Statement Of Jurisdiction

The Hon’ble High Court Of Mahakaala has jurisdiction over the present matter under Article 226
Of Constitution Of Hindikaala. The respondent on behalf of state of Mahakaala Humbly submits
to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court to deal in present matter.

Article 226 Of Constitution Of Hindikaala reads as follows –

Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs -

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1
), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea
for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose
of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from
the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where
the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the
interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid
next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32
 Statement Of Facts
1. The Republic Of Hindikaala is a democratic and secular country with a written
constitution. It has 29 states and 7 Union territories. The majority of the population of
the country belongs to Hindu religion. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism and
Sikhism are the other major religions which are followed by the people of Republic of
Hindikaala. The Republic Of Hindikaala is a secular country and thus characterized by
diversity of religious beliefs and practices, dressing, cultural outlook, food-habits etc.

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

3. State Of Mahakaala is situated in western region of country of Hindikaala. It is second

most populous state of Republic Of Hindikaala. In 1978 it enacted the Mahakaala 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. Section 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 9A & 9B were
inserted by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995.The Object of the act as
given is prohibition of slaughter and preservation of cows, bulls and bullocks useful for milch,
breeding, draught or agricultural purposes and for restriction on slaughter for the preservation
of certain other animals suitable for the said purposes and to provide for matters connected
therewith. Therefore It was enacted to give effect to one of The Directive Principles of State
Policy.Article 48 of Constitution of Hindikaala provides for the said object.

4. The Object of the Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 as given is prohibition
of slaughter and preservation of cows, bulls and bullocks useful for milch, breeding, draught or
agricultural purposes and for restriction on slaughter for the preservation of certain other
animals suitable for the said purposes and to provide for matters connected
therewith.Therefore It can be seen that it was enacted to give effect to one of the Fundamental
Duty given under Article 51(g) of Constitution Of Hindikaala which states that “It shall be the
duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures”

5. Section 5 of said act Extended prohibition on slaughter of cows and calves to bulls and
bullocks which was previously limited to prohibition on slaughter of cows and calves.
6. Section 5A of said act prohibited transport and export of cows, bulls & bullocks in State
Of Mahakaala.

7. Section 5B of said act prohibited purchase, sell and disposal of cows, bulls & bullocks for
the purpose of slaughter.

8. Section 5C of the said act prohibited possession of flesh of cows, bulls & bullocks which
are slaughtered in contravention of provision of the said act.

9. Section 5D of the said act prohibited possession of flesh of cows, bulls & bullocks which
are slaughtered outside the State Of Mahakaala.

10. Section 9 of the said act which earlier provided punishment and fine for contravening
any provision of the act now has specifically provided by amendment, punishment and
fine for contravening Section 5,5A & 5B of the Mahakaala Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act 1995.It also increased by amendment, the term of maximum
punishment provided in the act for contravening aforementioned provisions of the act
from six month to 5 years. It also increased maximum fine limit from one thousand
rupees to ten thousand rupees. Along with it the section also inserted provision of
minimum punishment of six month and minimum fine of one thousand rupees which
can only be granted on recording in judgment of the court any special and adequate
reason to do so.

11. Section 9A of the said act as inserted by amendment provides punishment for
contravening provision of Section 5C,5D & 6 of the Mahakaala Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act 1995.Maximum punishment provided by Section 9A is 1 year and maximum
fine provided by it is two thousand rupees.

12. Section 9B of the said act provides that in trial for any offence for which punishment is
provided in Section 9 and 9A, Burden Of Proof shall lie on the person accused of
slaughter, transport, export outside the State, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of cow, bull
or bullock that he has not done anything which is in contravention of the Mahakaala
Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995.

13. The Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 was on statute book till
2005 and came into force immediately on receiving the assent of President Of
Hindikaala in 2005.
14. After the said act came into force, there was great Political turmoil throughout the
Republic Of Hindikaala.Tension was created between those who were beef eaters and
who were not. Various religious organizations started large scale mobilization against
slaughter of cows. Few individuals were attacked on the accusation that they stored cow-
flesh in their home.

15. One minority community ‘X’ was allegedly affected drastically as beef eating was their
common food habit. Moreover, it was also alleged that beef was less costly as compared
to other non-vegetarian food and as the degree of poverty is higher in community ‘X’,
beef eating was an easy source of protein for them.

