2007 JTR(SC) 1110
2007 58 AIC 109 ; 2007 AIR(SC) 3074 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 5551 ; 2007 69 AllLR 155 ; 2007 4 AWC 3576 ; 2007 3 BLJR 2445 ; 2007 4 JCR(SC) 75 ; 2007 10 JT 509 ; 2007 10 Scale 277 ; 2007 6 SCC 805 ; 2007 KHC 3965 ; 2007 6 Supreme 409
2007(6) Supreme 409
Supreme Court of india
G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Bal Ram Bali & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
Union of India — Respondent
Writ Petition (civil) 478 of 2006
Decided on : 24-08-2007
important point
It is not within the domain of the Court to issue a direction for ban on slaughter of cows etc.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32
(A) The petition invokes Article 32 of the Constitution to seek issuance of writs of mandamus directing the respondents to impose total bans on the slaughter of cows, horses, and buffaloes, as well as the killing of chameleons, based on religious tenets and statutory provisions including Article 48. The Court examines the scope of judicial power under Article 32 and the principle that enforcement of legislative policy regarding animal slaughter resides exclusively with the legislature, not the judiciary. No writ can issue to compel the legislature or executive to enact or enforce laws in the manner prayed for.
(B) Courts cannot direct the legislature to enact specific laws or enforce existing laws; mandamus is not available to enforce legislative or policy decisions; matters of animal slaughter bans are matters of legislative policy under the constitutional scheme.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a total ban on the slaughter of cows, horses, and buffaloes, and on killing chameleons, invoking religious sentiments and statutory provisions such as Article 48.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that it is not within the judicial domain to issue directions banning slaughter of cows, buffaloes, and horses, as this is a matter of policy for the Government and Legislature. Complete bans can only be imposed by legislation, and courts cannot issue mandamus to enforce legislative Acts or compel lawmaking.
Issues:
Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus under Article 32 to enforce a ban on slaughter of animals including cows, buffaloes, horses, and chameleons; whether such relief falls within the judicial domain or is a legislative policy matter.
Ratio Decidendi:
The relief sought pertains to legislative policy on animal slaughter, which cannot be enforced by writ of mandamus as courts lack the power to direct legislatures or executives on policy matters; hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Result:
The writ petition is dismissed.
(A) The petition invokes Article 32 of the Constitution to seek issuance of writs of mandamus directing the respondents to impose total bans on the slaughter of cows, horses, and buffaloes, as well as the killing of chameleons, based on religious tenets and statutory provisions including Article 48. The Court examines the scope of judicial power under Article 32 and the principle that enforcement of legislative policy regarding animal slaughter resides exclusively with the legislature, not the judiciary. No writ can issue to compel the legislature or executive to enact or enforce laws in the manner prayed for.
(B) Courts cannot direct the legislature to enact specific laws or enforce existing laws; mandamus is not available to enforce legislative or policy decisions; matters of animal slaughter bans are matters of legislative policy under the constitutional scheme.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a total ban on the slaughter of cows, horses, and buffaloes, and on killing chameleons, invoking religious sentiments and statutory provisions such as Article 48.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that it is not within the judicial domain to issue directions banning slaughter of cows, buffaloes, and horses, as this is a matter of policy for the Government and Legislature. Complete bans can only be imposed by legislation, and courts cannot issue mandamus to enforce legislative Acts or compel lawmaking.
Issues:
Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus under Article 32 to enforce a ban on slaughter of animals including cows, buffaloes, horses, and chameleons; whether such relief falls within the judicial domain or is a legislative policy matter.
Ratio Decidendi:
The relief sought pertains to legislative policy on animal slaughter, which cannot be enforced by writ of mandamus as courts lack the power to direct legislatures or executives on policy matters; hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Result:
The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
G.P. Mathur, J. —
1.This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed praying for the following reliefs :
“PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed to kindly issue a writ of mandamus under Article 32 and direct the respondents to ensure and guarantee with immediate effect for:-
(i)Total ban on slaughter of cows, who are regarded by Hindus as their divine mother, to respect the Hindu religion and its followers of all sects as per details of petition.
(ii)Total ban on slaughter of horses in view of Vedic quotations quoted at para Nos.67A & 67B of the grounds.
(iii)Total ban on killing of buffaloes as a mark of gratitude, by Hindus for drinking her milk. Buffalo is to be regarded sister of mother cow. Commitment of the constitution in this respect also is pending since 26.01.1950.
(iv)Total ban on slaughter as proposed under Article 48 in its expression literally where personal interpretations have no say.
(v)Total ban on killing of a chameleon as it is being killed by Muslims by naming it Hindu-Hindu vide para 35(ii) of the grounds of appeal. The chameleon has suffered much killings since arrival of Muslims in India for about 1000 years as its only fault is that it hails name of “Hindu” as per Muslim concept. Hindus are obliged to have sympathy for such an innocent creature.”
2.We have heard the petitioners in person and have perused the record.
3.It is not within the domain of the Court to issue a direction for ban on slaughter of cows, buffaloes and horses as it is a matter of policy on which decision has to be taken by the Government. That apart, a complete ban on slaughter of cows, buffaloes and horses, as sought in the present petition, can only be imposed by legislation enacted by the appropriate legislature. Courts cannot issue any direction to the Parliament or to the State legislature to enact a particular kind of law. This question has been considered in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr.,1 (2003) 6 SCC 195, wherein in para 30 of the reports it was held as under :
“30.Under our constitutional scheme Parliament exercises sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation. In Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 (para 51) it has been held that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of a subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which it has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority. This view has been reiterated in State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 548. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 it has been held that no mandamus can be issued to enforce an Act which has been passed by the legislature...........................”
4.In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the opinion that this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners, as prayed for, in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
***********