CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NEW DELHI

Case Concerning
The Constitution of India

MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI & OTHERS

(Appellant)

Vs.

STATE OF BIHAR
(Respondent)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
ROHIT DONGRE

SUBMITTED BY:
ROLL NO- 132
BATCH-XIII

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 1

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………........................
 Judicial Decisions…………………………………………………………………….…03
 Statutes and other authorities……………………………………………….…………03
 Books……………………………………………………………………………….……03
 Dictionaries…………………………………………………………………….………..03
 Websites…………………………………………………………………………….…...03
ABBREVIATIONS…...………………………………………………………….……………....…04
STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................................................................05
QUESTIONS PRESENTED................................................................................................................06
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................................07
__________________________________________________________________
___________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSION………………………………………………………….…...……..08-17
______________________________________________________________________________

PRAYER FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………………………18

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 2

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

National Judgments

1. State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashutosh Lahiri

2. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay
3. Usmanbhai Hassanbhai Qureshi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
4. Ram Singh v. The State of Delhi
5. A. K. Gopalan v. The State
6. Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI

STATUTORY AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. The Constitution of India , P.M Bakshi

BOOKS
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , P.M. BAKSHI

2. V.N SHUKLA

3. M.P JAIN

DICTIONARIES
1. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (West Group Publishers, 2002)
2. THE LAW LEXICON, BAKSHI, P. M., Ashoka Law House, New Delhi.

WEBSITES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.indiankanoon.com
3. www.wikipedia.com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 3

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.C…………………………………………………………………………………...Appeal Cases
AIR……………………………………………………………………………..All India Reporter
Ed...…………………………………………………………………………………………Edition
LJ……………………………………………………………………………………...Law Journal
LR……………………………………………………………………………...………Law Report
No………………………………………………………………………………………….Number
Ors…………………………………………………………………………………………..Others
P……………………………………………………………………………………..Page Number
QB………………………………………………………………………………..….Queens Bench
SC………………………………………………………………………………….Supreme Court
v……………………………………………………………………………………………..versus
Vol…………………………………………………………………………………………Volume
www……………………………………………………………………………...world wide web
U.P…………………………………………………………………..........................Uttar Pradesh
M.P……………………………………………………………………………….Madhya Pradesh

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 4

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The States of Bihar, UP MP, enacted the following Acts, to ban slaughter of
animals, under Article 48; that is directive Principles of State Policy, of The Indian
Constitution.

2. The Petitioner claim that their Fundamental Rights have been violated under
Article 14, 19(1) g and 25 and have challenged the Constitutional Validity of the
said Impugned Acts. Due to which the following petition arises.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 5

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

ISSUES

 Whether the Fundamental Rights of the Apellant have been violated by

the three impugned Acts?
 Whether the Slaughter of Cow should be prohibited or not and the three
impugned Acts are valid or not?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 6

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

 Whether the Fundamental Rights of the Apellant have been violated by

the Three Impugned Acts?
The Fundamentals Rights of the petitioner are not violated under Articles, by
the three Impugned Acts.

 Whether the Slaughter of Cow should be prohibited or not and the three
Impugned Acts are Valid or not?

The Slaughter of Cow should be prohibited, because the Cattle is the backbone
of Indian Agriculture, who consider Cow as a Goddess. The three acts enacted
by the States, are valid, and have been enacted under Article 48 of The
Constitution of India.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 7

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CONTENTION NO-1

 Whether the Fundamental Rights of the Apellant have been Violated by

the three Impugned acts?
Article 251 is as follows
Freedom 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, practise and propagate 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.

1
Right to Freedom of Religion

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 8

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

If these people say that by the Following Acts they would not be able to Sacrifice a
cow on Bakri Id day. Let me tell the counsel of the appellant that no where it is
mentioned in the Holy Quran that sacrificing a Cow on Bakri Id day is compulsion,
it is just that group of people who were Muslim started sacrificing Cow on Bakri Id
,and it started a trend and people sacrifice it. As seen by the records there are many
Muslims who do not Sacrifice a Cow on Bakri Id day, its not necessary that if you
are Muslim so you need to Sacrifice a Cow or Goat. Some of the Muslims don’t
even sacrifice cow on BakrI’d day, In State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashutosh
Lahiri2, this Court has noted that sacrifice of any animal by Muslims for the
religious purpose on BakrI'd does not include slaughtering of cow as the only way
of carrying out that sacrifice. Slaughtering of cow on BakrI'd is neither essential to
nor necessarily required as part of the religious ceremony. An optional religious
practice is not covered by Article 25(1). On the contrary, it is common knowledge
that cow and its progeny, i.e., bull, bullocks and calves are worshipped by Hindus
on specified days during Diwali and other festivals like Makr-Sankranti . These
acts just sets a restriction and control to protect the Cow and its progeny. In Ratilal
Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay3 the court had held that the second
clause of the article 25, does not prevent state from making laws or affect existing
laws. Hence the article 25 is not violated by the Impugned Acts. If the Muslims are
not willing to agree, then they should start sacrificing Pig or other animal on Bakri
id day or stop slaughtering cow.

