lOMoARcPSD|25556147

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

STATE OF MARATHA

MARATHA BUTCHERS9
ASSOCIATION AND ORS …PETETIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF MARATHA
AND ORS …RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 INDEX

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................................3

LIST OF CASES...................................................................................................................................3

STATUTES............................................................................................................................................3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES.......................................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................................11

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................................32

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES:

 Mohd. Faruk vs. State of M.P

 Om Prakash & Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh
 Kesavanand Bharati v. State of Kerala
 State of Madras vs Smt. Champakam Dorairajan
 Minerva Mills case
 S. R. Bommai vs. Union of Indica
 State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
 Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar
 Sarwar Husain v. Addl. Judge

STATUTES:
 Constitution of Indica
 Indican Penal Code,1860
 Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act,1978
 Maharashtra Amendment Act,1995

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All Indica Reporter

Crl. Criminal Leave

Def. Defendant

Hon9ble Honorable

i.e. That is

No. Number

Ors Others

R.I. Rigorous Imprisonment

Smt. Shrimati

u/s Under Section

V. Versus

Viz. Viz- a - Viz

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

ainable, untenable and is liable to be dismissed with cost as no fundamental right has been infrin

Therefore, this writ petition is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court of Law.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Republic of Indica is located in the South Asian region of Asia and till

1947 the Republic of Indica for 150 years. It is a democratic country with a
written constitution and has adopted Parliamentary form of government.

2. The majority of population in this country belongs to Hindu religion

and other major religions followed by the people of Indica are
Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism, Sikhism and Islam as a result it a
country with diversified religion.

3. Some religions like Jainism Some religion like Jainism strictly follow the
principle of non-violence and therefore stressed upon vegetarian food
habit. This is not so in case of other religions.

4. Under Hindu religion some are vegetarians and some are non-vegetarians.
Throughout the Republic of Indica9s history, religion has been an important
part of the country9s culture. The history of Republic of Indica has
witnessed some prominent instances of religious disharmony amongst
various religious groups.

5. The Constitution of Republic of Indica declares various rights as

fundamental rights. Some of the fundamental rights are the right to
freedom of religion, freedom to carry on any trade, profession and
business, right to life and personal liberty etc.

6
6. The fundamental rights are mostly enforceable against the 8State9. The
Constitution on Indica also laid down some Directive Principles of State
Policy. These directives are not enforceable in the court of law, nevertheless
these principles are to be looked into while formulating any policy and
enacting any law. One of those directives laid down that the “State shall
endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern
and scientific line and shall take steps in particular for preserving and
improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves
and other milch and draught cattle.”

7. On the one hand the economy of the Republic of Indica is largely based
upon agriculture and on the other hand cow is treated as 8Holy9 under
Hindu religion. Therefore, the above-mentioned directive was perceived to
be an outcome of a compromise between the scientific rationality and
religious sentiments of the majority Hindu citizens.

8. One of the fundamental duties of the citizens is to protect and improve

the natural environment and to have compassion for living creatures.

9. Since 1950 Republic of Indica and various States enacted laws for the
protection of Cows. Some of these laws are enacted with specific object of
protection of cow whereas some of them were enacted in the name of
8protection of animals from cruelty.

10.State of Maratha is situated in western region of Republic of Indica and

second most populous state of the Republic of Indica. In 1978 it enacted the
Maratha
7
 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.

11.The Amendment Act, 1995 received the assent of the President in 2015
and came into force immediately.

12.Few individuals were attacked on the accusation that they stored cow-flesh
in their home. It created the tension between those who were beef-eater and
those who were not. More particularly, a minority community 8X9 was
affected as beef eating was their common food habit.

13.Moreover, beef was less costly as compared to other non-vegetarian food.

As the degree of poverty is higher in community 8X9, beef eating was an
easy source of protein for them. But with the new amended law by the state
of Maratha, they were deprived of this source.

8
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE1: DOES THE CONSUMPTION OF BEEF BY COMMUNITY ‘X’

HURT THE RELEGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES?

ISSUE2: WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF COMMUNITY ‘X’

WERE VILOATED BY AMENDMENT ACT OF 1955?