16. After Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 came into force Writ
Petition were filed by various associations and individuals before the Hon’ble High Court
of Mahakaala under Article 226 of Constitution of Hindikaala challenging the
constitutional validity of Mahakaala Animal preservation (Amendment) Act 1955.
Mahakaala Butchers’ Association, a Registered Society is one of the petitioners which is
working for the protection of interest of minority community ‘X’.

17. The Writ Petition is now posted for final arguments and disposal on 20th January 2018.
Statement Of Issues
ISSUE: 1
Whether Writ Petition under Article 226 Of Constitution Of Hindikaala is
maintainable?

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

ISSUE: 3
Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act 1995 are extraneous with aims & objects of Article 48 Of the Constitution Of
Hindikaala?

ISSUE :4
Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act 1995 are extraneous with Fundamental Duty provided under Article 51 (g) Of
Constitution Of Hindikaala?

ISSUE: 5
Whether the prohibitions imposed by the State Of Mahakaala on import & export of
Cows, Bulls or Bullocks outside the state of Mahakaala as well as Sell,Purchase and
disposal of them for the purpose of slaughter is in contravention of Article 301 Of
Constitution Of Hindikaala ?

Issue:6
Whether Fundamental Rights Of Community ‘X’ are violated?

ISSUE: 7
Whether the Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 is Ultra Vires the
constitution Of Hindikaala?
 Summary Of Arguments

Issue - 1

Whether Writ Petition under Article 226 Of Constitution Of Hindikaala against State Of
Mahakaala & Others is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted that since fundamental rights and other legal rights of any group has not
been violated, the petition is not maintainable under article 226 of Constitution Of Hindikaala.

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

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner have no locus standi to file a Writ Petetion on behalf
of Community ‘X’ under article 226 of constitution of Hindikaala because the traditional rule is
that a person whose constitutional or legal rights is infringed can apply for relief under article
226 and no other person can apply under this article.

Issue – 3
Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act 1995 are extraneous with aims & objects of Article 48 Of the Constitution Of
Hindikaala?

It is humbly submitted that , the prohibitions imposed by Mahakaala Animal Preservation

(Amendment ) Act of 1995 are not extraneous with aims and objects of Article 48 of
Constitution of Hindikaala. Article 48 is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy which
prohibits slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and drought cattle. The amended act of
1995 is completely relevant to provision contained in article 48.

Issue – 4
Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act 1995 are extraneous with Fundamental Duty provided under Article 51 (g) Of
Constitution Of Hindikaala?

It is humbly submitted before court that, the provisions relating to prohibitions as

contained in Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 are not extraneous
with Fundamental Duty provided under article 51A(g) of constitution but to the contrary
the prohibitions imposed by the act of 1995 are completely relevant to the said article.
 Issue – 5

Whether the prohibitions imposed by the State Of Mahakaala on import & export of
Cows, Bulls or Bullocks outside the state of Mahakaala as well as Sell, Purchase and
disposal of them for the purpose of slaughter is in contravention of Article 301 & 304
(B) Of Constitution Of Hindikaala?
It is humbly submitted to court that the prohibitions imposed by the state of Mahakaala
on import and export of cows, bulls or bullocks outside the state of Mahakaala as well as
sell , Purchae and disposal of them for the purpose of slaughter are not in contravention
of Article 301 & 304(B) of constitution because the restriction imposed on slaughtering
of aforesaid cattle wasn’t arbitrary and imposed as the government was concerned
about environment and protection of environment is in public interest of citizens and
hence reasonable.
Issue – 6
Whether Fundamental Rights Of Community ‘X’ are violated?
It is humbly submitted to court that the fundamental rights of community ‘X’ are not
violated by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995.The prohibition of
slaughtering, selling, purchase, export, import and possession of cows, bulls or bullocks
is not arbitrary and also pass the test of reasonableness and is completely based on
logics. Fundamental Rights can be curtailed or limited on adequate and reasonable
grounds and thus no Fundamental Right of Community ‘X’ has been violated.
Issue – 7
Whether the Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 is Ultra Vires the
constitution Of Hindikaala?

