MOHD. FARUK versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

MOHD. FARUK versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

The impugned notification cancelling the confirmation of bye-laws for slaughter of bulls and bullocks, though within State competence, constitutes a direct and unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) as it was not shown to be in the interest of the general public; mere respect for sentiments of a section of people does not justify total prohibition.

Parties
Petitioner: Mohd. Faruk; Respondents: State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 April 1969
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Supreme Court Final Decision
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Restriction, Fundamental Right to Trade or Business, Ban on Slaughter of Cattle, Municipal Bye Laws, Licence and Permit Control
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Reasonable Restriction Fundamental Right to Trade or Business Ban on Slaughter of Cattle Municipal Bye Laws Licence and Permit Control

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Faruk

Petitioner

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Supreme Court Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cancellation of confirmation of bye-laws permitting slaughter of bulls and bullocks by State Government infringes fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g)
  2. 2 Whether the restriction imposed constitutes a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public as required under Article 19(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned notification cancelling the confirmation of bye-laws for slaughter of bulls and bullocks, though within State competence, constitutes a direct and unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) as it was not shown to be in the interest of the general public; mere respect for sentiments of a section of people does not justify total prohibition.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • Notification of January 12, 1967 declared ultra vires and infringing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
  • Petitioner entitled to costs.