BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF MARATHA

WRIT JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THECONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF INDICA
W.P.NO.____________OF 2016IN

THE MATTER BETWEEN

MARATHA BUTCHERS ASSOCIATION, A REGISTERED
SOCIETY AND OTHERS ……… PETITIONER

V.
STATE OF MARATHA AND OTHERS ……RESPONDENT

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
a) ARTICLES AND JOURNALS 4
b) BOOKS 4
•INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 4
•CONSTITUTION 5
c) CASE LAW 6
d) DICTIONARIES 8
e) ONLINE SOURCES 8
•WEBSITE REFERRED 8
• LEGAL DATABASES 8
f) STATUTES 8
3.STATEMENT OF FACTS 94
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 125
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 136
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 147
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 168
PRAYER 33

1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr Another
AP Andhra Pradesh
Art Article
Bom Bombay
Corpn Corporation
Dr Doctor
Ed Edition
Govt Government

Ltd Limited

MP Madhya Pradesh

Ors Others

P Page

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

TN Tamil Nadu

UP Uttar Pradesh

V Versus

Vol Volume

2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

a) ARTICLES AND JOURNALS

1. “RECONCILING THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTEREST-
THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY”, Dr. D. Sankar, Nyaya Deep, Vol.8, Issue 3,
20072
“TOWARDS A ROBUST RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA”, Rishika
Taneja and Sidhank Kumar, (2012) 8 SCC (J)

b) BOOKS
•INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
1. JUSTICE G.P. SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORYINTERPRETATION, 12TH
EDITION, 2010, LEXIS NEXIS
2. MAXWELL, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, 12TH EDITION, 2006, LEXIS NEXIS
3. N.S.BINDRA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 9TH EDITION, 2004, LEXIS NEXIS
4. VEPA.P.SARATHY, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, 5TH EDITION, 2008,
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY

•CONSTITUTION
1. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8TH EDITION, 2018, LEXIS, NEXIS
2. DR. J.N. PANDEY. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 56 TH EDITION, 2009,
CENTRAL LAW AGENCY
3. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON ‘THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA’, VOL 6 & 7, 8TH
EDITION, 2010, LEXIS NEXIS
4. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 8TH EDITION, LEXIS NEXIS
5. D.D BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 14TH EDITION, 2009, LEXIS
NEXIS
6. H.M.SERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 4 TH EDITION,2002,UNIVERSAL
BOOK PUBLICATION
7. DURGA DAS BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3RD EDITION,
2008, LEXIS NEXIS
8. M.P. SINGH, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 5TH EDITION, DELHI LAW HOUSE
9. DR. KAILASH RAI, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 11TH EDITION, 2017,
CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS
10. DR. AVTAR SINGH, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1ST EDITION,2019,
CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS
11. NARENDER KUMAR, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 1ST EDITION,
2009, ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY
12. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 11TH EDITION, 2011, EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY

C) CASE LAWS
1. A. B. Abdul Kadir v. State of Kerala (1976) 3 SCC 219 : AIR 1976
2. Automobile Transport Ltd v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1962 SC 1406 (1963) 1SCR 491
3. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Ragavendra Nath Nadkarni AIR
1983 SC 109: (1983) 1SCC 124
4. Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P AIR1951 SC 118
5. D. K. Yadav v. J.M.A Industries (1930) 3 SCC 258
6. D.T.C v. D.T.C Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101

3
7. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731
8. Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn LtdAIR 2003 SC 2120, JT 2002(100 SC 561, 2004
1 OLR81,(2003) 2 SCC 107
9. I. C. Golaknath & Ors v. State of Punjab &Anr1967 AIR 1643
10. Kata Miah & others Ors v. S. C. Roy & Ors AIR 1964 Cal 49
11. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1963 SC 1295
12. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
13. Minerva Mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789
14 .Mohammed Faruk v. State of M.P & Ors (1969) 1 SCC 853
15. M R F Ltd v. State of Kerala (1998) 8 SCC 227
16. Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T.G and Bros AIR 1971 SC 246
17. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1863
18. Olga Tellis Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180; (1985) 3 SCC 545
19. R. C. Cooper v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 564, (1970) 1SCC 248, (1970) 3 SCR 530
20.Re Kerala Education Bill AIR 1957 SC 957
21. R. M. D. C v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628
22. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N (1994) 6 SCC 632
23. Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.PAIR 1954 SC 728,742(1995)1 SCR 707
24. Shaik Zahid Muktar & ors v. State of Maharastra 2016 SCC Online Bom 2600
25. Sivani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1770
26. State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber ofCommerce(1996) 9 SCC 136: AIR 1996 SC 2344
27.State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 228
28.State of Mysore v. H. SajeeviahAIR 1967 SC 1189, (1967) 2SCR 361
29. Sukhanandan Saran Dinesh Kumar v. Stateof U.P AIR 1982 SC 903
30. T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
31. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P (1993) 1 SCC 645
32. Venkataraman v. State of Madras 1966 SCR (2) 229

d) DICTIONARIES
1. Black ’s Law Dictionary, Bryan .A. Garner, 8th Edition,Thomson
2. Wharton’s Law Lexicon, Dr. A.R Lakshmana.J, 15th Edition,Universal Law Publishing Co.

e) ONLINE RESOUCES
•WEBSITES REFFERRED
•LEGAL DATABASES

f) STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India,1950
2. Maharastra Animal Preservation Act, 1978
3.Maharastra Animal Preservation (Amendment)Act,19951

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of India is a nation which consists of 29 states and 7 union territories. The
Constitution of Republic of India has adopted a Parliamentary system which has the president
as its executive head of the Government. Even though the Republic of India holds the
population of Hindus as majority, the nation is characterized by a diversity of religions like
Islam , Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc and different cultures.