It is humbly submitted to court that the Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment)

Act 1995 is not Ultra Vires the constitution of Hindikaala. Since no Fundamental as well
as legal rights are violated by the provisions of Mahakaala Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act 1995 the said act cannot be said to be Ultra Vires the constitution.
 Arguments Advanced
 Whether Writ Petition under Article 226 Of Constitution Of Hindikaala against State Of
Mahakaala & Others is maintainable?
The writ petition under article 226 can be filed for enforcement of fundamental rights
conferred by Part-3 of constitution of Mahakaala. No fundamental rights have been
violated or infringed by the Provisions of Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act 1995.Since the action taken by state was in furtherance of Public Interest and it was
taken for giving effect to one of Directive Principles of State Policy provided under
article 48 of constitution as well as for fulfilling one of the Fundamental Duties, provided
under article 51A(g).
The writ petition under article 226 can also be filed for ‘any other
purpose’ The word ‘any other purpose’ is of wider meaning and includes all matters
related to constitutional as well as legal rights. In present case no other legal rights of
the petitioner are violated as alleged by petitioner. Petitioner alleged that Article 301
and 304(B) has been violated by the provisions of Mahakaala Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act 1995 because the restrictions imposed by the provisions of said act
are in harmony with the provision of article 304(B).Similarly article 304(B) I exception to
article 301 and thus article 301 also is not violated because the state has taken action
which was allowed by article 304(B) of constitution.

 Does petitioner have locus standi to file Writ Petition on behalf of Community ‘X’.
Petitioner does not have locus standi to file Writ Petition on behalf of community ‘X’
because under article 226 of constitution only a person or persons can file writpetetion
whoe fundamental or legal rights have been violated and no other person whose legal
or fundamental rights are not violated , have locus standi to file complaint on behalf of
someone else.
Though the rule of locus standi has been diluted by Courts by expanding
proportionately the meaning of 'aggrieved person' it has been so done to provide quick
access to justice where issues of life and liberty are involved by invoking Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the larger public issues raised through beneficial public interest
litigation in diverse situations. See: State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal,
(2010) 3 SCC 402 for this.
Since in present case the provisions of Mahakaala
Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995, do not interfere with rights provided under
article 21, the petitioner does not have locus standi to apply for writ petition under this
article.
 Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act 1995 are extraneous with aims & objects of Article 48 Of the Constitution Of
Hindikaala?

The Amended Act of 1995 is completely in harmony with the aims & objects of article 48 of
constitution and the amended act of 1995 fulfills the Directive Principles of State Policy
provided under article 48.According to article 37 of constitution the provisions in part – 4 of
constitution are not enforceable by court but are fundamental in governance of county.
Article 37 states that “Application of the principles contained in this Part The provisions
contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid
down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the
duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws” (Here ‘Part’ refers to Part-4 of
Constitution). Thus it is clear that Directive Principles of State Policy are very important for
governance of country. Petitioner cannot neglect the importance of Directive Principles of
State Policy provided under part – 4 of constitution. They are as important as fundamental
rights which are provided under part – 3 of constitution.

There were occasions when Directive

Principles of State Policy has been given status of Fundamental Right by the court which
eventually led to amendment of constitution of Hindikaala. One such occasion came up in
case of Unni Krishna v State of A.P Supreme court gave article 45 , status of fundamental
right under article 21 and it resulted in 86th Amendment of Constitution in 2002 by which
article 45 was substituted by new article 21 (A) .

Similarly Directive Principles of State Policy has been given superiority above Fundamentals
Rights. In Re Kerala Education Bills , the supreme court observed that “though directive
principles cannot override fundamental rights , nevertheless , in determining the scope and
ambit of fundamental rights the court may not entirely ignore the directive Principles but
should adopt the ‘principles of harmonious construction’ and should attempt to give effect
to both as much as possible”

Likewise, in case of Mohd. Hanif Qureishi v. State Of Bihar , a state law which prohibits
slaughter of cows and calves and other cattle capable of work has been upheld because it
was meant to give effect to article 48 of the constitution.

While part -3 contains negative injunctions to the state no to do various things. Part -4
contains positive commands to the state to promote what may be called a social and
welfare state.

