ABDUL HAKIM QURAISHI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS)

ABDUL HAKIM QURAISHI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS)

A ban on slaughter of bulls, bullocks, and she-buffaloes below 20 or 25 years and accompanying procedural restrictions are not reasonable under Article 19(6); such restrictions virtually prohibit the petitioners’ trade and are disproportionate, thus void and unconstitutional.

Parties
Petitioner: Abdul Hakim Quraishi and Others; Respondent: The State of Bihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 November 1960
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Judgment
Outcome
Petitions allowed; certain provisions of the Acts and Rules declared void for imposing unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Restrictions on Fundamental Rights, Right to Profession and Trade, Validity of Statutory Ban on Animal Slaughter
Constitutional Law Animal Preservation Law Reasonable Restrictions on Fundamental Rights Right to Profession and Trade Validity of Statutory Ban on Animal Slaughter

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Hakim Quraishi and Others

Petitioner

The State of Bihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory ban on slaughter of bulls, bullocks, and she-buffaloes below 20 or 25 years is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether procedural restrictions (certification, appeals, waiting periods) are valid limitations on the petitioners' fundamental rights to profession/trade

Ratio Decidendi

A ban on slaughter of bulls, bullocks, and she-buffaloes below 20 or 25 years and accompanying procedural restrictions are not reasonable under Article 19(6); such restrictions virtually prohibit the petitioners’ trade and are disproportionate, thus void and unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

Petitions allowed; certain provisions of the Acts and Rules declared void for imposing unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.

Orders

  • Respondent States directed not to enforce the Acts or rules in so far as they have been declared void.
  • Petitioners entitled to costs of hearing.