IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION]

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. ___381________of 2010

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

International Organization for Animal Protection, through

Sh. Naresh Kadyan, India Representative,             … Petitioner

                                               

//Versus// 

Union of India & Ors.                                      …Respondent

                                   

                

                                         

                I. A.         _______ 2010,

                        (Stay Application)

                                         

                                         PAPER BOOK

                (FOR DETAILED INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

[ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:-  ]        ]

                       

                   INDEX

Serial No

   Particular of Documents  

Page  Nos.

1.

Listing Performa

A to

2.

List of Dates

 to  

3.

Writ Petition (Civil) with affidavits

4.

ANNEXURE-P/1::  Order Dt. 16/11     / 1994

5.

Affidavit of Urgency.

**************

               


LISTING PROFORMA

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1.   Nature of the Matter                         :  Civil

2.   Name(s) of Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) :   Naresh Kadyan

3.   Name(s) of Respondent(s)               (1) Union of India.

2) The State of West Bengal

(3) The State of Kerala

(4) The State of Maharashtra

(5) The State of Sikkim

4.   Number of case          W.P.(C) No. ………381……… of 2010

5.   Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s)                  :    

6.   Advocate(s) for Respondent(s)         :  …NA…………………………

7.   Section dealing with the matter         :    Article 32 of Constitution of India

8.   Date of the impugned Order/Judge         :                1994

8A. Name of Hon'ble Judges          

8B. In Land Acquisition Matters:-

      (i)   Notification/Govt. Order No. (U/s.4,6)            :  N.A.

           Dated …………. issued by State

    (ii)   Exact purpose of acquisition & village involved :  N.A.

8C.  In Civil Matters:-

       (i)  Suit No., Name of Lower Court                           :  N.A.

       (ii) Date of Judgement                                   :  N.A.

8D.  In Writ Petitions                                          :  N.A.

8E.  In case of Motor Vehicle Accident Matter:  

       Vehicle No.                                                       :  N.A.

8F.  In Service Matters:

       (i)  Relevant service rule, if any                                   :  N.A.

       (ii) G.O./Circular/Notification, if applicable or in question :   N.A.

8G.  In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters:        I.D. Reference/Award No., if applicable                    :  N.A.

9.    Nature of Urgency                                           :  yes

10.  In case it is a tax matter:

       (a)   Tax amount involved in the matter                    :  N.A.

       (b)         Whether a reference/statement of the case was called for or rejected                                           :  N.A.

      (c)    Whether similar tax matters of same parties filed earlier (may be for earlier/other Assessment Year)? :  N.A.

      (d)    Exemption Notification/Circular No. ………………………………………

11.  Valuation of the matter                                  :  N.A.

12.  Classification of the matter:  Writ Petition (c)

       (Please fill up the number & name of relevant category with sub category as per the list circulated)

       No. of Subject Category with full name                         :  N.A.

        No. of sub- category with full name                             :  N.A.

13.  Title of the Act involved (Centre/State)                :  

14.  (a)  Sub-Classification (indicate Section/Article of the Status)    :: N.A.

       (b)  Sub-Section involved                                           : N.A.  

       (c)  Title of the Rules involved (Centre/State)                   :  N.A.

       (d)  Sub-Classification (indicate Rule/Sub-rule of the Statute)  :N.A.

15.          Point of law and question of law raised in the case :

 16.  Whether matter is not to be listed before any Hon'ble Judge?

       Mention the name of the Hon'ble Judge    :  N.A.

17.  Particulars of identical/similar cases, if any

       a)  Pending cases                                 :  N.A.

       b)  Decided cases with citation                 :  N.A.

18.         Whether the petition is against interlocutory/final order/decree in the case                                         : Final judgment

  and Order.

19.          If it is a fresh matter, please state the name of the High Court and the Coram in the Impugned Judgement/Order:

       

20.  If the matter was already listed in this Court:

       a)  When was it listed?                            :  N.A.

       b)  What was the Coram?                           :  N.A.

       c)  What was the direction of the Court         :  N.A.

21.         Whether a date has already been fixed either by Court or on being mentioned, for the hearing of matter? If so, please indicate the date fixed.                          :  N.A.

22.  Is there a caveator? If so, whether a notice has been issued to him?                                                                           :  N.A.