Therefore the amended act of 1995 is not extraneous with aims and objects of article 48 but
instead fulfills them to the fullest.
In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat Relying upon Article
48 of the Constitution of Hindikaala, It is urged that there is no constitutional mandate in
favour of slaughtering of animals. The interpretation put by the Petitioner to the Holly
Quran is completely erroneous.

 Keshavlal Khemchand & Sons v. Union of India, It is said that if the enactment is
otherwise within the constitutionally permissible limits, the fact that there was a divergence
between the objects appended to the Bill and the tenor of the Act cannot be a ground for
declaring the law as unconstitutional.

 Whether the prohibitions imposed by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment)

Act 1995 are extraneous with Fundamental Duty provided under Article 51 (g) Of
Constitution Of Hindikaala?
The prohibitions imposed by provisions of Mahakaala Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act 1995 are not extraneous with fundamental duty provided under
article 51 A (g) of constitution. It is urged that a stage has come when fundamental
duties have to be given absolute priority over the fundamental rights as our country has
always been a country giving precedence to the duty rather than seeking rights. It is
urged that if two views are possible, one holding a statute to be unconstitutional and
the other holding it constitutional, the former view must prevail and the Court must
make an effort to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute. It submitted that the
principle is that the legislation is presumed to be valid unless contrary is proved.
I humbly invite court’s attention to the photograph of the original preamble of the
Constitution of India on which a picture of progeny of cow is printed. It is urged that
every citizen of India is bound to perform fundamental duties as enjoined by Article
51A of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the Amendment Act has been made to
further the fundamental duties and, therefore, it cannot be said that any provision of
the Amendment Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India.
It is submitted that while
interpreting provisions of constitution the court has to keep in mind the doctrine of
flexibility as declared by Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Navin Jindal .
if Section 5D is declared as ultra vires the Constitution, the entire Act will
become redundant and the very purpose of enacting the Act will be defeated. Reliance
is placed on the fundamental duties under Clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution
of India.
In case of AIIMS Student v. AIIMS speaking about the importance of Fundamental
Duties enshrined under article 51 A (g) supreme court said that “they are equally
important as fundamental rights. Though fundamental duties are not enforceable like
fundamental rights but it cannot be overlook that word ‘duties’ in part – 4A is prefixed
 by the same word ‘Fundamental’ which was prefixed by founding fathers of constitution
to ‘rights’ in part – 3 of constitution.
In present case, the act of state was to give effect to fundamental duty provided
under article 51A (g) and it is not in disharmony or extraneous with it. Instead it
completely fulfills the abovementioned duty.

 Whether the prohibitions imposed by the State Of Mahakaala on import & export of
Cows, Bulls or Bullocks outside the state of Mahakaala as well as Sell, Purchase and
disposal of them for the purpose of slaughter is in contravention of Article 301 & 304
(B) Of Constitution Of Hindikaala?
The prohibitions as imposed by Section 5C & 5D of Mahakaala Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act 1995 on possession of flesh of cows, bulls or bullocks and by section
5A & 5B on import and export of cows , bulls & bullocks for purpose of slaughtering are
not in conflict with section 301 & 304(B).Section 301 of constitution is general rule laid
down in section 301.It means that section 301 is subject to section 304(B) of
constitution.
Section 304(B) allows the state government to impose reasonable
restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce & intercourse within and between states in
Public Interest as may be required. The restrictions imposed by amended act of 1995
are in public interest because they tend to protect environment and wild creatures from
slaughtering and thus protecting the eco system.
In the case of Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India , It is urged that the
compelling public interest is inherently connected to public good. It is pointed out that
there is a reasonable nexus between the enactment and the object sought to be
achieved by the Act of 1976 and the impugned provisions of Sections 5D and 9B.
A law passed by a state to regulate inter-state trade & commerce must satisfy the
following time conditions under article 304(b) – (1) Previous sanction of President must
be obtained ; (2) the law must be in public intrest ; and (3) restrictions imposed by such
a law must be reasonable. From the above mentioned conditions it is obvious that
Parliament has been vested with wide power to regulate trade and commerce.
It is also to be pointed out that all three conditions laid down in the said section to
impose restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse within and between states
have been fulfilled in present case.
It is urged that if any reasonable restriction is imposed on freedom of trade
for securing the directive principles of the State Policy, it will be held as reasonable.It is
submitted that implementation of the directive principles of the State Policy is always
considered to be in the interest of general public. It is submitted that the very fact that
 the presidential assent has been received to the Amendment Act will show that
the Amendment Act is in the public interest.