ISSUE3: WHETHER THE AMENDMENT ACT, 1955 IS BEYOND THE

SCOPE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDICA? DOES IT AFFECT THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE4: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS SHOULD BE MADE LIABLE

UNDER 429 IPC?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE1: DOES THE CONSUMPTION OF BEEF BY COMMUNITY ‘X’

HURT THE RELEGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES?
It is humbly submitted before the hon9ble high court of Maratha that, yes
consumption of beef by Community 8X9 hurts the religious sentiments of other
communities.

ISSUE2: WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF COMMUNITY ‘X’

WERE VILOATED BY AMENDMENT ACT OF 1995?
It is humbly submitted before the hon9ble high court of Maratha that, No
fundamental rights were infringed by the Amendment act of 1995.

ISSUE3: WHETHER THE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 IS BEYOND THE

SCOPE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDICA? DOES IT AFFECT THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before the hon9ble high court of Maratha that, No the
amendment act, 1995 is not beyond the scope of Constitution of Indica and it does
not affect the validity of the Constitution.

ISSUE4: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS SHOULD BE MADE LIABLE

UNDER 429IPC?
It is humbly submitted before the hon9ble high court of Maratha that, Yes the
petitioners should be made liable under 429IPC.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE1: DOES THE CONSUMPTION OF BEEF BY COMMUNITY ‘X’

HURT THE RELEGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES?
From the Rig Veda (4.28.1;6) we read. The cows have come and have brought us
good fortune. In our stalls, contented, may they stay! May they bring forth calves
for us, many-coloured, giving milk for Indra each day. You make, O cows, the thin
man sleek; to the unlovely you bring beauty. Rejoice our homestead with pleasant
lowing. In our assemblies we laud your vigour.

The only cow-question for Hindus is, Why don’t more people respect and protect
this remarkable creature?

Mahatma Gandhi once said, “One can measure the greatness of a nation and its moral
progress by the way it treats its animals. Cow protection to me is not mere
protection of the cow. It means protection of all that lives and is helpless and weak
in the world. The cow means the entire subhuman world.”

In the Hindu tradition, the cow is honoured, garlanded and given special feedings
at festivals all over Indica, most importantly the annual “Gopashtama” festival.
Demonstrating how dearly Hindus love their cows, colourful cow jewellery and
clothing is sold at fairs all over the Indican countryside. From a young age, Hindu
children are taught to decorate the cow with garlands, paint and ornaments. Her
nature is epitomized in “Kamadhenu”, the divine, wish-fulfilling cow. The cow and
her sacred gifts milk and ghee in particular are essential elements in Hindu
worship, penance and rites of passage. In Indica, more than 3,000 institutions
called Gaushalas, maintained by charitable trusts, care for old and infirm cows.
And while

10
many Hindus are not vegetarians, most respect the still widely held code of
abstaining from eating beef.

An animal rights activist, Chetan Sharma, said,

“Cow is also the reason for global warming. When she is slaughtered, something
called EPW is released, which is directly responsible for global warming. It’s what
is called emotional pain waves.”

APEDA (The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development

Authority), the Indican governments gatekeeper for exports, has stringent
guidelines for beef export. Last year, APEDA introduced a requirement that
exporters must prove that their beef was sourced from government-approved and
registered abattoirs. But with a sizable Muslim and Christian population414
percent and 2 percent respectively4that doesn9t worship the cow’s divinity, there is
speculation that illegal cow beef is sneaking into the mix. “Meat is meat and it
would be hard to tell if it came from a licensed slaughterhouse, municipal
slaughterhouse, or export facility,” says Joshipura.

In ancient Indica, cattle and oxen were sacrificed to the gods and the meat was
eaten. But even then, milk-producing cows were off-limits, likely because their
milk was so precious as a food source. But with the rise of Buddhism and Jainism
4 two other world religions with roots in Indica and a philosophy of vegetarianism
4 Hindus, too, stopped eating meat. By the first century A.D., cows had come to be
associated with Brahmans, the highest caste, or class, in Hinduism. To kill a cow
was likened to killing a Brahman 4 a big taboo. Soon after, Krishna, an incarnation
of Vishnu, one of the three main Hindu gods, was often depicted in literature and
art as cavorting with cows.

12
Hindus see the cow as a particularly generous, docile creature, one that gives more
to human beings than she takes from them. The cow, they say, produces five things
4 milk, cheese, butter (or ghee), urine and dung. The first three are eaten and used
in worship of the Hindu gods, while the last two can be used in religious devotion
or in penance or burned for fuel. When was the last time your cat gave you
anything besides a dead mouse? And here’s a fun fact 4 Hindus associate several
animals with different gods and consider them sacred, including the monkey
(Hanuman), the elephant (Ganesh), the tiger (Durga) and even the rat (Ganesh).
But none is as revered as the cow.

Today, Hindus, who represent around 80% of the Indican population, rarely eat
meat. The consumption of beef is taboo for religious reasons. Some Indican states
have even introduced this principle into their legal system, by passing laws to
forbid the slaughter and consumption of cows (but without going so far as to
prosecute beef eaters). Supporters of secularism and members of other religions
denounce these laws. They are seen as an attack on fundamental human rights and
as a form of discrimination with regard to other religious communities (Muslim
and Christian in particular) which authorise the consumption of beef.

Cows are named 8Gaumata9 among Hindu people. The term can be divided further
as 3 8Gau9 meaning cow, and 8mata9 meaning mother.

These animals are known for providing milk to nourish humans, young as well as
adults. In Egyptian legends, Hathor, the Great Mother goddess of joy and
nourishment, was worshipped as a cow-deity.

Cows also remind one to take care of their physical, mental, and emotional health.
It is believed that one who doesn9t take time to nurture their body, mind, and soul
exude a pessimistic aura and aren9t pleasant to be around.

13
Cows further symbolize abundance and fertility. This concept is most likely borne
out of the fact that cows are associated with mother Earth in Vedic cultures.

In many cultures and legends, cows are associated with many deities. Cow9s holiness
is sacred among Hindus. They use cow9s by-products as nourishing and purifying
agents. Hindus even have a specific day to celebrate cows and their holiness when
they revere cows using flower garlands.

In Hinduism, cows are considered one of the most sacred animals. In fact, in
countries where Hinduism is prevalent, such as in Indica and Nepal, slaughtering
and selling beef is a sin. In fact, cow9s urine and dung are often used as purifying
agents in various rituals.

Animals are often symbolized for various gods and goddesses in Hinduism. In
various ancient holy Hindu scripts, cows are considered to be associated with
Aditi, the mother of all deities. Cows give more to humans than humans can ever
offer to them. So, cows are deeply venerated in these cultures.

Lord Krishna, one of the ten incarnations of revered god Lord Vishnu, is also
depicted to adore cows and cavort among them.

In the Puranas, the cow came to be associated with Vishnu while the uncastrated
wild bull came to be associated with Shiva. While Durga killed the male buffalo
demon, Ayyappa of Kerala killed the female buffalo demon.

In Vaishnava mythology, the cow came to be seen as an embodiment of Lakshmi,

the goddess of wealth. In the Bhagavata Purana, the earth takes the form of a cow
and asks Vishnu to protect her. That is why Vishnu, her guardian, is called Go-
pala, protector of the earth-cow. The earth is visualised as being milked by all
living creatures. And when kings plunder earth9s resources, they are described
as cow

14
killers, or cow tormenters, and Vishnu descends as Parashurama, Ram and
Krishna, to kill the greedy king and let the earth drink their blood.

The image of Krishna as the lovable cowherd god has its origin probably in Tamil
Sangam literature and became part of Sanskrit literature in Harivamsa, the
appendix of the Mahabharata that describes Krishna9s childhood. In Bhagavata
Purana, Krishna kills a bull-demon called Arishtha and a calf-demon called Vatsa.

Hermit orders such as Buddhism and Jainism popularised ideas of compassion,

non- violence and vegetarianism. They opposed Vedic rituals that at one time
included animal sacrifices. In fact, according to Jayadeva, Vishnu descended as
Buddha out of compassion for animals that were being killed as part of rituals.

However, Hinduism, unlike Buddhism and Jainism, has never been prescriptive.
Castes and communities created rules for themselves. Not for all. What was private
was never public. As we have moved away from caste structure to uniform civil
structures, certain caste groups are imposing their private eating habits on the
public, a phenomenon never seen before in Indica. The price of modernity, one can
say.

In the past thousand years, as Islam and then British, came into Indica, Hinduism
has become very fearful of contamination and obsessed with purification. Those
who ate cows were seen as pollution while cow urine and cow dung were seen as
purifiers. This symbolic value made cow a potent symbol of Hinduism, even more
than old Puranic metaphors that equated cow with livelihood and the earth.

Increasingly we find posters that all gods being present inside a cow. Worshipping
a cow then becomes equal to worshipping all Hindu gods. This makes cow sacred.