Article 144 -Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

2
AIR1995SC464,
3
[1954]1SCR1055
4
Right to Equality

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 9

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

The apellant claim denial of equal protection of law, that only the Butchers
(Kasais) will be affected by occupation and they sell beef. The impugned acts only
affect Muslim butchers who kill cattle but not others who kill goats and sheep and
who sell goat’s meat and mutton.
Only small group of people are affected as in case of occupation, it is not
necessary that if you are into one kind of profession, so you cant opt for another
kind of occupation, there are always options for individual to do things in this
world. The three impugned acts only ban Slaughter of Cows and ban Slaughter of
Bull or Bullock after 15 years of age they say that the Muslims can slaughter after
a certain age, so the Muslims should agree with the said acts. No one is denied
before law, and in this case, not slaughtering a cow, bull, bullock or buffalo it is a
mere restriction, because Indian agriculture is totally dependent on the Indian
cattle, and therefore the steps taken by the state under Article 48, that is Directive
Principles of State Policy , which says that the state should take steps to prohibit
slaughter of animals, and therefore the following acts made under this article, that
is The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1955, by state of
Bihar, The Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959, by MP,
The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, by State of UP have
come into place. In Haji Usmanbhai Hassanbhai Qureshi and Ors. v. State of
Gujarat5, constitutional validity of the Bombay Act as amended by Gujarat Act 16
of 1961, was challenged under article 14, the court held that buffaloes and their
progeny, on the one hand and cows and their progeny, on the other hand constitute
two different classes and their being treated differently does not amount to hostile
discrimination.

5
[1986]2SCR719

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 10

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

Article 19 (1) g6 , talks about

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All citizens
shall have the right—
(a) To freedom of speech and expression;
(b) To assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) To form associations or unions;
(d) To move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(g) To practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

As per the filed petition, 19 (1) g is considered to be violated, when can we say that
the article 19(1) g has been violated
"If there is a legislation directly attempting to control a citizen's freedom of speech
of expression, or his right to assemble peaceably and without arms, etc., the
question whether that legislation is saved by the relevant saving clause of Article
19 will arise.
It can be said that it is not violated only if
If, however, the legislation is not directly in respect of any of these subjects, but as
a result of the operation of other legislation, for instance, for punitive or preventive
detention, his right under any of these sub-clauses is abridged, the question of the
application of Article 19 does not arise.

6
Right to freedom of speech and expression

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 11

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

The apellant indicate that any of the impugned acts has the effect of completely
stopping the business. For example

Take the case of piece-goods merchants. Some may deal in country made piece-
goods and others may import and sell piece-goods manufactured, say, in England
or Japan. Some may deal in dhotis and saries and others may confine their
activities to the purchase and sale of long cloth or other varieties of piece-goods.
They are, however, all piece-goods merchants. Suppose in the interest in our
indigenous textile industry and to protect the best interests of the general public it
becomes necessary to stop the import of foreign cloth altogether. Such stoppage
will not prevent any cloth merchant from carrying on his trade or business as cloth
merchant, for he can still deal in cloth and piece-goods manufactured in India. Will
any piece-goods merchant, whose business was only to import foreign piece-goods
for sale in India, be heard to complain that the stoppage of import of foreign cloth
has completely prevented him from carrying on business as a piece goods
merchant and, therefore, such stoppage of import of foreign cloth being more than
a mere restriction violates his fundamental right under Art. 19(1) (g) ?

Suppose the State in the interest of Khadi and cottage industries imposes a ban on
the manufacture or sale of cloth of a very fine count, will a merchant who deals
only in fine cloth be entitled to say that as he deals only in fine cloth, the ban has
completely prohibited the carrying on of his business ? The truth of the matter, is
that the ban on the import of foreign cloth or on the manufacture of cloth of very
fine count is only a restriction imposed on the piece-goods business, for the ban
affects one or more of the segments of that business but leaves the other segments
untouched.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 12

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

In Ram Singh v. The State of Delhi7, the petitioner had held that their rights under
article 19(1) were violated due to Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the court held
It was, therefore, considered that the primary and direct object of the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950, being, inter alia, to secure the security of the State and
maintenance of law and order, its impact on the fundamental rights was indirect
and, therefore, the Act could not be challenged for breach of the fundamental rights
under Art. 19(1).
In A. K. Gopalan v. The State8, again the petitioner had filed petition regarding
violation of fundamental rights due to impugned acts, the court held the impugned
acts valid, and therefore dismissed the petition.
In Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI9), a large
section of traders were completely prohibited from carrying on their normal trade
in forward contacts. The restriction was held to be reasonable as cotton, being a
commodity essential to the life of the community, and therefore such a total
prohibition was held to be permissible.