 Whether Fundamental Rights Of Community ‘X’ are violated?

No fundamental rights have been violated or infringed by the amended act of 1995 as
alleged by the petitioner. If the legislation is ultra vires the fundamental rights or some
other parts of the Constitution and the second is that the legislation is beyond the
legislative competence & infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of Hindikaala is
alleged then the burden lies on petitioner to prove arbitrariness and unreasonableness of
legislation as declared by supreme court in case of  Ashoka Kumar v. Union of India.

The interpretation put by the Petitioner to the Holly Quran is completely erroneous.
Sacrificing of cows or cattle on occasion of Eid-Ul-Adha is not very essential part of the
festival as alleged by the petitioner. Hence there is no violation of article 14 since the
state does not acted in arbitrariness as alleged by the petitioner.State neither infringed
by enactment of the amended act of 1995 tried to infringe right to equality (article 14) of
anyone.

Article 19(1)(g) is also not infringed by the said amendment. Article 19(1)(g)
is subject to exception contained in article 19(6) of the act. Article 19(6) allows the state
government to to curtail the freedom given under article 19(1)(g) by making any law in
interest of general public. It is submitted that implementation of the directive principles
of the State Policy is always considered to be in the interest of general public. It is
submitted that the very fact that the presidential assent has been received to
the Amendment Act will show that the Amendment Act is in the public interest.
In case of Khodya Distilleries lt. v. State of Karnataka , the supreme court said that
“Rights under article 19(1) are not absolute but qualified and the state is authorized
under clause (2) to (6) to impose reasonable restrictions on the right in public
interest. A citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in activities which
are immoral and criminal and in articles and goods which are injurious to welfare of
general public i.e.,res extra commercium (Outside Commerce)”.

Article 21 is also not violated by the Amended Act of 1995 because Though right to
food is included under article 21 but the right to get food of community ‘X’ is not violated
because the contention of petitioner that beef is less costly then other non-vegetarian
foods is itself wrong. As compare to other non-vegetarian food, beef is very costly and it
is out of economic capacity of community ‘X’ to buy beef , which is stated as poor by the
petitioner.There are other non-vegetarian food like eggs, chicken, fish, etc which are less
 costly then beef and they are also very rich source of protein. Therefore the community
‘X’ is not deprived of right to food. A ban on single food item which is out of economic
capacity of that community is not unconstitutional. The state can impose reasonable
restrictions in public interest and general welfare of public by which fundamental rights
can be curtailed to the extent they are against the public interest or general welfare of
the public.

He urged that Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be read to include each and
every right. He pointed out that in large number of cases, the Apex Court has refused to
read certain rights in Article 21. He submitted that the rights which are essential for life
are included in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rights which are not
essential are not included therein. It is submitted that even if the right to life and liberty
includes every right which makes the life  meaningful, it would mean only core rights or
essential rights and not fringe rights. It is submitted that the fringe rights are the one
which are merely desirable to make the life comfortable or more comfortable or
luxurious. He urged that in the present case, the Petitioner is not only claiming the right
to food but claiming the right to a particular food in a particular geographical area, i.e.,
the State of Maharashtra, which right is not protected by the Constitution of India. It is
urged that if such a right is held to be a part of right under Article 21, the same would be
available even to foreigners. It is urged that the right to have food of one's choice is not a
part of right to make the life meaningful.

Article 21 do not include right to privacy .It is submitted that the majority view in
the case 29 (2004)7 SCC 33 30 AIR 1972 Andhra Pradesh 318 31 (2008)16 SCC 417   of Kharak
Singh lays down that the right of privacy is not available as a fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Puttaswami has made a reference to a larger Bench on the issue
of availability of the right to privacy as a fundamental right. Relying upon the decision of the
Apex Court of a larger Bench of eight Hon'ble Judges in the case of M.P. Sharma, he urged that
the said decision lays down that the right to privacy is not included in the Constitution of India.
He urged that such a right is not included in the fundamental rights in Part III of the
Constitution of Hindikaala.  In Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another  , the Supreme
Court did not accept the argument that the right to privacy was a Fundamental Right. Personal
liberty as contained in Article 21 is not intended to protect 'mere personal sensitiveness'. In the
facts of the instant matter, there is no immediate, direct or tangible nexus between the
impugned provisions - particularly of Section 5D - and the act of consumption by the
Petitioners.

Article 25 is also not getting violated by the Amended Act of 1995. It is submitted that The in
case of Mohmmed Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar (for short "Quareshi-I") . The Apex
Court held that the slaughter of cows on BakrI'd day was not an essential religious practice for
Muslims and, therefore, a total ban on cow's slaughter on all days including Bakri Eid day would
not be violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the law is very
well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India.

Then we turn to the challenge on the ground of violation of Article 29. It is alleged that the ban
on slaughter of bulls and bullocks is violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners to
conserve their culture. It is submitted that no culture can claim perpetual and inflexible
existence beyond the character of the civilization that created it. It i submitted that a customary
right could not be confused with the culture. Article 29 is for preservation of the essential
culture of the people and not with peripheral customs which have no relation to an existing
culture. An example of the abolition of the practice of Sati or untouchability which can be said
to be a part of traditional practice. However, the abolition of such traditional practice cannot
amount to destroying culture. The Petitioners who are agitating the violation of Article 29 have
failed to establish that the slaughter of cows, bulls or bullocks is a part of the essential culture
of any religion or community. Cultural right cannot be confused with right to religion. Common
thread in Article 29(1) is language, script and culture and not religion.

Therefore, the argument based on the violation of Article 29 is without any merit.

Hence It is established that no fundamental rights of the petitioner is violated by the provisions
of Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995.

 Whether the Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 is Ultra Vires the
constitution Of Hindikaala?
The Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 is not ultra Vires the
constitution of Hindikaala because no fundamental as well as legal rights are violated by
the said act. Moreover the object of the act is in fulfillment of article 48 which Is one of
the Directive Principles of State Policy. The said act Is also in giving effect to Fundamental
Duty provided under article 51A(g) of the constitution.
In case of Mohmmed Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar (for short "Quareshi-I") .
The Apex Court held that the slaughter of cows on BakrI'd day was not an essential religious
practice for Muslims and, therefore, a total ban on cow's slaughter on all days including Bakri Eid
day would not be violative of  the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the law is very well
settled by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India.

Likewise, in case of Mohd. Hanif Qureishi v. State Of Bihar , a state law which
prohibits slaughter of cows and calves and other cattle capable of work has been upheld
because it was meant to give effect to article 48 of the constitution.

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat Relying upon Article
48 of the Constitution of Hindikaala, It is urged that there is no constitutional mandate in
favour of slaughtering of animals. The interpretation put by the Petitioner to the Holly
Quran is completely erroneous.
In Keshavlal Khemchand & Sons v. Union of India, It is said that if the enactment is
otherwise within the constitutionally permissible limits, the fact that there was a divergence
between the objects appended to the Bill and the tenor of the Act cannot be a ground for
declaring the law as unconstitutional.

It is also to be pointed out that the aid amended act of 1995 does not violate constitutional
rights provided under article 301 & 304(b) of constitution.

Section 301 of constitution is general rule laid down in section 301.It means that section
301 is subject to section 304(B) of constitution.
Section 304(B) allows the state government to impose reasonable
restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce & intercourse within and between states in
Public Interest as may be required. It is to be pointed out that since the act has been
given assent by president of Hindikaala it is clear by such act of President that the act is
in general interest of public.
It is submitted that while interpreting provisions of constitution the court has to keep in
mind the doctrine of flexibility as declared by Apex Court in case of Union of India v.
Navin Jindal .
Above mentioned points clearly asserts that why The Mahakaala Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act 1995 is not unconstitutional or Ultra Vires to the constitution.
 Prayer
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the writ petition.

2. In the alternative declare and adjudge:
a. That the Respondents have not violated the fundamental rights as well as
legal rights of the petitioner by Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995
b. That the Mahakaala Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 is
constitutional.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS