The Validity of the Notification Released by State of West Bengal Exempting the Slaughter of Healthy Cows on Bakr-Id.

Case Name: The Validity of the notification released by state of west Bengal exempting the  slaughter of healthy cows on Bakr-id. 

Summary on State of west Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri (1995) 1 SCC 189 Citation : (1995) 1 SCC 189 

Bench : Kuldip Singh , B.L Hansaria and S.B Majmudar 

ABSTRACT 

The case of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri deals with an exemption given by the state  government that allows cow slaughtering during Bakr-id under Section 12 of the West Bengal  Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950. A group of people, including Ashutosh Lahiri, filed a writ  petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging this exemption. They claimed that the  exemption is not valid. The law’s main purpose is to prevent the killing of healthy cows, which  is considered the core of the act. The court needs to decide whether the exemption granted by  the state is lawful under Section 12. Section 4 of the act aims to stop the killing of healthy  animals. Therefore, any exemption under Section 12 should not ignore this main goal. The law  is meant to increase milk supply and reduce the loss of animal power needed for agricultural  improvement. Section 12 states that exemptions can be given only for religious, medical, or  research reasons. The High Court ruled that slaughtering cows on Bakr-id is not an essential  religious practice but an optional one. The Supreme Court supported this decision, saying that  exemptions under welfare laws must be strictly interpreted. The court also referred to earlier  rulings like Mohd Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, which held that Bakr-id cow slaughter is  not an essential part of Islam and is not protected under Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution.  It also pointed out the directive principles that encourage the state to protect cows. This case  has become a key reference in legal matters related to religious freedom, essential religious  practices, and cow slaughter in India. It serves as a guide in balancing fundamental rights and  directive principles while promoting communal harmony.  

KEYWORDS: Animal Slaughter, Essential Religious Practices Directive Principles.

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT  

Cow slaughter has often led to religious conflicts. In Hinduism, cows are symbols of wealth  and are considered sacred, while Muslims believe that cow slaughter on Bakr-id is an essential  religious practice. This case is part of a long history of legal disputes over cow slaughter. In  Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar (1958),1the court upheld a ban on cow slaughter, stating  it is not an essential religious practice and does not violate Article 25. In another case, Haji  Usman Bhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (1968)2, the court again supported restrictions on cow  slaughter, noting that Article 25 is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. The  Indian Constitution’s framers also made Article 483in the Directive Principles of State Policy  to encourage the prohibition of cow slaughter. In this case, the state granted an exemption  allowing cow slaughter during Bakr-id as a religious practice. Ashutosh Lahiri and others  challenged this, arguing it is not an essential religious practice and the exemption is invalid.  The High Court ruled that Bakr-id cow slaughter is optional and not covered under Section 12  of the act. The state appealed, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. The  Supreme Court emphasized that exemptions must serve essential religious, medical, or research  purposes and cannot be based on optional practices. The court further stated that any exemption  must not contradict the main purpose of the law. Since Muslims can also sacrifice other animals  on Bakr-id, cow slaughter is not the only way to perform the ritual. Section 4 of the act is  central, and any exemption that bypasses its requirements is not valid. Therefore, the exemption  granted by the state is not lawful.  

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The case was an appeal to the Supreme Court. This case was brought before the Honourable  Supreme Court of India to decide whether the exemption given by the state government under  section 12 of the act is valid. The court had to examine this exemption in light of article 25(1)  of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to religion, including the freedom to  practice, profess, and propagate one’s religion. The central issue was whether the exemption  granted by the state falls under the doctrine of essential religious practice. In 1982, the  government of West Bengal announced that section 12 would allow the slaughter of healthy cows during Bakr-id. The exemption power was given to the state under section 12 of the act.  This section allows exemption only for essential religious, medical, and research purposes. It  is clear from this provision that there is room for interpretation. The state included optional  religious practices within the exemption and granted permission for them. However, it also  clearly stated that only animals fit to be slaughtered may be slaughtered. There is no exemption  provision that ignores the main purpose of the act, which is outlined in section 4.Ashutosh  Lahiri and others filed a writ petition in the high court, stating that the act aims to control the  slaughter of animals, including cows and buffaloes, with the goal of increasing milk supply  and preventing the wastage of animal power needed for agricultural improvement. The Calcutta  High Court reviewed the exemption given by the state and found it invalid. It said that any  exception that tries to bypass the main purpose of the act should be strictly interpreted. 