23.  Whether date entered in the Computer?                 :   N.A.

24.  If it is a criminal matter, please state:

       a)   Whether accused has surrendered                 :   N.A.

       b)   Nature of Offence, i.e. Convicted under Section with Act

       c)   Sentence awarded                                 :   N.A.

24.  d)   Sentence already undergone by the accused.

      e)  (i)   FIR/RC/etc.                                            :   N.A.

                Date of Registration of FIR etc.                 :   N.A.

                 Name & place of the Police Station                 :   N.A.

          (ii)  Name & Place of Trial Court                   :   N.A.

                 Case No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgement ::   N.A.

          (iii)  Name and Place of 1st Appellate Court              :   N.A.

                 Case No. in 1st Appellate Court & date of Judgement    :   N.A.      

Advocate for Petitioner(s)

Date :  13. 11..2010

                             

SYNOPSIS  and LIST OF DATES

The present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks to obtain from this Hon’ble Court relief against the continued permissibility of cow-slaughter by Respondent No.2 to 4 as violative of their fundamental right the Constitution and obtain appropriate directions/orders/or a writ of mandamus including writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents herein to take effective executive and/or legislative steps including, if necessary, to bring about requisite institutional amendment entitling the Respondent No.1 to enact necessary  legislation and exercise consequent executive power, to bring about a total ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny in solemn discharge of their mandatory duty and obligation under the provision of Constitution of India and in view of the solemn promises made form time to time by Respondent No.1 inside and outside the parliament.

  1. That, the Respondents are the constitutional organs exercising legislative and executive functions and powers as specified by the Constitution of India under which they are invested with a solemn obligatory, positive and non-optional public duty to take appropriate legislative and/or executive measures for ensuring that no trade, business or occupation is allowed to develop or continue so as to be determental to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen of India and/or not to undertake directly either by any or all of them or indirectly by granting permission to undertake may activity by one section of the Indian people as to result in taking away or abridging the fundamental rights guaranteed to other section of the Indian citizens.
  2. That, since the beginning of the Hindu religion in hoary past when the Vedic Samhitas were compiled recording its fundamental tenets, the word ‘cow’ has always been used and understood in a comprehensive and generic sense and includes within its scope and admit the female cow as also bulls and bullocks and in fact the entire progeny of the cow. The cow, understood in this wide and generic sense, has been accorded a prominent position by the religion of the petitioners as compared with its position in other religious and also with regard to other domesticated animals in the Hindu Society itself. It is treated as inviolable and un-killable and a paramount religious duty is cast on every Hindu to protect a cow from being done to unnatural and premature death by anybody industries the one not belonging to the Hindu religion. To the ancient Indian cow was never an economic commodity but a divine entity, which, by its grace, showers material and spiritual benefits and wealth on its votaries. Hence the long historical tradition of India has never included cow as falling under a mercantile commodity with respect to which right to slaughter can be claimed as a trade, business or occupation. The cow is an integral, inservrable and fundamental part of the Hindu religion and its cites from the time immemorial and the Vedas, the oldest extent written record of the human race, merely record the spiritual and religious significance of cow to the Hindus. Thus being an integral part of the Hindu religion and enjoying a divine status therein, cow forms a class by itself for the protection of which express injunctions have been made through out the religious literature of the Hindu casting a heavy, imperative and paramount duty on them to protect it form slaughtered or killed or even maltreated.
  3. That, the indirect promotion of cow slaughter as a means of a trade, business or occupation in beef and other items obtained from a slaughtered cow during the British rule in British India was adopted by the alien, imperialistic and ambitious people with a view not only to undermine and subvert the religious sentiments of the Hindu people but also as a part of their deliberate policy to destroy the very basic of their economic, social, cultural, religious and philosophical life as well as of a spiritual foundation of an ancient and peace loving sub-continent which was both alluring and disconcerting to them. It is pertinent that the British were concerned to convert India into a market for their industrial product and for this purpose systematically struck at the very root of the Indian economic system and structure which revolved round the cow, bulls and bullock. It is also important to submit that British tried to make WALL between two major religious group Hindu and Muslim through cow, while cow has its religious, economic and scientific values among Hindu, Muslim and other millions of Indians.
  4. That, even the concept of secularise as enshrined in the Indian Constitution is founded on the age old Indian tradition of equal respect to all religion and the essential unity and indivisibility of human kind and of apparently separate religions. In order to transform this concepts of secularism into a living organism permeating the body politic of India and upon the foundation of which to build a truly multi-religious society which is informed with a unifying outlook, attitude and goal and which genuinely understands and respects the deep-rooted religious sentiments and spiritual ideals and vision, goal and aspiration, methods and means of their realization of each of the sections comprising it, requites that merely temporal affairs are separated from a community’s genuinely fundamental religious tenets and beliefs and affairs and adjust the former with the religion tenets, faith , sentiments, ideals and beliefs of another community in such a manner as never to permit the temporal to hurt, violate and disregard the activities and affairs which are undertaken in the course of discharging the peremptory religious injunctions for the realisation of their religious goal. Indian concept of secularism requires even to curb such temporal affairs and beliefs if they are antagonistic and opposed to and irreconcilable with the fundamental concepts and valves and injunctions of another religion. They submit that secularism in India and the inherent requirement for its due and proper observance and regard thereto render it incumbent and obligatory on the part of the respondents to take all the necessary and appropriate legislative and executive measures so as to balance the competing interests of various religious communities which arise from the diversity of their belief and to curb those temporal affairs and practice which are though permissible under their respective religion in conflict with and derogatory and antagonistic to the fundamental and inservrable religious tenets, beliefs and injunctions of other religious. The petitioner further submits that only such al policy on the part of the Indian States of which the respondents are integral parts, is conducive to the effective realisation of the Indian concept of secularism and is efficacious in protecting the fundament right guaranteed by Article 25 of Constitution of India to a person if it is violated or is in danger of violation by any activity which may be merely permissible by but not an essential, inseverable, integral and fundamental part of religion of another.
  5. That, this Hon’ble Court has laid down the law in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case in the following proposition;
  1. That a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male, female, in quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive  principles laid down in Article 48.
  2. that a total ban on the slaughter of the buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle’s as well as buffalo) as long as they are milk or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid; and
  3. that a total ban on the slaughter of she buffalo after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or breading or working as draught animals not be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

The law thus laid down by this Hon’ble Court and followed by it in the later cases being the law of the land, the aforesaid judgement in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case operates as disability on the part of the State including the respondents to enact a valid legislation prohibiting completely the slaughter of cow and its progeny even through  its continued slaughter violates the fundamental right to Hindu.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has conform that the slaughter of cow is violate the fundamental right to Hindus in State of West Bangal Vs Ashutosh Lahiri .  

As Annexure P1.              

        Hence this Petition.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO……381…….OF 2010

                                                 

IN THE MATTER OF:                     

International Organization for Animal Protection, through

 Naresh Kadyan, India Representative,

-38, Rose Apartment, Prashant Vihar,  

Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi                                          -Petitioner

VERSUS

                                                                                        

(1) Union of India

Through the Secretary

Ministry of Home

Government of India

New Delhi

(2) The State of West Bengal

Through Chief Secretary

Government of West Bengal

Calcutta

(3) The State of Kerala

Through Chief Secretary

Government of Kerara

Trivendrum

(4) The State of Maharashtra

Through Chief Secretary

Government of Maharashtra

Mumbai

(5) The State of Sikkim

Through Chief Secretary

Government of Sikkim

Gangtok

                        

                                                                 -Respondents

In the matter of :

Article 13, 14, 15(1), 25, 38(10, 47, 48, 51A, 246, 259(10, 252 and

368 of the Constitution of India.

And

In the matter of :

Right of the Indian Citizen for the protection of Cow i.e. the holy creature for the Indian society and most useful animal for the all human being.

And

In the matter of :

The Mandatory Non-optional duty of the Indian States to impose as absolute and complete ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny.

And

In the matter of :

The non-application of Art.19(1) (g) of the constitution of India to the trade, business or occupation and/or the practice, usage or custom of trade relating to slaughter of cows special in the occasion of Eid-ul-Zuha popularly known as Baqar Eid.

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

    And his Companion Justices of the  

Supreme Court of India.