Subsequently, with the rise of the ideal of ahimsa (<noninjury=), the absence of the
desire to harm living creatures, the cow came to symbolize a life of nonviolent
generosity. As cows9 calves, bulls and bullocks form the heritage of our composite
15
culture.

So, it is the duty of individuals to preserve them and to show compassion for them.

The State which conferred Fundamental Rights also imposed certain Fundamental
Duties to follow. The fundamental duties, are, Therefore, intended to serve as a
constant reminder to every citizen that while the constitution specifically conferred
on them certain fundamental rights, it also requires citizen school observe certain
basic norms of democratic conduct and democratic behaviour. The preamble
emphasises the duties, justice, social, economic and political. In addition to this,
the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution are not absolute rights. The
state is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions and curtail these rights in the
interest of society. Restrictions may sometimes amount to prohibition. The idea of
welfare State envisaged by our constitution can only be achieved if the States
endeavour to implement them with a High sense of moral duty.

The Indican term "non-vegetarian" for meat eating is reflective of the popular
perception that vegetarian food is the norm and meat eating is an aberration. It is a
different thing that statistics show majority of Indicans to be meat eating. The
controversy related to meat-eating in the Indican context largely emanates from
religion than from health concerns.

In Mohd. Faruk vs. State of M.P 1., while holding a Municipality's ban on slaughter
of bulls to be illegal, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court observe "The
sentiments of a section of the people may be hurt by permitting slaughter of bulls
and bullocks in premises maintained by a local authority.

But a prohibition imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right to carry on an

occupation, trade or business will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed
not

1
1970 AIR 93

16
in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and
sentiments of a section of the people whose way of life, belief or thought is not the
same as that of the claimant".

In 2004, a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash & Others vs State
of Uttar Pradesh upheld the prohibition of sale of eggs in Rishikesh, Haridwar and
Muni ki Reti. The plea was filed by the hotel owners residing in the cities citing
their right to profession under Article 19(1)(g). The Court held that the ban formed
a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) and said that since trade of food items
were unrestricted in adjoining towns and villages, hence there was "no substantial
harm caused to those engaged in such trade". Interestingly, the Court also cited
Article 51A which provides for the citizen's fundamental duties. The Court's
decision was based on the fact that these were pilgrimage places and that the ban
had been in existence for a long period, over 5 decades.

The term "interests of the general public" is very vague and covers a wide range of
interests, including sovereignty, dignity, public order, and morality. It is argued
that legislation or statutes enacted by the state government restricting citizens'
constitutional right to engage in any trade or enterprise must first pass the public
interest test. It means that any restrictions on professional freedom must be
detrimental to the general public's welfare. If a ban is enforced when exercising a
constitutional right, the state bears the burden of proof to show that the prohibition
is in the public's best interests. Otherwise, such a ban would be deemed an
arbitrary infringement on a constitutionally protected fundamental right.

The complete ban on cow slaughter, which has harmed the national interest by
impacting one segment of society's occupation and causing extreme chaos by
depriving a weaker section of the population of their basic right to food and
nutrition, has harmed the national interest. It is also not in the interest of the
public to send
17
useless cows to Gosadans, as it tortures animals and allows them to slow death
which is not at all beneficial to them. In fact, this is not in the interests of the
public. As a result, outlawing cow slaughter completely defeats the purpose of
Article 48 and robs butchers of their constitutional right to practice their trade.

Nevertheless, the slaughter of the cows and the calves may, however, affect the
religious sentiments of many Indican people but, where such a prohibition is not
imposed for the public interest but is only enacted for the sake of preserving,
respecting and holding the convictions, the fundamental freedom of trade and trade
is seen unreasonable. In Kesavanand Bharati v. State of Kerala, the court ruled that
the national interest takes precedence over the interests of a specific group of
people.

18
ISSUE2: WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF COMMUNITY 8X9
WERE VILOATED BY AMENDMENT ACT OF 1995?

The Hindu sentiment in favour of cow protection is old, widespread and deep-
seated and it has taken no time to rouse at this moment to a pitch when it is
difficult, if not impossible, to ignore it.
When the constitution was framed, it was framed keeping in mind that, the
fundamental rights, and directive principles of state policy go hand in hand. in
the State of Madras vs Smt. Champakam Dorairajan, 8The Directive Principles of
State Policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter on
Fundamental Rights.
Hence, while bringing the Directive Principle of State Policy which stated, <State
shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and
scientific line and shall take steps in particular for preserving and improving the
breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and
draught cattle.= might have involved a certain thought process by the makers of
the Constitution.

The Directive Principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution set out the aims
and objectives to be taken up by the states in the governance of the country. The
idea of welfare State envisaged by our constitution can only be achieved if the
States endeavour to implement them with a High sense of moral duty. The
Directives Principles are the ideals which the Union and State Governments must
keep in mid while they formulate policy or pass a law. They lay down certain
economic, social and political principles, suitable to peculiar conditions prevailing
in Indica.

19
In the Minerva Mills case (1980), 2the Supreme Court also held that 8the Indican
Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental
Rights and the Directive Principles. They together constitute the core of
commitment to social revolution. They are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less
than the other. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the
harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and balance between the two are an
essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. The goals set out by the
Directive Principles have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means
provided by the Fundamental Rights9. The goal set out in part IV of the
Constitution have to be achieved without abrogating the means provided for by
Part III.

Apart from possessing a Sentimental value within the Hindu9s and being
considered Holy and sacred, The state animal husbandry department said that the
cow, and its progeny were the backbone of Maharashtra's agrarian economy and to
protect it and also to prevent cruelty to animals the law was brought into effect.
The government also clarified that the ban was only on the slaughter of cows, bulls
and bullocks and the possession of flesh of these animals. ''There is no total ban on
import of meat or livestock. The only ban is for the possession of meat/flesh of
cow progeny within the state of Maharashtra and there cannot be trade or
commerce of meat/flesh of cow progeny. All other kind of meat including that of
buffalo is permitted to be possessed,''

Fundamental Rights, as the name suggests are one of the most important sources
for the protection and maintenance of human dignity and integrity, which also
contributes towards the development of the society as a whole. The Constitution
also

2
1980 AIR 1789
20
provides for enforcement of these rights hence they have legal value also which
empower a citizen to protect, respect and fulfil the rule of law. They uphold the
equality of all individuals, the dignity of the individual and the nation9s unity.

Fundamental rights are the basic human rights enshrined in the Constitution of
Indica which are guaranteed to all citizens. They are applied without discrimination
on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. Significantly, fundamental rights are
enforceable by the courts, subject to certain conditions.

Why are they called Fundamental Rights?

These rights are called fundamental rights because of two reasons:
1. They are enshrined in the Constitution which guarantees them
2. They are justiciable (enforceable by courts). In case of a violation, a person can
approach a court of law.

Some of the fundamental rights as the Republic of Indica suggests are

 the right to freedom of religion,
 freedom to carry on any trade, profession and business,
 right to life and personal liberty etc.

Freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Indican Constitution,

The preamble to the Constitution of Indica proclaimed Indica " secular democratic
republic". The word secular was inserted into the Preamble by the Forty-second
Amendment Act of 1976. It mandates equal treatment and tolerance of all
religions. Indica does not have an official state religion; it enshrines the right to
practice, preach, and propagate any religion. No religious instruction is imparted in
government-supported schools.
21
In S. R. Bommai vs. Union of Indica 3, the Supreme Court of Indica held that
secularism was an integral tenet of the Constitution.

Though it is strongly endorsed that state should not interfere into the food that a
person consumes, right to eat or right to eat beef however is not a fundamental
right. Even if Right to Food is considered a fundamental right, the Right to choice
of Food is still an exception. But Right to religion is a fundamental
right. So, respecting each other9s cultural heritage is also important.

Article 19(1)(g) of the Indican Constitution,

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat stated that the butchers
are free to slaughter other forms of cattle other than those mentioned in the Act and
it would not be violative of Article 19(1)(g).
<They can slaughter animals other than cow progeny and carry on their business
activity ... it is not necessary that the animal must be slaughtered to avail these
things (hides, skins, etc). The animal, whose slaughter has been prohibited, would
die a natural death even otherwise and in that case their hides, skins and other parts
of body would be available for trade and industrial activity.=

In Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab judgment on October 26, 2005, the seven-judge
bench by six to one majority said, <The ban is total with regard to the slaughter of
one particular class of cattle. The ban is not on the total activity of butchers
(kasais); they are left free to slaughter cattle other than those specified in the
(Gujarat) Act.

3
1994 AIR 1918

22
This however means that, the Butchers are free to carry out the trade business or
profession of their choice, but are subject to certain restrictions when it comes to
the present amendment.
Article 21 of the Indican Constitution:
<No person can be deprived of their right to life or liberty except according to the
procedure that has been established under law. <
Art. 21 refers to <right to life= and embodies several aspects of life including the
right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to legal aid, right to
pollution free air, right to health, right to food etc.
The exception provided under Article 21 which states that the liberty of an
individual can be restricted by the State as per the procedure established by law,
however this procedure also cannot be irrational, unconstitutional or arbitrary.

The reasonable restriction included in Article 21 is mostly neglected but holds a

paramount importance. The amendment to the Law of Maratha Animal
Preservation Act, is done in keeping in mind the interests of the society as a whole.
Article 25 only protect those practices which are integral parts of a religion. It is
the duty of the court to decide whether a practice is an essential practice or not
depending on the evidence formulated by the conscience of the community and the
tenets of the religion.

 Some of the religious practices which were held essential by the Court:
1. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar4: In one of the communities,
worshipping of an image or idol.

4
1958 AIR 731

23
2. In Sarwar Husain v. Addl. Judge: Community X offering prayers at a public
mosque.

 Some of the religious practices which were held not essential by the Court:
1. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar: The sacrifice of a cow in the X
religion.

Thus, even if, we shall look into the religious aspect of the community X the
essentiality of slaughtering of cows, bulls, bullocks do not constitute an essential
practice in the religion.

24
ISSUE3: WHETHER THE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 IS BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDICA? DOES IT AFFECT THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONSTITUTION?
The Directive Principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution set out the aims
and objectives to be taken up by the states in the governance of the country. The
idea of welfare State envisaged by our constitution can only be achieved if the
States endeavour to implement them with a High sense of moral duty. The
Directives Principles are the ideals which the Union and State Governments must
keep in mid while they formulate policy or pass a law. They lay down certain
economic, social and political principles, suitable to peculiar conditions prevailing
in Indica.

38(1)- provides that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by
securing and protecting as effectively as it aims, a social order in which justice-
social, economic and political- shall inform all the institutions of national life. The
Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 inserted clause (2) in Article 38. It
provides- The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in
income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and
opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people
residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations The State which
conferred Fundamental Rights also imposed certain Fundamental Duties to follow.
The fundamental duties, are, therefore, intended to serve as a constant reminder to
every citizen that while the constitution specifically conferred on them certain
fundamental rights, it also requires citizen school observe certain basic norms of
democratic conduct and democratic behaviour. The preamble emphasises the
duties, justice, social, economic and political.

In addition to this, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution are not
absolute rights. The state is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions and
curtail these rights in the interest of society. Restrictions may sometimes amount
to
25
prohibition. It was held in the case of Narendra v. Union of Indica (1960).
Fundamental duties are enshrined in Article 51-A.

As per Articles 51-A (f) to value and preserve the right heritage of our composite
culture, 51-A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creature., it is the duty
of every individual to value and preserve the heritage and show compassion to
living creatures. As cows9 calves, bulls and bullocks form the heritage of our
composite culture. So, it is the duty of individuals to preserve them and to show
compassion for them The State which conferred Fundamental Rights also imposed
certain Fundamental Duties to follow.

The fundamental duties, are, Therefore, intended to serve as a constant reminder to

every citizen that while the constitution specifically conferred on them certain
fundamental rights, it also requires citizen school observe certain basic norms of
democratic conduct and democratic behaviour. The preamble emphasises the
duties, justice, social, economic and political. In addition to this, the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the constitution are not absolute rights. The state is
empowered to impose reasonable restrictions and curtail these rights in the interest
of society. Restrictions may sometimes amount to prohibition. It was held in the
case of Narendra v. Union of Indica (1960). They are enshrined in Article 51-A. As
per Articles 51-A (f) to value and preserve the right heritage of our composite
culture, 51-A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creature., it is the duty
of every individual to value and preserve the heritage and show compassion to
living creatures.

26
1. As cows calves, bulls and bullocks form the heritage of our composite culture.

2. So it is the duty of individuals to preserve them and to show compassion for them

In State of Gujarat v. Mirazpur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, the petitioners who
were butchers, had challenged the constitutional validity of the Bombay animal
(preservation of Gujarat) Act, 1994 on the ground that it was violative of their
fundamental right to carry on trade and business under article 19 1 (g) of the
Constitution. Under the above legislation the Gujarat state had imposed a total ban
on the slaughter of cows and calves and its progeny. The 7 Judge Constitutional
Bench of the Supreme Court by 6-1 majority, following its number of decisions
held that directive principles are relevant in considering the reasonability of
restrictions imposed on fundamental rights it is a constitutional mandate under
article 37 of the constitution which provides that in making laws the state shall
apply the directive principles. Restriction placed on fundamental rights will be held
to be reasonable and hence valid subject only two limitations.

1. It does not conflict with the fundamental rights and

2. The concerned legislature is competent to enact it. The court held that the
prohibition does not amount to a total ban on business activity of butchers. They
are left free to slaughter cattle other than those specified in the act and carry on
their business activity. The banning is not a prohibition but only a restriction. Only
a part of their activity has been prohibited.

The cow and her progeny constituted the backbone of Indican Agriculture and rural
economy as the cattle products and drought animal power in the field of nutrition
and health, agriculture and energy. In view of this the government felt that it is
necessary to formulate measures for their development in all possible way as to
prevent their slaughter. The ban on slaughter of cow progeny imposed by the Act
is,

27
Therefore, In the interest of general public within the meaning of clause (6) of the
Article 19 of the constitution. By virtue of these provisions and case it is contended
that Act is Constitutionally valid.

28
ISSUE4: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS SHOULD BE MADE
LIABLE UNDER 429IPC?
Sec. 429 is defined under the IPC as 3

Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value
of fifty rupees-

Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless,

any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever maybe the
value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years,
or with fine, or both.

The offence under this section is a cognizable offence and could be tried by any
Ld. JMFC.

Certain Directive Principles of State Policy, although not enforceable in the Court
of Law, are looked into while formulating any policy and enacting any law. One
very important Directive laid down by the Constitution of Indica states that the
<State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and
scientific line and shall take steps in particular for preserving and improving the
breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and
draught cattle.=

This Directive is essentially added in the Constitution of Indica to protect the

religious sentiments of the majority Hindu citizens. And the onus to do so lies
unconditionally and thoroughly on the state. The State has also laid down some
fundamental duties for its citizens that include protection and improvement of the

29
environment and having compassion for living creatures. These fundamental duties
are included in art. 51(A) of the Constitution.

Various laws were enacted for the protection of Cows. These laws are enforceable
in the in the Court of Law.

The State of Indica is a Hindu dominated State. Hindus do not consume beef.
Whereas on the other hand community 8X9 consumes beef. This is hurtful towards
the religious sentiments of the Hindu majority citizens. Cow is a holy animal and is
worshipped by the Hindu Citizens in the State of Indica and it is the state9s
responsibility to uphold and protect the sentiments of the Hindu citizens.

Hence, under the substantive laws laid down by the legislature of the state of
Indica, persons slaughtering and consuming beef can be made liable.

The Maharashtra animal preservation act, 1976 along with the amendment of 1995
lays down sections and punishment pertaining to the transport, export, import,
slaughter, possession and consumption of cow meat along with other cattle.

The petitioner under this section community 8X9 is liable under sections 5, 5(B)
and 5(C) of the Maharashtra animal preservation Act, 1976.

Sec. 5 - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force or any usage or custom to the contrary no person shall slaughter or cause to
be slaughtered or offer for slaughter any cow 6[bull or bullock], in any place in the
State of Maharashtra.

5B. No person shall purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase,

seller 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.

30
5C. 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.

Moreover, The Allahabad high court recently states that eating beef can't be a
"fundamental right" and that the cow should be declared a "national animal", amid
alleged incidents of lynching of cattle traders in different parts of the country. A
single judge bench headed by Justice Shekhar Yadav made the observations on
Wednesday while declining bail to a Muslim man, who was accused of
slaughtering a cow in Sambhal district in Uttar Pradesh in February this year.
"Fundamental right is not a special right for beef eaters. Those who worship the
cows and are dependent on them also have a right to life. Eating beef can never be
a fundamental right. The right to life cannot be snatched just because someone
finds something tasty," the court said.

A certain community9s religious sentiments cannot be compromised due to mere

8eating habits9 of a certain minority community.

31
 PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited,

council humbly requests this Hon9ble Court that it may be pleased to:

1. Reject the petition filed by the Petitioner;

2. And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may
deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice, Fairness, Equity and
Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

32