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE SUPREME COURT 

Is the sacrifice of cows on Bakr-id an essential religious practice in Islam that is  protected under article 25(1)3of the Indian Constitution? 

Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution provides the right to religion, allowing individuals to  practice, profess, and propagate their religion. This right also protects essential religious  practices. If sacrificing cows on Bakr-id is considered an essential religious practice, it would  be protected under article 25(1). However, in an earlier ruling, Hanif Qureshi vs State of Bihar,  it was decided that cow slaughter is not an essential religious practice in Islam. The Supreme  Court now had to reconsider this and determine whether sacrificing cows on Bakr-id is indeed  an essential religious practice in Islam. 

Is the exemption granted by the state in line with the exemptions provided in section 12  of the act, or does it fall outside the provisions of section 12? 

Section 12 of the act discusses exemption provisions, which must be followed before granting  any exemption under this section. The section specifies that only animals fit to be slaughtered  may be slaughtered. It allows exemptions only for essential religious, medical and research  purposes. It permits the slaughter of animals over 14 years of age that are unfit for work,  breeding, or have permanent injuries, deformities, or incurable diseases. The aim is to increase  milk supply and prevent the waste of animal power use for agriculture. After carefully  

Constitution of India, art 25(1).

reviewing the provisions of this section, the court had to decide whether the state’s permission  to slaughter cows on Bakr-id is valid.  

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 

For the State and Muslim Representatives (Appellants)  

They argue that the judgement given by high court is erroneous. As they did not correctly  interpret the section 12 of the act. The exemption must be given to fulfil any religious practice  whether it is essential or optional. Even Islam religion allows us to sacrifice a goat, camel or a  cow and the sacrifice should be of healthy animal then it should be valid for the state to allow  to grant the exemption as far as cow slaughter is concerned. 

The high court also misinterpret the Qureshi Case it said that cow slaughter is not essential  religious practice in Islam thus not protected under article 25(1)of the Indian constitution. But  as far as section 12 of the act is concerned it doesn’t clearly mention essential religious practice  it says religious practice only which also cover optional. 

It is not important for a purpose to be essential one it should also cover the optional purpose  also like slaughter of cows on Bakr-id.  

Hence, it would be covered under the section 124of the act. 

Against the State (Respondent)  

They contended that the aim of making this act is to control the slaughtering of animals that  are not fit to be slaughtered or they can be used in increase in the supply of milk and avoid  wastage the power necessary for the agriculture improvement. It is clearly stated in section 45 of the act that only animals fit for slaughtering can be slaughtered. Exemption under section 12  can only be granted when it fulfils the condition that such exemption is essential for any  religious, medical and research purpose. At the time of granting any such exemption it should  be checked strictly whether it is essential or optional. To earn the religious merit Muslim  community is allowed to sacrifice another animal. it is now mandatory for them to sacrifice a  cow on Bakr-id. The state has wrongly granted an exemption for an optional religious practice. 

When we have the way to maintain the very essence of the act with the religious practice of  Islam religion then there is no need to create such a conflict by granting or allowing exemption  to bypass the very essence of the act.  

They said that the section 12 should be narrowly interpreted to prevent such exemption  undermining the very essence of the act. They also reminded the decision given in Qureshi case  to the court that cow slaughtering is not an essential practice in Islam. 

JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT 

The supreme court upheld the judgement of high court and reaffirmed that the exemption  granted by the state government is not valid under section 12 of the W.B Animal Slaughter  Control Act6. The supreme court also declared that sacrificing of cows on Bakr-id is not a  religious practice in Islam. That means the prohibition set by the act didn’t violate the  fundamental right under article 25(1) of the Indian constitution that is freedom of religion is  not violate. Thus, the argument of Muslim community that this prohibition goes against their  right to religion is not valid. It highlighted that only such religious practices that are integral  and essential to a religion are safeguard by article 25. As sacrificing of cows on Bakr-id is not  an essential practice because to earn the religious merit on Bakr-id the Muslim community is  allowed to sacrifice other animals thus slaughtering of cow is voluntary, personal choice or  optional practice that can’t be elevated to the level of essential religious practice. 

In order to ascertain the cow sacrifice is not essential practice of Islam, the court read relevant  religious sources like holy Quran, Hadith. that makes it clear that the sacrifice of an animal on  Bakr-id is a religious practice but the religion doesn’t demand the sacrifice of a cow.  Alternatives such as camels, goats and sheep are there. Allowing exceptions that go against the  very essence of law would defeat what the law is trying to achieve. 