                                The humble petition of the

                                Petitioners above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

  1. This, the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks to obtain from this Hon’ble Court relief against the continued permissibility of cow-slaughter by Respondent No.2 to 5 as violative of their fundamental right the Constitution and obtain appropriate directions/orders/or a writ of mandamus including writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents herein to take effective executive and/or legislative steps including, if necessary, to bring about requisite institutional amendment entitling the Respondent No.1 to enact necessary legislation and exercise consequent executive power, to bring about a total ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny in solemn discharge of their mandatory duty and obligation under the provision of Constitution of India and in view of the solemn promises made form time to time by Respondent No.1 inside and outside the parliament.
  2. That, the Petitioner is a citizen and inhabitant of India and  representative of OIPA in India. Campaigning on Internet via online petitions to get administrative orders from concerned authorities and this campaign was followed by the International communities Worldwide.  
  3. That the  OIPA - International Organization for Animal Protection, is an International Confederation of associations (today, 170) for the animal protection and for the defence of animal rights all over the world. Founded in 1981 by Milly Shar Manzoli, OIPA is a Non Governmental Organisation associated to the UN Department of Public Information since 1992. The purpose of the Organization consists in the defence of animal rights and in the defence of the animals from every kind of mistreatment. It also follows the purpose of improving the public health through the abolishment of any kind of animal experiments throughout the world. The Organization wants to bring its contribute for a better, a healthier and a more human world, for a medical science that is not based on violence, for a more efficient sanitarian structure, for an ecologically clean environment. Animals need help from all of us.
  4. That the Petitioner is compiled a book on animal related laws in Hindi & its next version in English is under print, running ambulance & shelter for animals in distress, as many as 40 PIL's like opposition of Elephant polo, wild life trophies , misuse of oxytocin injections on milking animals, cruel illegal animal transportation, misuse of langur,  infirmaries, appointment of Lokpal in Haryana, Human Rights Commission for Haryana, Unbranded eatables, Satluz Yamuna Link canal etc.
  5. Petitioner is the  founder chairman of People For Animals  Haryana, (Registered with Haryana Government and recognised by the Animal Welfare Board of India - AWBI) and also Convener of the Rastriya Pashu Pakshi Raksha Adhikar Samiti, which is set up with in Sarvdeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha ( World Council of Arya Samaj ). The Petitioner  is working for the animal’s welfare for last one and half decades and also having the national records of FIR of cruelty against the animals. The Petitioner also endeavour to remove the social ills and inequality which have creped into the Indian Society and its fabric in the course of the long periods of subjugation by alien and unsympathetic rulers and again raise their religion to the pristine glory which it owned had. The petitioner submits that in so doing they are also performing their fundamental duties imposed upon them by the Constitution. He has lodged two FIR’s against cattle ( cow ) transportation through special trains : on 10-12-2000 with GRP, Faridabad and on 28-12-2000 with GRP, Gaziabad.

 