So even if it affects the butchers, the butchers are left with other option, that is to
profess other business or occupation, in some other segment, or to slaughter
some other animal on Bakri Id day other than cow or stop slaughtering cow.
The said acts don’t violate the fundamental rights under article 14,19 (1) g
and 25.

7
1951]2SCR451
8
1950CriLJ1383
9
AIR1954SC634

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 13

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

CONTENTION NO-2

 Whether the slaughter of cow should be prohibited or not, and the three
impugned acts are valid or not?

The cow is considered as a sacred animal in Hinduism, the largest religion in the
country. Dairy products are extensively used in Hindu culture and are one of the
most essential nutritional components of Hindu meals.

Ashoka, emperor of the Maurya Empire who ruled almost allof the Indian
subcontinent, prohibited slaughter of cattle, and oxen was killed for food even
later. According to legend, Chola King Manu Needhi Cholan killed his own son to
provide justice to a cow. The king hung a giant bell in front of his courtroom for
anyone needing justice to ring. One day, he came out on hearing the ringing of the
bell by a cow. Upon inquiry he found that the calf of that cow was killed under the
wheels of his son's chariot. In order to provide justice to the cow, he killed his own
son Veedhividangan the same way he killed the calf. Impressed by the king's
actions, Lord Shiva blessed him and brought the calf and his son back to life
During Maratha and Mughal period also cow slaughter was banned, Babur, the
first Mughal ruler was also in favour to ban slaughter of cow. Nawab Hyder Ali of
Mysore made cow slaughter an offence punishable with the cutting of the hands of
the offenders.
In the agricultural sector, use of animals for milch, draught, breeding or
agricultural purposes has great importance. It has, therefore, become necessary to
emphasise preservation and protection of agricultural animals like bulls and
bullocks and cows .With the growing adoption of non-conventional energy sources
like bio-gas plants, even waste material have come to assume considerable value.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 14

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

Hence cow slaughter should be prohibited.

Several State Governments and Union Territories (UTs) have enacted cattle
preservation laws in one form or the other. Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Lakshadweep have no legislation. All other
states/UTs have enacted legislation to prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny.
Kerala is a major consumer of beef and has no regulation on the slaughter of cow
and its progeny.
So if the appellant wants to slaughter cow, even after restrictions from the state. He
may reside in that states where it is slaughtered.

Article 48- Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.—The State shall

endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific
lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds,
and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught
cattle.

The following are the three impugned acts-

THE BIHAR PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF ANIMALS ACT,
1955

Bull – Uncastrated male of above 3 years.

Bullock - Castrated male of above 3 years.
Calf - Male or female below 3 years.
Cow - Female above 3 years.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 15

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

Ban on Slaughter:
Slaughter of cow and calf totally prohibited
Slaughter of bull or bullock of over 15 years of age or has become permanently
incapacitated for work or breeding due to injury, deformity or any incurable
disease.

THE UTTAR PRADESH PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1955

Definitions:
‘Beef’ means flesh of cow and of such bull or bullock whose slaughter is
prohibited under the Act, but does not include such flesh contained in sealed
containers and imported into U.P.
‘Cow’ includes a heifer and calf.

Ban on Slaughter:
Slaughter of cow totally prohibited.
Slaughter of bull or bullock permitted on ‘fit-for-slaughter’ certificate provided it
is over the age of 15 years or has become permanently unfit for breeding, draught
and any agricultural operations.
Transport of cow outside the State not permitted for slaughter.
Prohibition on sale of beef.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 16

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

THE MADHYA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL CATTLE PRESERVATION

ACT, 1959.

Definitions:
Agricultural cattle means cows of all ages, calves of cows, bull, bullocks and all
buffaloes.

Ban on Slaughter:
Slaughter of cow, calf of cow, bull, bullock and buffalo calf prohibited.
However, bulls and bullocks are being slaughtered in the light of Supreme Court
judgement, provided the cattle is over 15 years or has become unfit for work or
breeding.
Transport or export for slaughter not permitted.
Export for any purpose to another State where cow slaughter is not banned by law
is not permitted.
Sale, purchase, disposal of cow and its progeny and possession of flesh of cattle is
prohibited.

All the three acts only prohibit slaughter of cow , but allow bull and bullock above
15 years of age , the acts here just set a restriction, if Muslims still want to
slaughter cow , they should go in that states where it is slaughtered, and regarding
bull they should wait for bull or bullock to be more than 15 years, or slaughter it in
some other state, where it is not being prohibited. Cattle is important for Indian
agriculture and needs to be protected, so in view of theses facts, the acts have come
into place, and hence the acts are not void, but valid.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 17

 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

a) As the three impugned acts did not violate the fundamental rights of the
appellant under article 14,19(1) g, and 25.
b) The three impugned acts are valid.
c) Cow slaughter should be prohibited, and slaughter of bull and bullock after
15 years.

Hence it must set aside the earlier decision or pass any other further order(s), as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity,
justice and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Place: New Delhi Rohit Dongre

Date: 2nd September, 2014 (On behalf of the Respondent)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 18