complimentary and supplementary to fundamental rights.A five-judge bench has merely taken the decision
based on the constitutional grounds. No community that is either Hindu or Muslim has been given priority.
Henceforth, the decision was not taken seeing the traditional practices of Muslim Community or the morality of Hindu
Community but it has been taken in order to have public welfare in general which is the ultimate goal orientation of
directive principles of state policy.Constitutional justifications for cattle protection are also made on the basis of
animal and environmental protection policy additions made to the Constitution. Articles 48-A and 51-A were
introduced pursuant to the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. Article 48-A stipulates that the “State
shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.” This
is categorized as a directive principle of state policy. Article 51-A (g) makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to
“protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures.”India’s Supreme Court has always been seen suspending the cattle slaughter activities from the past
many years inclusive of various states and union territories. These states include: Himachal Pradesh, Indian-
administered Kashmir, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Delhi, Chandigarh, and Chhattisgarh. The state of Chhattisgarh does not
permit the slaughter of buffalo, which do not have the same sacred status under the Hindu religion, which is showing
the complete validity of constitutional provisions.The provisions which are given in the Indian Constitution majorly
uphold the decisions based on general welfare of the public which shows the reasonability of the judgment.As history
rings with the true lessons, the constitution makers already had a thought regarding the same issue After India attained
Independence, the members of the Constituent Assembly, a body consisting of indirectly elected representatives set up
for the purpose of drafting a constitution for India, debated the question of making a provision for the protection and
preservation of the cow in the Constitution of India. An amendment for including a provision in the Directive
Principles of State Policy as Article 38A was introduced by Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. The amendment read, "The
State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall in
particular take steps for preserving and improving the breeds of cattle and prohibit the slaughter of cow and other
useful cattle, specially mulch and draught cattle and their young stock".
CONSTITUTIONALITY AND INDEMNITY OF RIGHTS
Peeking into the reality though there are provisions and laws which prohibit cow slaughter which is a beginning of
great anarchy, there is need to provide indemnity and shielding to these provisions in order to ensure the proper follow
up and implementation of statues led down in the judgment pronounced.Constitution is considered to be the highest
law of land which priorly ensures the fundamental rights of the country. But with some leisure there come few
responsibilities in the form of state policies and reasonable restrictions which binds the judiciary system of the nation.
In the above case, Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 25 is said to be infringed but reasonable restrictions play vital role here in
order to protect the general welfare which is very much connected to the fundamental rights of all the people at large.
Therefore, the judgment pronounced is fully justifiable from the purview of law.Twenty out of 28 states in
India currently have various laws regulating act of slaughtered cow, prohibiting the slaughter or sale of cows.
Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Kerala, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura and West Bengal are the states where
there are no restrictions on cow slaughter. Henceforth these states have to justify their reasons for not condemning the
cattle slaughter activities in their regions. The constitutionality of these provisions has gone through several benches in
many cases from 1958 to the recent cases where this issue has been prevailing yet from the past many years.The issue
was earlier raised by India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru opposed this national ban on cow slaughter, and
threatened to resign if the elected representatives passed the bill in India's parliament. The bill failed by a vote of 95 to
12. This also states that it was one of the mottos while making of Indian Constitution.
SUGGESTIONS
The Indian Constitution is the riveting and core part of the nation and henceforth consequent provisions or acts should
be passed in order to indemnify the laws related to that of prohibition of cattle slaughter activities in many states and
union territories. Various states should come together at central institutions and make common laws regarding the
same in order to create the uniformity in the entire India. The decisions should be unanimously made regardless of the
entire sovereignty as all the provinces would prevail in accordance to that of their convenience which is not in favor of
the public at large.Bold punishment should be levied inclusive of charges for the people who are the law breakers and
special courts could also be created in order to bring speedy decisions as courts are already been loaded with thatof
many cases. Various awareness programmes could be organized by the government in order to make various
communities aware about the laws and provisions related to the prohibition of the cattle slaughter.General guidelines
regarding making directive principles and fundamental duties should be made justifiable in law henceforth making
them independent and powerful provisions of Indian Constitution. In India from past many years only fundamental
rights are only justifiable in law which only gives power to the general public but not binding duties and
responsibilities. Union territories should also make the provisions in accordance to the central government so that the
uniform legal statutes prevail in the entire nation.
REFERENCES
STATUTES
 The Indian Constitution, 1949
 The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1956
CASES
 Abdul Hakim Quraishi And Others vs The State of Bihar AIR 1960 SC 448
 Haji Usman BhaiHasan Bhai Qureshi & Ors. Vs. State of GujaratAIR1986 SC 1213
 State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti QureshiKasab AIR 2005 SC 212
 HansaVirodhi Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti QureshiJamaat& Ors AIR 2008 SC 503
BRIEF BIO OF AUTHOR
Jaydeep Findoria is pursuing BA LLB at Parul Institute of Law, Parul University. He has got the experience of online
legal internship and was considered as one of the best interns. He has been emerged as the gold medalist in 1 st
Semester with 9.82 CGPA. He has riveting oratory skills which made him win many Debate, Elocution, Extempore
and Journalism related competitions. He has also experienced AIU Competition representing University in Littrow-
Combat Events. In the very first year he has won Article Writing and Essay Writing Competitions based on legal and
social issues. He has keen interest in administration policies and politics of the nation. He has also hosted many
eminent events of Parul Institute of Law. He has attained many national seminars on legal relations with that of media,
morality and many more. He has been emerged as a student who considered himself as an eminent part of this global
village and indulged in many extracurricular activities at university level. He has keen interest in reading books and
novels. He has been working as Student Coordinator at Entrepreneur Development Cell of Parul University. He is
contributing society through being the part of various important legal institutions.