  1. That the Petitioner also endeavour to remove the social ills and inequality which have creped into the Indian Society and its fabric in the course of the long periods of subjugation by alien and unsympathetic rulers and again raise their religion to the pristine glory which it owned had. The petitioner submits that in so doing they are also performing their fundamental duties imposed upon them by the Constitution.
  2. That, the Respondents are the constitutional organs exercising legislative and executive functions and powers as specified by the Constitution of India under which they are invested with a solemn obligatory, positive and non-optional public duty to take appropriate legislative and/or executive measures for ensuring that no trade, business or occupation is allowed to develop or continue so as to be determental to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen of India and/or not to undertake directly either by any or all of them or indirectly by granting permission to undertake may activity by one section of the Indian people as to result in taking away or abridging the fundamental rights guaranteed to other section of the Indian citizens.
  3. That, since the beginning of the Hindu religion in hoary past when the Vedic Samhitas were compiled recording its fundamental tenets, the word ‘cow’ has always been used and understood in a comprehensive and generic sense and includes within its scope and admit the female cow as also bulls and bullocks and in fact the entire progeny of the cow. The cow, understood in this wide and generic sense, has been accorded a prominent position by the religion of the petitioners as compared with its position in other religious and also with regard to other domesticated animals in the Hindu Society itself. It is treated as inviolable and un-killable and a paramount religious duty is cast on every Hindu to protect a cow from being done to unnatural and premature death by anybody industries the one not belonging to the Hindu religion. To the ancient Indian cow was never an economic commodity but a divine entity, which, by its grace, showers material and spiritual benefits and wealth on its votaries. Hence the long historical tradition of India has never included cow as falling under a mercantile commodity with respect to which right to slaughter can be claimed as a trade, business or occupation. The cow is an integral, inservrable and fundamental part of the Hindu religion and its cites from the time immemorial and the Vedas, the oldest extent written record of the human race, merely record the spiritual and religious significance of cow to the Hindus. Thus being an integral part of the Hindu religion and enjoying a divine status therein, cow forms a class by itself for the protection of which express injunctions have been made through out the religious literature of the Hindu casting a heavy, imperative and paramount duty on them to protect it form slaughtered or killed or even maltreated.
  4. That, the indirect promotion of cow slaughter as a means of a trade, business or occupation in beef and other items obtained from a slaughtered cow during the British rule in British India was adopted by the alien, imperialistic and ambitious people with a view not only to undermine and subvert the religious sentiments of the Hindu people but also as a part of their deliberate policy to destroy the very basic of their economic, social, cultural, religious and philosophical life as well as of a spiritual foundation of an ancient and peace loving sub-continent which was both alluring and disconcerting to them. It is pertinent that the British were concerned to convert India into a market for their industrial product and for this purpose systematically struck at the very root of the Indian economic system and structure which revolved round the cow, bulls and bullock. It is also important to submit that British tried to make WALL between two major religious group Hindu and Muslim through cow, while cow has its religious, economic and scientific values among Hindu, Muslim and other millions of Indians.
  5. That, even the concept of secularise as enshrined in the Indian Constitution is founded on the age old Indian tradition of equal respect to all religion and the essential unity and indivisibility of human kind and of apparently separate religions. In order to transform this concepts of secularism into a living organism permeating the body politic of India and upon the foundation of which to build a truly multi-religious society which is informed with a unifying outlook, attitude and goal and which genuinely understands and respects the deep-rooted religious sentiments and spiritual ideals and vision, goal and aspiration, methods and means of their realization of each of the sections comprising it, requites that merely temporal affairs are separated from a community’s genuinely fundamental religious tenets and beliefs and affairs and adjust the former with the religion tenets, faith , sentiments, ideals and beliefs of another community in such a manner as never to permit the temporal to hurt, violate and disregard the activities and affairs which are undertaken in the course of discharging the peremptory religious injunctions for the realisation of their religious goal. Indian concept of secularism requires even to curb such temporal affairs and beliefs if they are antagonistic and opposed to and irreconcilable with the fundamental concepts and valves and injunctions of another religion. They submit that secularism in India and the inherent requirement for its due and proper observance and regard thereto render it incumbent and obligatory on the part of the respondents to take all the necessary and appropriate legislative and executive measures so as to balance the competing interests of various religious communities which arise from the diversity of their belief and to curb those temporal affairs and practice which are though permissible under their respective religion in conflict with and derogatory and antagonistic to the fundamental and inservrable religious tenets, beliefs and injunctions of other religious. The petitioner further submits that only such al policy on the part of the Indian States of which the respondents are integral parts, is conducive to the effective realisation of the Indian concept of secularism and is efficacious in protecting the fundament right guaranteed by Article 25 of Constitution of India to a person if it is violated or is in danger of violation by any activity which may be merely permissible by but not an essential, inseverable, integral and fundamental part of religion of another.
  6. That at this juncture the petitioner craves your lordships kind attention to the fact that the aforesaid mentioned acts as have been mentioned in the preceding paragraph falls within the ambit of Sections 268, 269 & 270 of the Indian Penal Code. For the convenience of this Hon’ble Court the aforesaid provisions are quoted as follows:

268.        Public nuisance:--A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does not act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily  cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

 

A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

 

269.        Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life: --Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six month, or with fine, or with both.

 

270.        Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life: -- Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

It is highly surprising that despite of the aforesaid clear provisions of Indian Penal Code stringent action has not been taken against the wrong doers and they go scot free merely on the pretext of religion & their faith in the respective Deity.

 12.That apart from the aforesaid impact on the public at large and on the environment, the result of these so called ritual animal sacrifices  is that all rules made for animal welfare and rights are put at stake to carry out the ritual of sacrifice. There is no check, whatsoever, to see if pregnant animals, young animals, mothers with off-springs less than 3 months old, or sick animals are being slaughtered. No medical checkup is done to ensure that if the meat of the animal were to be consumed, it should not cause disease and illness in humans. The animals are slaughtered out in the open in most cases and in full view of the other animals. The place where the slaughter takes place has no safety or hygiene norms and the animal mostly goes down on a slushy mixture of blood and mud. Goats are further torn into pieces to be distributed among the temple authorities and the others. The weapons that are used for killing are often antiques with no check on their sharpnes, the animal in a desperate attempt to survive, cuts loose even in a fatally wounded condition and runs amok. The village youths then in a gallant show of bravery, capture the animal and bring it down to the alter again. Even before the sacrifice takes place, the animal is mercilessly beaten, chillies thrown into it’s eyes, rods shoved up it’s rectum to make it move faster.  The premises where it is slaughtered is not a registered slaughter house so it is impossible to observe any rules or monitor that unnecessary suffering is not inflicted upon the animal. All whatever is done during these so called “animal sacrifices” is against the provisions of Rule 6 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules 2001.Section 38(3) of the PCA Act 1960prescribes the penalty for the violation of the Rules made under the Act. For the ready reference, Rule 6 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules 2001 reads as under:

6.

Slaughter -

(1) No animal shall be slaughtered in a slaughter house in sight of other animals

(2) No animal shall be administered any chemical, drug or hormone before slaughter except drug for its treatment from any specific disease or ailment.

(3) The slaughter halls in a slaughter house shall provide separate sections of adequate dimensions sufficient for slaughter of individual animals to ensure that the animal to be slaughtered is not within the sight of other animals.

(4) Every slaughter house as soon as possible shall provide a separate space for stunning of animals prior to slaughter, bleeding and dressing of the carcasses

(5) Knocking section in slaughter house may be so planned as to suit the animal and particularly the ritual slaughter; if any and such knocking section and dry landing area associated with it shall be so built that escape from this section can be easily carried out by an operator without allowing the animal to pass the escape barrier.

(6)A curbed-in bleeding area of adequate size as specified by the Central Government shall be provided in a slaughter house and it shall be so located that the blood could not be splashed on other animals being slaughtered or on the carcass being skinned.

(7) The blood drain and collection in a slaughter house shall be immediate and proper

(8) A floor wash point shall be provided in a slaughter house for intermittent cleaning and a hand-wash basin and knife sterilizer shall also be provided for the sticker to sterilize knife and wash his hands periodically.

(9) Dressing of carcasses in a slaughter house shall not be done on floor and adequate means and tools for dehiding or belting of the animals shall be provided in a slaughter house with means for immediate disposal of hides or skins;

(10)Hides or skins shall be immediately transported from a slaughter house either in a closed wheelbarrow or by a chute provided with self-closing door and in no case such hides or skins shall be spread on slaughter floor for inspection

(11)Floor wash point and adequate number of hand wash basins with sterlizer shall be provided in a dressing area of a slaughter house with means for immediate disposal of legs, horns, hooves and other parts of animals through spring load floor chutes or sidewall doors or closed wheelbarrows and in case wheelbarrows or trucks are used in a slaughter house, care shall be taken that no point wheelbarrow or truck has to ply under the dressing rails and a clear passage is provided for movement of the trucks.

(12) Adequate space and suitable and properly located facilities shall be provided sufficient for inspection of the viscera of the various types of animals slaughtered in a slaughter house and it shall have adequate facilities for hand washing, tool sterilisation and floor washing and contrivances for immediate separation and disposal of condemned material.

(13) Adequate arrangements shall be made in a slaughter house by its owner for identification, inspection and correlation of carcass, viscera and head.

(14) In a slaughter house, a curbed and separately drained area or an area of sufficient size, sloped 33 mm per metre to a floor drain, where the carcasses may be washed with a jet of water, shall be provided by the owner of such slaughter house.

  1. That Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides as follows:

“28. Saving as respects manner of killing prescribed by religion-Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.”

  1. That, this Hon’ble Court has laid down the law in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case in the following proposition;
  1. That a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male, female, in quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive principles laid down in Article 48.
  2. That a total ban on the slaughter of the buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle’s as well as buffalo) as long as they are milk or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid; and
  3. That a total ban on the slaughter of she buffalo after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or breading or working as draught animals not be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

The law thus laid down by this Hon’ble Court and followed by it in the later cases being the law of the     land, the aforesaid judgement in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case operates as disability on the part of the State including the respondents to enact a valid legislation prohibiting completely the slaughter of cow and its progeny even through its continued slaughter violates the fundamental right to Hindu and later on the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has conform in the State Bangal Vs Ashutosh Lahiri that the cow slaughter  violates the fundamental right to Hindu, as Annexure  P1.