2. The Constitution of Republic of India declared certain fundamental rights and laid down
some directive principles of State policy .One of the directives states that ‘State shall
endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and
shall take steps in particular for preserving and
improvingthe breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and
draught cattle’.

3. This directive was inserted after a long heated debate. In Hindu religion cows are
considered sacred, the Republic of India is a nation whose economy is
largely based on agriculture. The above mentioned directive was perceived to be anoutcome
of a compromise between the scientific rationality and religious sentiments of the majority
Hindu citizens.

4. In 2015 various religious organizations started large / scale mobilization against slaughter
of cows throughout the Republic of India and this caused a
huge political turmoil in the nation. Few individuals were attacked based on theaccusation of
storing cow flesh in their home. The individuals who got attacked belong to a minority
community `X`. This incident created a tension between two communities due to their
contradicting religious beliefs .The degree of poverty was high in community `X` and therefore ,
beef was an easy source of food for them to obtain and was cheaper than other non-vegetarian
foods.

5. The State of Maratha which is situated in the western region of the Republic of India is the
most populated state in the country. In 1978, the State of Maratha enacted the Maratha
Animal Preservation Act, 1978.

6. The Maratha Animal Preservation Act, 1978 was amended in 1995. The amendments made in
1995 sought to make the following changes in the Act of1978
a). It sought to extent the bans on the slaughter of cows and calves to bulls and bullocks
b). It sought to prohibit the transport, export as well as purchase, sale anddisposal of cows,
bulls and bullocks for the purpose of slaughter .
c). It sought to prohibit the possession of the flesh of cows, bulls or bullocks slaughtered in
contravention of the provisions of the Act
d).It also criminalizes the possession of beef per se, whether or not this was obtained through
lawful slaughter from another State.
e).The amendment sought to put the burden on the accused that he /she was not in
contravention of provisions of the Act.
f). The Amendment also stipulated punishment for the contravention of the Act.

7. The Amendment Act of 1995 was reserved for the assent of the President and it received
the assent in 2015 and immediately came into force .It is to be noted that under the
Constitution of Republic of India, if on a subject matter both the Republic as well as State

5
Legislature enacted a law, then the state law will prevail over the Republic law only if it has
been reserved for the president`s assent and received such assent.

8. Writ Petitions were filed by various associations and individuals before the Hon’ble
High Court of the State of Maratha challenging the constitutional validity of the Amendment
of the Maratha Animal Preservation Act, 1978 in 1995.

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE
HON`BLE COURT OF STATE OF MARATHA INVOKING THE WRITJURISDICTION
OF THIS HON`BLE COURT UNDER ART 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
REPUBLIC OF INDIA.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON`BLE HIGH COURTOF STATE
OF MARATHA IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE MARATHA ANIMAL PRESERVATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1995

VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEEDUNDER ARTICLE 19 (1)
(g) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFREPUBLIC OF INDICA?

3. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED STATUTE IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 301 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF INDICA?

7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
A. THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF STATEOF
MARATHA IS MAINTAINABLE.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner most humbly submits before the Hon’ble High
Court of State of Maratha that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of
theConstitution of Republic of Indica.

B. THE MARATHA ANIMAL PRESERVATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1995

ISVIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (g) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OFREPUBLIC OF INDICA.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner most humbly submits before the Hon’ble High
Court of State of Maratha that the Maratha Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995is
violative of the right to freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business secured under
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of Republic of India. The Maratha Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act, 1995 is violative of the right to livelihood and right to privacy secured
under Article 21. The right of a citizen to eat food of his/her choice is a part of right to
privacy as envisaged under Article 21.

C.THE IMPUGNED STATUTE IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 301 OF

THECONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDICA.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner most humbly submits before the Hon’ble High
Court of State of Maratha that the impugned statute is unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.
The freedom of trade and commerce secured under Art 301 of the Constitution of Republic of
India is violated. The Amendment Act of 1995 is extraneous with the aims and objects of the
parent Act and has no nexus with the protection of cows, bulls and bullocks. The impugned
statute is not protected by Art 304(b) of the constitution.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
A. THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURTOF STATE OF
MARATHA IS MAINTAINABLE
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the writ petition in the instant case
is maintainable. Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the
Hon’ble High Court to exercise power through issuance of writ. The exercise of jurisdiction
is discretionary in nature and subject to availability and exhaustion of the alternative remedy
by the petitioner. The high court is conferred with this power under Article 226 of the
Constitution for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by part III of
the Constitution or for any other purpose. A writ petition can be filed by any person whose
fundamental have been infringed
orunder public interest, a public spirited person can file a writ petition for the enforcement of
constitutional rights of any other person or a class, if that person or a class is unable to invoke
the jurisdiction of the High Court due to any social or economic disability.

i.The amendment of 1995 violates Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of Republic of India
by imposing restrictions by way of total prohibition on the petitioner ’s fundamental rights to
practice any trade or business . In Chintaman Rao case 1, an Act of Madhya Pradesh
Government empowered the Deputy Commissioner to prohibit the manufacturing of bid is
during the agricultural season in such villages as he might specify in his orders.
1 Chintaman Rao. v. State of M.P, 1951 AIR 118,1950 SCR 759,V.N
SHUKLA ,CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 11th edition, 2011