Section 12 of the act clearly stated that for lifting the ban it should be shown that it is  indispensable or necessary practice to be followed. But here the cow slaughter on Bakr-id is  neither an essential practice nor an obligatory for the Muslim community. Such is not the scope  and ambit of section 127. The state can only exercise his exemption power under section 129 Id. 

when such exemption is necessary to be granted for essential religious, research or medical  purpose.  

In view of this the supreme court conclude that there is no fundamental right of a Muslim to  insist on slaughter of healthy cows on Bakr-id, it is not a valid ground for granting exemption  which in turn enable cow slaughtering on Bakr-id that is not an obligatory practice. 

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that article 25(1) of the Indian  constitution deals with essential religious practice whereas section 12 didn’t clearly mention  essential religious practice thus it may cover optional practice as well is not acceptable. No  such exemption is allowed to grant which seeks to dilute or go against the very essence of law. 

We therefore completely agreed or upheld the judgement of Calcutta high court that sacrificing  of a cow on Bakr-id is not an essential religious practice and not an obligatory practice and the  Islam religion doesn’t insist the Muslim community to slaughter a cow to earn religious merit. 

Thus, this practice didn’t get protection of article 25 (1) of the Indian constitution. And section  12 of the W.B animal slaughter control act also didn’t permit such exemption for an optional  practice to be granted by the state. 

In the end, we confirm the decision of the high court and dismiss the appeals. the state of west  Bengal calling upon to forbear from giving any exemption under section 12 in respect of  slaughter of cows on the occasion of Bakr-id. 

RELEVANCE IN TODAY’S CONTEXT 

The judgement in the state of west Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri holds a significant role for the  issues related to religious freedom and essential religious practice. The issue that we have  discussed today in this case cow slaughter is nothing new. This case is about religious freedom  ensured in article 25 of Indian constitution as fundamental right and essential religious practice  that have no fine line to decide what is essential or what is optional. So, this is something which  we have been facing since independence. Or even now after so precedence or judgement on  this particular issue not enough to stop arising of such cases. There are few examples in today’s  context as well where the same issue is arising in the new form like Women’s entry into temples  (Indian young Lawyers association v. State of Kerala, 2018) , instant triple talaq (shayara Bano Union of India,2017)8and the wearing of hijab in educational institutions (Resham v. state  of Karnataka,2022)9. This case also revolves around the same debates that is here in this case  essential religious practice.  

In this case, the supreme court made it clear that cow slaughter is not an essential religious  practice Muslims are not obliged to do so by their religion they have other options to earn the  religious merit. It also made it clear that only essential religious practices which are  indispensable to the religious is protected under article 25 of the Indian constitution. 

This reasoning in this case provides a basis for other future cases related to animal rights. If  there is any alternative option available to fulfil religious obligation, the rights of animals and  the religious sentiments of other religion would be preserved. This judgement will help in  navigating the complex interplay and provide a way to maintain religious freedom with the  rights of animals and religious sentiments of Hindu community. 

CONCLUSION 

The judgement of the supreme court in state of west Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri10 highlights  essential religious practices, requirements of a practice to get protection under article 25(1)11 of the Indian constitution. The court made it clear that sacrificing cows on Bakr-id is not an  essential religious practice. Thus, it doesn’t get protection under article 25(1)14 of the  constitution and no exemption for such an optional practice would be granted. This case is  significant in navigating how to preserve or protect essential religious practices of the  community while maintaining the very essence of the laws made by the state government to  fulfil the aims. It also set a precedent which made it clear that any optional practice which seeks  to go against the very essence of the state law will not be permitted. This case becomes a  precedence and guiding example for handling the complex relationship between religious  practices, law and secular governance in India. This judgement will help us to resolve any  future case on the same issue by referring to the judgement given in this case.  

Reference(S):

1 Mohd Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731.  

2 Haji Usman Bhai Qureshi v State of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 63. 

3 Constitution of India, art 48.

4 West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act 1950, s 12 

5 West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act 1950, s 4

6 West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act 1950. 

7 West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act 1950, s 12 9  

8 Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.  

9 Resham v State of Karnataka (2022) 2 SCC 748.  

10 State of West Bengal v Ashutosh Lahiri (1995) 1 SCC 189.  

11 Constitution of India, art 25(1). 

14 Id.