14.        That no similar petition has been filed in any other High court or  before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

  1. Aggrieved by slaughteòing of cows and its progeny during eid-ul-zuha or general, the petitioner prefers this Petition on the following among other: -

G   R  O  U  N  D  S

  1. This, the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks to obtain from this Hon’ble Court relief against the continued permissibility of cow-slaughter by Respondent No.2 to 5 as violative of their fundamental right the Constitution and obtain appropriate directions/orders/or a writ of mandamus including writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents herein to take effective executive and/or legislative steps including, if necessary, to bring about requisite institutional amendment entitling the Respondent No.1 to enact necessary  legislation and exercise consequent executive power, to bring about a total ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny in solemn discharge of their mandatory duty and obligation under the provision of Constitution of India and in view of the solemn promises made form time to time by Respondent No.1 inside and outside the parliament.
  2. That, the Petitioner is a citizen and inhabitant of India. The Petitioner also endeavour to remove the social ills and inequality which have creped into the Indian Society and its fabric in the course of the long periods of subjugation by alien and unsympathetic rulers and again raise their religion to the pristine glory which it owned had. The petitioner submits that in so doing they are also performing their fundamental duties imposed upon them by the Constitution.
  3. That, the Respondents are the constitutional organs exercising legislative and executive functions and powers as specified by the Constitution of India under which they are invested with a solemn obligatory, positive and non-optional public duty to take appropriate legislative and/or executive measures for ensuring that no trade, business or occupation is allowed to develop or continue so as to be determental to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen of India and/or not to undertake directly either by any or all of them or indirectly by granting permission to undertake may activity by one section of the Indian people as to result in taking away or abridging the fundamental rights guaranteed to other section of the Indian citizens.
  4. That, since the beginning of the Hindu religion in hoary past when the Vedic Samhitas were compiled recording its fundamental tenets, the word ‘cow’ has always been used and understood in a comprehensive and generic sense and includes within its scope and admit the female cow as also bulls and bullocks and in fact the entire progeny of the cow. The cow, understood in this wide and generic sense, has been accorded a prominent position by the religion of the petitioners as compared with its position in other religious and also with regard to other domesticated animals in the Hindu Society itself. It is treated as inviolable and un-killable and a paramount religious duty is cast on every Hindu to protect a cow from being done to unnatural and premature death by anybody industries the one not belonging to the Hindu religion. To the ancient Indian cow was never an economic commodity but a divine entity, which, by its grace, showers material and spiritual benefits and wealth on its votaries. Hence the long historical tradition of India has never included cow as falling under a mercantile commodity with respect to which right to slaughter can be claimed as a trade, business or occupation. The cow is an integral, inservrable and fundamental part of the Hindu religion and its cites from the time immemorial and the Vedas, the oldest extent written record of the human race, merely record the spiritual and religious significance of cow to the Hindus. Thus being an integral part of the Hindu religion and enjoying a divine status therein, cow forms a class by itself for the protection of which express injunctions have been made through out the religious literature of the Hindu casting a heavy, imperative and paramount duty on them to protect it form slaughtered or killed or even maltreated.
  5. That, the indirect promotion of cow slaughter as a means of a trade, business or occupation in beef and other items obtained from a slaughtered cow during the British rule in British India was adopted by the alien, imperialistic and ambitious people with a view not only to undermine and subvert the religious sentiments of the Hindu people but also as a part of their deliberate policy to destroy the very basic of their economic, social, cultural, religious and philosophical life as well as of a spiritual foundation of an ancient and peace loving sub-continent which was both alluring and disconcerting to them. It is pertinent that the British were concerned to convert India into a market for their industrial product and for this purpose systematically struck at the very root of the Indian economic system and structure which revolved round the cow, bulls and bullock. It is also important to submit that British tried to make WALL between two major religious group Hindu and Muslim through cow, while cow has its religious, economic and scientific values among Hindu, Muslim and other millions of Indians.
  6. Islam provides options to Muslims to offer Qurbani of Baqra, Camel, Ship (Menda) and others so it is not mandatory to offer Qurbani of Cow’s only. There are several FATVAS issued by authorities of Islamic world regarding non-offering cow’s qurbani on the occasion of Edi-ul-Zuha being optional (WAZIB).
  7. Because, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibits the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on an animal and makes such unnecessary pain and suffering a penal offence. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides that it is the duty of every person having the care and charge of any animal to take reasonable measure to ensure the well being of such animal and to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering but during the animal sacrifice.
  8. Because, there is no check, whatsoever, to see if pregnant animals, young animals, mothers with off-springs less than 3 months old, or sick animals are being slaughtered. No medical checkup is done to ensure that if the meat of the animal were to be consumed, it should not cause disease and illness in humans. The animals are slaughtered out in the open in most cases and in full view of the other animals. The place where the slaughter takes place has no safety or hygiene norms and the animal mostly goes down on a slushy mixture of blood and mud.  The village youths then in a gallant show of bravery, capture the animal and bring it down to the alteragain. Even before the sacrifice takes place, the animal is mercilessly beaten, chillies thrown into its’ eyes, rods shoved up its’ rectum to make it move faster.   The premises where it is slaughtered is not a registered slaughter house so it is impossible to observe any rules or monitor that unnecessary suffering is not inflicted upon the animal. All whatever is done during these so called “animal sacrifices” is against the provisions of Rule 6 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules 2001.
  9. Because, Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides that nothing contained in the Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.   These poor animals that are being slaughtered in the name of religion and faith but to the utter dismay, no authority tries to stop the gory practice merely because of religious fear.

  1. Because  the concept of secularise as enshrined in the Indian Constitution is founded on the age old Indian tradition of equal respect to all religion and the essential unity and indivisibility of human kind and of apparently separate religions. In order to transform this concepts of secularism into a living organism permeating the body politic of India and upon the foundation of which to build a truly multi-religious society which is informed with a unifying outlook, attitude and goal and which genuinely understands and respects the deep-rooted religious sentiments and spiritual ideals and vision, goal and aspiration, methods and means of their realization of each of the sections comprising it, requites that merely temporal affairs are separated from a community’s genuinely fundamental religious tenets and beliefs and affairs and adjust the former with the religion tenets, faith , sentiments, ideals and beliefs of another community in such a manner as never to permit the temporal to hurt, violate and disregard the activities and affairs which are undertaken in the course of discharging the peremptory religious injunctions for the realisation of their religious goal. Indian concept of secularism requires even to curb such temporal affairs and beliefs if they are antagonistic and opposed to and irreconcilable with the fundamental concepts and valves and injunctions of another religion. They submit that secularism in India and the inherent requirement for its due and proper observance and regard thereto render it incumbent and obligatory on the part of the respondents to take all the necessary and appropriate legislative and executive measures so as to balance the competing interests of various religious communities which arise from the diversity of their belief and to curb those temporal affairs and practice which are though permissible under their respective religion in conflict with and derogatory and antagonistic to the fundamental and inservrable religious tenets, beliefs and injunctions of other religious. The petitioner further submits that only such al policy on the part of the Indian States of which the respondents are integral parts, is conducive to the effective realisation of the Indian concept of secularism and is efficacious in protecting the fundament right guaranteed by Article 25 of Constitution of India to a person if it is violated or is in danger of violation by any activity which may be merely permissible by but not an essential, inseverable, integral and fundamental part of religion of another.

  1. That, this Hon’ble Court has laid down the law in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case in the following proposition;
  1. That a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male, female, in quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive  principles laid down in Article 48.
  2. that a total ban on the slaughter of the buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle’s as well as buffalo) as long as they are milk or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid; and

  1. that a total ban on the slaughter of she buffalo after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or breading or working as draught animals not be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

  1. The law thus laid down by this Hon’ble Court and followed by it in the later cases being the law of the land, the aforesaid judgement in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi’s case operates as disability on the part of the State including the respondents to enact a valid legislation prohibiting completely the slaughter of cow and its progeny even through  its continued slaughter violates the fundamental right to Hindu.

P  R  A  Y  E  R

In the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased;

  1. to issue a Writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus or any other directions or orders requiring the

respondents either jointly or singly to take effective ,

efficacious and appropriate legislative and executive measures for bringing about a total ban on the slaughter (Qurbani) of cow and its progeny.

  1. To declare that the respondents have a non-optional, mandatory obligation to exercise its power under the Constitution to bring about such a legislation and its non-performance is ultra vires and violative of its constitutional obligation.

  1. To pass a direction to the Respondent to comply with the order dated  16/11/ 1994 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

  1. To pass a direction for satellite survey of cow movement.

  1. to pass any order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and  circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

NEW DELHI

Drawn By Rajender Yadav, adv.

                                        

                                        

                                ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER