Judgement Dealing With Subject Of Slaughter Of Animals In Light Of Indian Constitution

Author(s): C K Chaturvedi
Publisher: Akhil Bharat Krishi Go Seva Sangh
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269193/1

Page #1
A TREND SETTING JUDGEMENT DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT OF SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION JUDGEMENT DELIVERED SHRI C.K. CHATURVEDI SUB-JUDGE (1ST CLASS) DELHI BY CIRCULATED BY: AKHIL BHARAT KRISHI GO-SEVA SANGH. BHARATIYA VIDYA BHAVAN. K.M. MUNSHI MARG. BOMBAY-400 007. (FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY) Copies Available at: VINIYOG PARIVAR, C/O VARDHAM SANSKRITI DHAM, Gopal Sadan, Pethewadi, Gr. Flr., Shri Sambhavnath Jain Derasar Lane, Jambligali, Borivli (West), BOMBAY-400092, Phone: 807 7781 / 807 76 16.

Page #2
in the Court of Shri C.K. CHATURVEDI, Sub Judge, Delhi Shri R.K. Khatri, Advocale Vil:age 4 D. Banknet, Narela Delhi - 40 2 Shri Vod Parkash Khatri Village & P.O. Narela Delhi. 40 .Plaintils Versus Union of India (Delhi Administration, Delhi) Through its Secretary, Civil Lines, Delhi Union of India Ministry of Environment & Forest Priyadarshini Bhawan C.G.O. Complex XII, Lcchi Road New Delhi. Union of India Ministry of Finance (Public Investment Board) New Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Town Haii Chandni Chowk, Delhi) (Service to be effected through its Commissionor) Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi (service to be effected through its Vice-Chairman) The Manager, Delhi Slaughter House Idgah Road, Near Police Station Sadar Bazar, Delhi - 110 006 Ministry of Agriculture Government of India, Dept. of Animal Husbandry (through its Secretary, New Delhi) Defendants

Page #3
ORDER/JUDGMENT This consolidated order determines firstly, the legal relation between Stale, its citizens & other living creatures on Indian Soil, in terms of my orders dated 23 3.92. and secondly, determines the suit of the plaintiffs in terms of Delhi High Court judgment in GW No. 2267/90: alongwith some suggestions and directions considered necessary, in the light of discussions on legal relations mentioned firstly above. What necessitated the consideration of this question was not any theoretical or ecademic exercise but the real necessity of the case as mentioned in para 18 below to adjudicate the cultural, legal and environmental questions raised in the suit in relations to State or Municipal Corporation managed Slaughter Houses and massive killing of livestock animals, therein. It inay be mentioned that when the order of 23.3.92 was passed, the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CW 2267/90 was not announced. 2 Plaintiffs are citizens of India and residents of Narela in the city of Delhi. They are apparently aggrieved by the proposal of the Corporation to shift the existing official slaughter house at Idgah, to a location in Narcia. The proposal to locate or shift the slaughter house at Narela, is quite open and under consideration with Government, as it is also meeting protests from the residents of the area and recently there have been public Demonstrations against il, on various grounds such as. Cultural and Religious feelings, and from the Environmental Poliution o! the Air, in the nearby areas in Narela. 3. This concern cannot be termed as imaginary; and is real and genuine, for the sinple reason and fact tha! this concern; and difficult and sickening conditions of the people near Idgah location itself, necessitales ils moving outside to the periphery of remote area in Delhi. When a situation turns out to be offensive and threatening to life outside the door of one citizen, its shifting to door of another citizen, is likely to be met with similar resistance and anguish. Now, what does the plaintiffs allege in the suit may be noted. It is stated that entire Narela arca is in-habitated by Non-Muslim communities, i.e. almost entire population is non-muslim. That 90% of the population is purely Vegetarian and they do not like the meat and other kind of flesh. That the forcia:hers of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs themselves are deadly against non-vegetarian food. It is stated that to check the haphazard and unplanned growth of Delhi, Delhi Developinent Authority Act 1957, was passed and a Master Plan was prepared for Delhi with Zonal Plans. It is alleged that some land of Narela was acquired by the Government for various objects, but in the said objects there was no provision or proposal for setting up any Slaughter House in Narela land. In the Zonal plan for the Narela land, tollowing objects have been shown. Gross Residential Area Large Open Area Industrial Area Reservation (Future Industrial) Government Offices Commercial and Business 1167 acres 268 acres 225 acres 150 acres 50 acres 25 acres 5 11 is stated that in the above enumeration. There is no mention of Slaughter House. Moro facts have been mentioned. It is stated that within the radius of 6 Kms. is GHOGA AIR PORT. and RULE 81.B of AIR CRAFTS RULE-1937. prohibits slaughtering and flaying of any animal or depositing of dropping. any rubbish. garbage, or any other pollution or matter, which attracts vultures or other birds or animals within a radius of 10Kms. from the Aerodrome Reference Point. 2

Page #4
6. in respect of existing Slaughter House at Idgah, it is mentioned that it has sufficient area, where this is being done for a very long period. Almost all the Butchers of Delhi are living within vicinity and number of such people are about 50.000 and MCD and DDA are keeping care and supervision 7. The suit of the plaintiffs does not mention a word about the conditions of people in the nearby areas or visiting that area. It also does not mention, why there is a public demand for shifting and closing this Slaughter House. 8. It is stated that existing slaughter house is in a area of about 12 Acres, which is sufficient for slaughtering purposes. The plaintiffs also give statistics of the killings. It states that in the year 1989-90, 625088 Buffaloes, 1911857 Goats and Sheep were slaughtered, and in the year 1990-91. 588922 Buffaloes and 1800557 Goats and Sheep were slaughtered. It is stated that contemplated Slaughier House at Narela will not have so much of available space and that Butchers will cause unbearable nuisanco in Narela. The suit was filed when some officials of the MCD were found taking measurements etc. of the area for the purpose. 9. Lastly, it is stated that the slaughtering of the animals is illegal, in human and unconstitutional and the State has no right and cannot have power to permit the slaughtering of animals from environment point of view. If the slaughter house is set up in Narela, it will cause great unhygenic conditions and will create such an atmosphere to which the plaintiffs are not habitual and not accustomed to live. and the feelings of Hindu Community in the area will be hurt and will cause adverse effects on the health and living of plaintiff besides Public Nuisance. 10. In the light of the above facts, it has been prayed that a Decree of Permanent Injunction be passed, restraining the Defendants to set up any Slaughter House in Narela area, in violation of Zonal Fian and such other Reliefs, which this Court may deem fit. 10a. Notice u/s 80 CPC, was exempted. 11. While the plaintiffs on behalf of the residents of Narela, want to protect themselves from the nuisance and pollution of the bad smell out of slaughtering process, it has to be remembered that, environment is not a domain exclusive to MAN alone. The large number of creatures, small or big. Flora & Fauna are very essential part of environment. The concern for life of voiceless animals, who are killed by violence, for various reasons, by human beings, is a concern at par with the concern of citizens to protect themselves against he health hazards, nuisance and polluted air generated from slaughtering houses. It needs no great learning to understand that ANIMALS are not ENCROACHERS on the this Earth, and have a right to co-exist with human beings in a manner, which is consistent to both. This aspect is to be dwelt upon more closely in the later parts of this Order. 12. in view of the fact that large number of animals being slaughtered, since also constitute our livestock wealth of India, which is vital to our agricultural economy. Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying). was considered a necessary party to the suit to adjudicate and understand the question in its all dimensions. This Department of Government of India is the Authority to sanction and locate slaughter houses in India. It was impleaded as Deld No.7. in the suit, as STATE has some obligations towards the protection of livestock and other milch cattle under the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned here that various Municipal Acts provide for vesting and managing of slaughter houses in the Municipality, called Municipal Slaughter House, and these Acts prohibit slaughtering of any animal except in the Municipal Slaughter Houses Despite this prohibition, the animals are killed everywhere. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1957. and its Bye-laws in this regard do not prescribe for any check in order to see that young calves and young animals are not slaughtered

Page #5
13. The reply to the case was filled by Defd.No.3, Union of India, in the Ministry of Finance, Public Investment Board and Defd.No.4, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. There is no pleading in the suit, as to how Public Investment Board comes into picture or is involved in the controversy. It. therefore, rightly stated that no proposal for setting up of a slaughter house in Narela, had been received nor it was pending for approval. It was slated that, Public Investment Board was only a recommending body and works on behalf of the Govt.of India, as subordinate to the Ministry of Finance. 14. The reply of Corporation, Defd.No.4; Defd.No.6, the Manager, Slaughter House is detailed one. It is not the case of the Corporation that no slaughter house at Narela is contemplated. In fact, the Para 8A of the Statement of the Corporation states that contemplated Slaughter House at Narela has sufficient space available for the purpose, and the case of the plaintifts that enough space is not availabie, has been described as incorrect. It is stated that even if Master Plan does not envisage space for this, DDA has powers to modify the plans, MCD has also taken a plea that a Civil Writ No. 2287/90, has been filed by one Moha.Iqbal Qureshi, regarding existing slaughter house at idgah, and in that case the substantial question of Law and fact is the same and the MCD is bound by the Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, and Order passed in the suit will be in conflict with the Order in this case. It is stated that, existing accommodation of 7 acres at Idgah, is not sufficient for the purpose, keeping in view the WORK LOAD. sling sa MCO 15. As a matter of fact, there is now no doubt that. MCD has plan to construct a modern slaughter house at Narela in collaboration or with assistance of Hungarian Government. This has been staled by Commissioner of MCD Mr. P.V. Jayakrishnan, himself, at a seminar held at India International Centre, in Delhi, and is otherwise well known by Press Reporters covering the Slaughter house cases and conditions. 16. An official note (on record) of Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, which was imploaded by Court as Delu. No.7, though shows, its awareness of reasons to make it a party to the suit, but it has chosen, not to directly send its case to court, but has transferred its responsibility to Delhi Administration on the basis of a dubious practice that, first defendant has to take care of all the defendants. It transferred all the papers, and the case to Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry) in the Delhi Administration. During the proceedings. Counsel for the MCD made statement that it will look after the case of Union Government. Later, a Counsel for Delhi Administration filed a reply' on its own behalf, but not on behalf of Department of Animal Husbandry, Deld. No. 7. Its own case is that Department of Delhi Administration is not concerned with the setting up or shifting of existing Slaughter House. It is a noteworthy that though Union Government, Deld. No.7, jeltisoned its responsibility to Delhi Administration, but Delhi Administration has not shouldered it. 17. The Ministry of Environment, Defendant No. 2, despite service has not filed any reply either from the points of view, of the environmental pollution of the air for the surrounding populations, or for the sake of concern for the millions ..f Animals slaughtered or killed in the country, and its impact from the ecological points of view in the integrated term ENVIRONMENT. This Ministry has also missed the case in the suit that slaughter of animals is illegal, in human and unconstitutional and the State has no right and cannot have povints to permit the slaughtering of animals from environmental point of view also. The other deterbunts, though, not concerned with this legality aspect, have however, come forward to say that this is not illegal or inhuman or unconstitutional or is wrong from environmental points of view. 18. On 23/3/92, when the Court saw no hopes of any Reply or Written Stalement from the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, the Court was constrained to STRIKE-OFF the

Page #6
defence of both of these two defendants, and taking note of indisputed fact or killing of very large number of livestock and other animal population, passed the following Order: "Despite enough opportunities, no reply or written statement has been filed by Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, who are though represented by a Counsel. He (Counsel) states that despite his regular writing to these Ministries, no response has come. I am, therefore, constrained to STRIKE-OFF the defense of these two Ministries in the case. The case, in fact, has deep concern with ANIMAL or living creatures component of the environment, as well as, obligations of the STATE to protect livestock population of India, from being slaughtered. It is most unfortunate that both the Central and nodal Ministries, whose concern is raised in the suit have missed the EYE OF THE STORM raised in the suit. The suit primarily also concerns the killing of approximately 3 lakhs of cattle heads every month or 36 lakhs in a year, in Delhi alone. Such a large number of Killings necessarily brings into sharp focus the relationship of MAN & ANIMALS. which has an environmental impact. The question of location or relocation of slaughter house, at a particular place is secondary and subordinate to the primary and fundamental question of legal relationship between Man and other Living creatures, on Earth. The matter obviously has great urgency. No question of location etc. of slaughter house can be considered, unless the primary question is answered. The case is, therefore, adjourned and listed for 10/4/92, for announcing Order on this primary question. The question of considering the case of MCD, DDA, Ministry of Finance or Slaughter House, will be governed by answer to the first primary and fundamental question, if necessary. Written Statement of Defendant No.3, be filed on record. To come up on 10/4/92." 19. The aforesaid order of 23/3/92, and the other facts mentioned above, thus describe how this Order has been necessitated. 20. The suit of the plaintiffs challenges the legality of the unregulated slaughtering permitted hy STATE in the Public Slaughter Houses, and questions it, also from the Environmental and Cultural points of view, and thus opposes the setting up or shifting of a slaughter house at their door step. In my view, people in any area have independent right to oppose a move, which they consider nuisance, obnoxious, illegal or outrageous to Cultural Ethos and to seek Injunctions. 21. This Court had called upon the Counsel to supply the copy of the pending writ in High Court. The question in the writ, is question of Public Nuisance created by the Slaughter Houses by the poor maintenance of the slaughter houses, and non-implementation of orders of Ministry of Environment to take pollution control measures. The petitioner Mohd. Iqbal Qureshi, assumes legality of Slaughtering but seeks mitigation of pollution etc., while plaintiffs in this suit questions the legality of slaughter itself from Cultural, Environmental and other points of view. Therefore in my considered view, there is no merit in the plea of the Corporation that matter in two courts is identical. This plea is, therefore, rejected. It cannot be lost sight of that with the implementation of National Capital Region Plan, around Narela, the new slaughter house at Narela, will face the similar problems, are as today faced at Idgah. Thus, this will be a case of constant shift from one place to another and, generally, people will oppose the move to station slaughter in their area, as slaughter house at ny place necessarily attracts and necessitates ready markets of animals, families earning their livelihood out of the end products of slaughtering, dealers and butchers etc.. which presents in-human scenes and generate pollution and foul air. 22 With this background, I have considered the case in the suit. As already stated, the issue of slaughtering is central to respondents, Ministry of Environment and Department of Animal Husbandry 5

Page #7
and Dairying. Unfortunately, both have chosen to be only as ON-LOOKERS, and in my view cannot stay stranger to each other. The policy formulation regarding establishing of slaughter houses in the country is a subject matter of Department of Animal Husbandry, while Animal Welfare is now the concern of Ministry of Environment and Forests. Now, with the enacting of Environment (Protection) Act-1986, ENVIRONMENT includes not only land and water, but also the mutual relationship that exists between human beings and other living creatures. The large scale slaughtering of animals, whether livestock or others, for whatever purposes necessarily raises and involves in a massive way the question of mutual relationship between Man and living creatures, and is, therefore, a question of ENVIRONMENT principally. The Corporation, DDA, etc. are mere Lostrumentalities of STATE or executors of State policy, and in such matters cannot have any independent stand, to be heard; and are, therefore, bound by the findings of the COURT regarding the legality or validity of State policy, in relation to slaughtering of animals. 23. Since the defense of both the Ministries has been struck-off this Court is entitled to look into various publications of Government, on the subject and other published information on the subject. 24. With this perspective in view, I proceed to consider the various questions raised in the suit. 25. Before considering the question of legal relationship between Man and living creatures, from legal, cultural and environment points of view, the case of the plaintiffs for injunction, on the grounds that 90% of the population being purely vegetarian; and on the narrow grounds of ccmmunity at Narela being Non-muslim or oherwise, may be disposed off. In my view, so long as slaughtered animal products qualifies as FOOD and are available in the market. in that form, the individual food preferences between the Butter or Beef; Chicken or Cheese: Pork or Pulses; Mutton or Mushroom or Milk; does not constitute a civil cause of action or dispute for adjudication in a Civil Court, as our population is of diverse communities and cultures. It is well settled that Civil proceedings are defined as a Judicial process to enforce a Civil Right and includes any remedy employed to vindicate that right. To be Vegetarian or Non-Vegetarian, being matter of personal private choices do not confer any Civil Right, which could be vindicated in a Court of Law. 26. It is, however, another matter that now there is a fast growing medical documentation and research to show that Vegetarians may live long life. Recently Press Trust of India quoted a study by German Scientist, who monitored the health of Vegetarians over a period of 11 years. The study reported that Vegetarians are not only healthy but also live longer. As early as in 1961 one physician was bold enough to write in the Journal of American Medical Association that 97% of the Coronary occulsions (the usual heart attacks) could be prevented by a vegetarian diet. It is for the individuals to consider or ignore this. However, probably everyone does not know that there are about 70 major diseases transmitted to man from abattoirs (Reference Shoor Vir Singh-National Training Course on Meat Hygiene and Abattoir Management 17-23 April, 1990 organised by Ministry of Agriculture and FAO, UN at Makhdeom (UP). These diseases are transmitted by slaughter of sick and diseased animals and by the other unhygenic conditions for which Municipal Slaughter Houses are well known as no controls on these aspect is able to be exercised for various reasons. Therefore, there is talk of modernisation of slaughter houses 27. Following observations at P.51 of the above reference is instructive in this regard. "The abhorrent conditions of slaughter houses is a major constraint in production of good quality meat either for export or for domestic market. Practically, all public slaughter houses in the country are outdated and not even fulfill the basic requirements of water, electricity. sanitation facilities for hanging carcasses for flaying etc."

Page #8
28. As for the grounds of public nuisance and pollution etc., there is now little doubl or controversy. u is also evidenced by present conditions overywhere. Following statement in the Annual Report (1989-90) of the Department of Agriculture and Coopertion, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt.of India, at Page-97, amounts to an admission on the question of threat to people outside Slaughter Houses. "There are more than 3,000 slaughter houses in the country, majority of which are outdated, unorganisod with sub-standard hygienic facilities, causing dek to the health of persons working in abattoirs, millions of meat eaters and a pollution problem to about 100 million population living in the neighborhood of abattoirs." 29. This statement will justify the apprehensions and Imminent threat to population, if the existing slaughter house is shifted to Narela, in existing form. This also establishes the cause of action for the suit, to prevent the threat. In fact, on 12.10.92, DDA has brought on record, official documents, Showing plans to construct slaughter house at Narela, by changing the plan user. 30. As already stated the question of shifting of slaughter house is subordinate to primary question of legality, and the question of shifting may be left here itself for considering at later stago of this Order. A question may however, be asked, "Is the above statement of government not sufficient for closing down of even existing slaughter house in the interest of health of the citizens" 31. Now, is the time to consider the slaughtering of animals from environmental point of view. This in my view, is the Crux of the question involving man-animal relation in the ENVIRONMENT which is integral mutually interdependent intrinsically; and MAN cannot claim himself to bo mutually exclusive of the environment. If animals are not encroachers, on earth, can 'Man' encroach upon them, without such reasons which endanger the man, unless animals are extinguished ? Are two lives teaming up for survival today, which may sanction survival of strong one on the DARWINIAN THEORY OF THE WEST, or the reasons today are different? These are the questions which cannot be given a short shrift. 32. The question of environmental considerations, has no meaning unless the quantum of killings is great. Nature has remarkable rogenerative capacity. if the things are not disturbed unreasonably. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the extent or status of killing of not only livestock breeds, but also others, and also the reasons, and then to consider whether. all such killings are for SURVIVAL for Sake of Food or in the Name of Food. 33. Starting from capital city of Delhi, from the statistics given by the Corporation to Hon'ble High Court, in gross terms average 12,000 of livestock population consisting of Buffaloes, Sheep and Goats are killed everyday. This totals to about 36 lakhs per year. It is seen that over last 10 years period, there has been gradually increasing number of killings, perhaps justified on the grounds of demand. This is the official figures of Delhi. In addition to this, unknown number of other species of animals or birds etc. are killed. This is the story of Delhi alone. According to Ministry of Agriculture, Annual Report now there are more than 3000 officials slaughter houses in India, some small and some large. Everywhere killings are beyond the capacities provided. The number of killings can, therefore, be only imagined. it is necessary to have more facts. Government of India, itself have set up Nine Meat Corporations, after the Fourth Five Year Plan. Following excerpts from report of Ministry of Agriculture provide full data.

Page #9
"To provide safe and wholesome meal. prevent environmental pollution and bird hazards to flying aircraft, it is essential to modernise slaughter houses/ abattoirs in a planned way. For this purpose Nine Meat Corporations have been set up after the Fourth Five Year Plan, in States of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Kerala, Karnataka, West Bengal, Jammu & Kashmir, Tamil Nadu and Sikkim. A scheme on investment in slaughter house corporations is being operated in Seventh Five Year Plan, under which modern slaughter houses at Srinagar. Bangalore, Sikkim and Hyderabad are being established. The total capital cost of the Srinagar Slaughter House Project is about Rs. 590 lakhs. The share of the Government of India is to the tunes of Rs. 145.65 lakhs out of which Rs. 45 lakhs has already been released. The expected total capital cost of Bangalore and Sikkim abattoirs is about Rs. 580 lakhs and Rs. 77 lakhs of which the Govt. of India is to share Rs. 145 lakhs and Rs.34 lakhs, respectively. A sum of Rs. 25 lakhs have been released to Government of Sikkim. The foundation of slaughter house at Sikkim has been completed........ Modernisation of medium-size slaughter houses existing at Trichur, Saidapet and Perambur ( Madras) Koregaon, Naded, Nasik (Maharashtra). Aligarh (UP). Jabalpur, Bhopal, Pune, Allahabad, has also been proposed. The Government of India has released Rs. 30 Lakhs and Rs. 5.0 lakhs for modernisation of Trichur and Koregaon (MAFCO) slaughter houses respectively, during the year 1988-89. The work of Koregaon slaughter house has been completed and that of Trichur is under progress. An additional amount of Rs. 20 lakhs is to be provided for Trichur slaughter house as per the approved project proposal. Project proposals for Naded and Aligarh have been approved and are expected to be completed by 1990-91........... The Government of India appointed an Expert Committee for the development of Meat Industry under the Chairmanship of Prof. N.S. Ramaswamy. President CARTMEN, Society. The Expert Committee has since submitted its report and had suggested various recommendations. They would be given due consideration for adopting a policy of meat development during the Eighth Five Year Plan." 35. Maharashtra has established a modern abattoir al Deoner (Bombay) the capacity is 2.000 animals per chain in a shift of E.ght hours. There are three chains. In addition 400-600 large animals are slaughtered daily by off the floor system. 36. In addition to official government promoted slaughter, there is also private sector indulging in the slaughters. M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited has set up a 100% export oriented modern meat plant. MAFCO Bombay also produces canned products from MAFCO factory Borivalli. Bombay. They have meat plants for large animal buffalo at Koreagaon and Naded. There are eight modern Bacon factories in different parts of the country. 37. Apart from above, there is Export of live animals for meat, to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Dubai and to other Gulf countries. There is also regular export of meat also to Gulf countries. Export of frozen buffalo meat is made to Malaysia. It is estimated that during 1988-89, export was to the tune of Rs. 117 crores. 38. This is known slaughtering. In addition to this, it is reported at' P.53 of the above quoted reference that clandestine slaughter of animals is prevalent in almost all the States and Union Territories. It is feared that the Number of animals killed in this way probably exceeds the numbers of animals slaughtered officially. These are the figures of the killings, which is man induced. We all know that all kinds of animals also themselves die due to famine, drought and

Page #10
floods and other natural calamities. Wild life is facing its extinction already, despite official policy ard efforts to preserve it, and the list of protected species is being increased everyday These domostic animals are being killed for ostensibly food purposes. But many other small animals and various other living creatures are being killed for non-edibie uses as well, for experiments, for cosmetic products, for their bones or hoins, for delicacies, entertainment and other known and unknown purposes. Confining ourselves to the livestock population, a question arises as to what is the number of killings. Is there any data? Though, the number can be imagined to be alarmingly high Is this numbers within the regenerative capacity of the animals kingdom? It is to be kept in mind that these animals have a nature controlled mating period unlike human beings. Their age is not much. Potentially reproductive capable females are also slaughtered, which reversly affects the total regenerative potential. Young ones are also slaughtered. The search for the relevant data in this regard takes one to Governmen! publication of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research under the title "Wealth of India, Vol.lv, Livestock Population." 39. Recently. 'India Today' (July 31st, 1992) made an investigative report on cattle trading for slaughter o cows for bee!. The current export policy does not permit export of beel. The report disclosed illicit trade of India's prime animal resource-cow along the National Highway No.2. Syed Raja is the centre of a high profit, low profile trade in-cows. The people here are involved in catering to the increasing demand for beef from the Middle East. It is reported that over 3000 quintal of meat is sent to Middle East per day. Nearly 5000 trucks loads of cattle from Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh slip through the place called Syed Raja at Bihar Border. It is reporteu that last year 9 lakhs heads of cattle were smuggled and yielded more than Rs. 700 crores. The destination of all the cattle is Calculla. It is reported that beef is processed in Ghaziabad factories. 1: is reported that the yields in the low risk business are good. It is estimated that the meat from a cow or bull bought for around Rs. 1200/- here would fetch between Fis. 14.000/- and Rs. 18.000/in Dubai. 40 It is reported that prior lu ile amendmenis in Prevention o! Cow Slaughter Act 1955, slaughter of unproductive 15 year old cows and bulls was within the bounds of law.now even that has been proscribed. The amended Act has expanded the definition of cow to include even Oxen and Calves. This is a boon for Cattles Smugglers, because the meat of Calf fetches twice the price of ordinary bec: 41. While Buffaloes and Bullocks constitute the most slaughtered tribe, it is reported that Camel, which is really the Ship of the desert, and without which the great Rajasthan Canal would have been impossible. is being transported for killing from desert state to Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (Reference Amita Singh in Hindustan Times, July 5, 1992). The same report also speaks for sheep and goats and frogs. It is reported that slaughter rate of sheep and goals is 35% to 40%, which is alarmingly high for a country where the pastoral nomads constitute 7% of the population, and a large number of women dominated cottage industries are wholly dependent on these animals. Goat has been described as WET NURSE in European countries. It is reported that pigs now are slaughtered at such a high rate that indigeneous varities of pigs have become extinct. It is reported thai 100 million frogs every year are killed to serve as delicacies to the Europeans. Even the Elephants are under threat by organised poaching and project elephants was launched by Ministry of Environment and Forest, 10 conserve it. The Hindustan Times (May 2, 1992) reported repetitive experiments on animals such as monkeys, and efforts of Ministry of Environment to control these. It is reported that now it is not being taken seriously. It is reported that, in the meantine animals are killed mercilessly. cut, boiled, skinned alive, scaled. ripped apart. broken, flayed. blinded battered traumatised. drugged isolated, starved and systematically inflicted by diseases. chemicals and injury.all in the name of Research.

Page #11
42 Recently, on 20th September, 1992 The Times of India drew attention towards little known TURTLE. It is an integral part of the ecology and helps to cleanse equatic habitation controls water weeds and supply food to several aquatic and terrestrial life forms including Man. It is reported that its population has greatly depleted for many reasons but the major cause is the big demand for turtle meat in Bengal. It is reported that Turtle marketing is a lucrative enterprise employing trappers, primary and secondary; wholesalers and retailers. Unless, regulated they may get depleted faster than-they can regenerate. 43. From the large animals both wild and domestic, now Man's encroachment in the name of food has descended on insects. It is reported that researches in these are being progressively taken, for tapping them as a source of protein. (See The Hindustan Times dated 6.9.92). 44. The above discussion on the number of animals killed will show that now no animal on earth is spared and is facing extinction at the hands of human beings in various ways. 45. Returning back to the livestock population the dimension of whose killing are described above, a question naturally arises, as to whether the Government of India, has any estimates on the killings to take a view that still the killings are within the regenerative capacity. The search for answer to this question takes me to a publication of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, entitled "The Wealth of India". The Raw Materials Vol. VI Supplement. Livestock (including poultry) published in 1970- At page 59 it states that there is no reliable data with regards to the number of animals slaughtered for meat. When even in 1970, there was no data, and the statement that meat consumption has been on increase, as mentioned in the Government Publication, and the fact that now meat is produced not only for domestic consumption but on a large scale for exports including exports of live animals; and otherwise deaths occur for natural reasons, not much comfort can be drawn from the often repeated and quoted statement displaying proud that India possess a large number of cattle and buffaloes of 33604 million. The indisputed fact of migration of rural population to urban centres, and gradual giving up of cattle rearing practices, when juxtaposed with the unknown number of animals being killed or slaughtered compels one to emprically conclude that these livestock animal have been marginalised. This is manifested by perennial scarcity of milk. even in rural areas. 46. The ecological portends of the impending environment imbalance are thus a writing on the wall. Unless whole killings are regulated, it is not difficult to see that govt. will have to grope in future years, as now is the case with wild life. In my view, large scale indiscriminate hunting is equivalent to planned slaughter, which is planned and clandestine both. Cue to future situation can be taken from the efforts of International Community today to conserve world fisheries, from over exploitation. When the world fisheries, supported by water, which is 3/4 of the earth surface. face crisis by over using, the case of cattle if allowed to remain as it is today can be imagined. Recent liberalisation of ECONOMIC POLICY opening door to the Foreign companies for investment, offer to them a big bite on the Indian animal resources, which is the staple diet of Europe. Given the opportunity, it is not difficult to wipe out entire livestock population in a short period. 47. These facts are being mentioned by this Court, with a view to draw the attention of government of the day to this impending crisis, so that it does not grope for solutions in future. What deforestation and indiscriminate hunting and poaching did to the wild life, is being done to livestock population by fast urbanisation, disappearing of green pastures, grazing grounds and of course planned slaughtering. Such alarmingly high killings of livestock animals, for whatever reasons is destructive of environment. This seems to be a clear result of total freedom availed by peopie to kill an animal. Such a freedom is necessarily to be restricted environmentally by narrowing, confining, channeling 48. 10

Page #12
and strictly reyulating, assuming it becomes necessary to deprive any animal of its life. The ostensible reason of food and the circumstance, under which such killing for food is to be allowed is to be sharply defined. Keeping in view. the environmental dimension of large scale slaughtering or killing. the executive policy of the Government to retain this subject with Ministry of Agriculture or Department of Animal Husbandry, instead of transferring this subject to Ministry of Environment. itself is a policy destructive of environment progressively. In due discharge of Constitutional Duty to protect environment under Article 51 A of the Constitution, this Court deems it just and necessary to draw the attention of the Government to this aspect of transfer of subject to Ministry of Environment. Animal Husbandry as an essential and important component in the rural economy of small and marginal farmers, has to do principally with efforts to improve the vast population of livestock, but has nothing in common with tho process of sanctioning slaughtering. which depletes the livestock by commercial exploitation for individual economic ambition. The depletion of animal population whether of livestock or other is a matter of environmental concern and should be monitored by Ministry of Environment. 49. It is often stated that there is overgrazing by cattle and, therefore, cattle population, can be afforded to be sacrificed. There is also a myth that, if animals are not slaughtered, every inch of land will be occupied by these. Overgrazing is specifically for the reason that necessity of green pasture and grazing grounds is not weaved into the Master and Zonal. Plans. All planning tends to revolve around comforts of MAN, forgetting that animals and MAN have to co-exist in harmony. The question of removing them from company of man, could arise only when animals turn foe and become dangerous to man's existence. Whal are PARKS for human beings are Green Pastures and Grazing Grounds for these subhumans. The myth of the animals occupying every inch of earth is exploded by contrary actual situations observed by us. The cals and dogs, for example, which are not eaten, are not seen around everywhere in streets, nor roads are seen full of those. Ecological studies show that interdependence of life and its sustaining processes are delicately balanced in nature. By various activities of mar, which encroach upon the nature, ecological balance is disturbed, but it is not disturbed if it is lelt to itself. There is self regulating process which is not visible, but which maintains the balance, unless disturbed unreasonably. 50. All living beings are dependent on other living and non-living components of the ecosystem. Essential needs for the existence of life, such as energy, nutrition, and water etc. are continuously made available by certain processes going on in nature. Today slaughtering is being resorted to not for the reason that cattle population is posing a threat to man, or that it is needed. Killings. are now not any more need based but are aceed_based, as well be discussed later on. Much of the debate today centres around the issue of development Vs. Environment Environmental concerns are taken as impediment to developmental priority, particularly in poor countries. But it is important that extinction of species, has nothing to do with developmental needs, as such. However, as with other environmental problems rich are more to blame in the exploitation of animal resource than the poor. The killing of animals for export is to serve the Europeans or Gulf people to get little foreign exchange at the cost of vital animal life. The people in India are largely (67%) Vegetarian, and Indian Culture is rooted in a tradition which emphasis the need for harmony between man and nature. The relevance of culture is also central to the whole issue, which will be considered in detail later on. 51. According to the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Government of India, the live stock issue is complex because of the very intricate relationship cattle have with life in rural India. (See * National Report to UNCED, June 1992 entitled "Environment Development". Traditions, concerns and Efforts in India. P.22). The report stresses a large number of unproductive cattle, and their grazing on public lands, by owners at no cost. It states that this leads to pressures on local

Page #13
environment, leading to land deterioration, soil erosion and suppressive of the regeneration of usolul spocios. As ngninst this viow. at tho samno timo, Roport states that Cottlo havo Intricato rolntionship with life in rural India, in terms of Cow Dung. resources for manure or as fuel. Bullocks are used as drought animals. It states in a regrettable manner that social status of a family, is often linked to the number of animal owned by one and that cows are not siaughtered for meat. 52. The report thus appears to be in favour of slaughtering of cattle and cows for reason of overgrazing or for meat. Such a view can only be described as hurried and sweeping view, and is not obviously consistent with our culture in a tradition which stresses a need for harmony between man and nature, and, therefore, does not envisage weaving need of grazing lands in the planning process for human settlements, instead of blaming innocent cattle for their natural needs, and indirectly supporting their slaughter, for such shortsighted reasons. This view will also lead to progressive elimination of cattle from human life, as increasing population and pressure on land and migration from rural areas, and urbanisation, will compel more and more focus on needs of MAN alone. It appears that, scenario of man Vs. livestock or other animals has set in. As will be seen later, meat industry in India, does not see its growth and potential in the population which is unproductive, according to Ministry of Environment but, has its own dreams, based an economic ambitions, for cattle young or otherwise, depending on the price, it can fetch. This, industry blames Indian culture, and laments Industry's limitations for this reason. Such view are mere distortions from ecological points of view and lend to settle ecocide. Man is a part of the bio-sphere or environment, as interdependent, rather than independent element among all the other elements of it. Whatever he does would have an effect on himself. Bacon's statement Man can only control the biosphere by obeying it, applies on this. It is said that we are still far from knowing and understanding the functioning of it, while we are destroying the whole ecosystem, which cannot even be studied. 53. Now, apart from the environmental considerations, accepted economic role of livestock may be stated. 54. India possesses a large livestock population numbering 336.4 million according to a report of Government published in 1970. This includes 224.8 million cattle and buffaloes 101.0 million sheep and goats, 2 million pigs, 3.4 million horses, monkeys, donkeys and camels. There are in addition 114.2 million poultry birds. What is the actual number today after 20 years, is not known keeping in view lack of data on the number of killings, in an entirely unregulated situation obtaining today. Complete freedom of action seems to be the only rule of law in regard to livestock killings. Reports indicate the camel-ship of the desert is facing crises in Rajasthan owing to diversion of these to Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, where it is slaughtered for various purposes. 55 According to Government of India publication "The Wealth of India. Raw material Vol. VI Supplement, Livestock P-2. "Cattle play vital role in the rural economy of India. Bullock are still the main source of motive power to agriculture operations and milk is the main source of animal protein in the dietary of the majority of the people. Cattle are used for many purposes such as, ploughing, harrowing, threshing, harvesting, for lifting water and for transporting the produce to the market. Besides, they replenish the fields with organic manure and yield hides and skins. Cows and bullocks are, therefore, regarded as the foundation of agriculture in India. India has been one of the largest supplier of hides and skins to the international market and has been earning good amount of foreign exchange through the sale of these products. Horns hoofs and bones are utilized in industrial and in the preparation of the bone-meal used as mineral supplements to cattle feeds and fertilizers. A precise evaluation of the cattle industry is hardly possible, in as much as, it is spread for the whole country in innumerable

Page #14
small units. Cattle labour is also an important contribution of livestock to Indian agriculture, the monetary value of which, on the basis of cultivation costs, has been estimated at between Rs. 3000-5000 millions. The value of cattle raising the fertility of the soil is roughly estimated at Rs. 2700 millions'. 56. Experts estimate that India has 80 million drought animals which can contribute 40 million horse power, roughly. equal to 10,000 MW of Electric energy. 57. A bullock or buffalo could generale 0.75 H.P. a male, 0.70 H.P. a cow 0.45 H.P. and donkey 0.35 H.P. It has been suggested by a writer that such a large energy would help farmers and other public in energy noods, which in turn could spare the forest, woods and spare illegal killing of trees. (See the Hindustan Times, June 17, 1992, Tapping the animal power by Ashok K Ral). "Agriculture in India, a publication by Indian Council of Agricultural Research, (1980) states, that livestock largely subsists on the by products of agriculture, but to obtain the fullest benefit from a combination of crop cultivation and animal husbandry, it is essential that man-animal competition for the produce of the land to be achieved by increasing the productivity of our livestock, by various programmes." It is thus clear that large scale commercial unregulated slaughtering hits at the base of livestock diminishing ilk which in turn send us to other artificial means of many'e fertilizers and other resources for sustaining agricultural activities. The one point which is often missed is that total animal resources, in terms of its products or otherwise remain the same, even without the large tampering with the livestock populations. Unliko man, animals offers its uso even after death. The bones quis or, hidos, skin or other parts, of which man has found uses, in any case belong to man once the animals dies. But slaughtering only induces or intervenes to precipitate death to make these products available at a faster rate, for money. But without knowing that resources base is also depleted faster, in the process, and may one day become extinct. As will be demonstrated soon, the slaughtering is like killing the Hen which lay golden eggs, to obtain all golden eggs together, and has its basis now largely in pure areed based economis activity instead of a need based personal activity to survive, in terms of instincts of self preservation. 58. Now, before the legal relation between man and the animals is considered, the natural factual relation as reflected in the human development from Stone Age to this Space Age may be considered 59. The story of man's relationship with the natural environment dates back to the dawn of man's emergence as a dominant species on our planet. It is in fact inseperable from the story of man's own development. History and Research in Sciences tell us that animals have been in existence on earth much before the man appeared. Neolithic people were the first to domesticate animals and begin to plant crops. This great step forward towards civilisation took place some time before 8000 and 5000 BC. In primitive stone age, man lived by hunting to meet its need of food. Then, man looked to other natural resources for its sustenance. The farmers first freed themselves and their descendants from complete dependance on hunting, fishing and fathering wild plants and fruits for their food supply. Now, animals learned to depend on man for protection and food and had their youngs in captivity for ensuring new flocks. Increasing populations sent primitive man to look for agriculture based resources which could supply in abundance, compared to limited hunting. Thus, the neolithic people began to form settled cultivation, for farmer wanted to stay in 13

Page #15
the same place to harvest his crops. The first plants to be successfully grown were Wheat and Barley, which were good for feed and Stalks provided fodder for animals. 60. The earliest animals to be domesticated were goals, pigs sheep and cattle and of course, dogs. According to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, agriculture in the form of settled cultivation in this country. probably began over 7000 years ago, in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Due to the diversity of soil and climate, of the country and endowed with rich flora and fauna, India become one of the early centres of domestication of several important crops including, rice. Before the beginning of settled cultivation, India was a predominantly pasteral country. With crop husbandry and mixed farming, agriculture and animal husbandry went hand in hand. 61. Before the settled cultivation animals were the prime source of food. This was indeed a necessity of time, and a need based killing. In exercise of instinct of self preservation, and man used violence and force for the need. With the advent of civilisation man started managing plant based foods and today agriculture produce all over the world is the main, principal source of food. Intensive farming and increasing the crop yields has assumed the dimension of a technology. Though, vegetables replaced animals to a large extent as a food, selective poaching and hunting continued with respectable words as 'game' and prize for the 'catch'. Slowly, what was once a food itself, camo down as a food item and a delicacy in the menu. Scientific eyes lookod for organic components of food. They came to conclusion that as atom is made of protons, neutrons and electrons, the food is made up of carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins etc. Therefore, the classifications of food came to be characterized by the value of quantum of various components of food. Next, came tho comparison of various items of food which could provide these basic elements, to get the nutritivo value. Today animal protein has come to be integrated with the notion of balanced diet in term of components of food, and practice of getting protein from animals has come to stay, other vegetables based sources of protein, or milk though equally rich in basic elements are considered inferior. Today food is classified as vegetarian or non-vegetarian, in homes, houses, restaurants, platforms, and everywhere. Stalo guests are served with delicacies of their choice, and State run hotels, too. cater to the need of non-vegetarian food, on demand. 62. Despite the fact that primitive conditions of living no longer exist, except in deep interiors or tribal areas, where usual supply of agriculture produce is not possible, the stone age habits continue, in the name of food value of animals, though food values in other foods, compares favourably well with these animal based products. The food habits get innocently passed to younger generations, in family. The result of all this is that people do not look beyond the food and close eyes to an cnvironinentally destructive practice, of killings and by doing yiolence to innocent creatures, who bubble with same form of life as human beings and there is clearly unjustified killings today, when enough of food exists; and conditions of Life competing with life for existence are not available. There exist today dichotomy of perspective of those who choose the animals as food so long animal products are available in that form on shelves in market, the purchasers, wash their hands off the compunctions in killing by saying that they have not killed the animals, though they. generally agree that it is wrong to kill animals and they pass responsibility to butcher, whose profession it is to slaughter the animals. It if often not realised that it is the demand at the shelf that promotes the killing, which is based on profit making activity. 63. The slaughtering of animals involve unparallel violence and cruelty to life, in them, which can't be described sufficiently by words, such as barbaric or crude

Page #16
To quote "Only sheeps goals pigs are transported in motorized, trucks, caltio and bullaloos are tied in two's and fours and marchod mile after mile to distant gallows. During the last lap of their journey on man's earth, they do not qualify for food, waler or oven rest. Cornbined with this the cruel treatment meted out to them affect the quality and commercial value of hides and skins.............. (emphasis suppliod) Slaughter methods presently in vogue can be described only as crude and barbaric. in the present practice, the animals brain is under great stress due to fear and pain resulting to loss of valuable hormones. Twisting, rolling and being thrown and tossed about on the rough, unhewn floor damage its skin. From the moment, the animal is slated for slaughter, want on violence is inflicted on it till its death. As a preparation about 20 animals are thrown down and their legs tied up. While assistants clamp tho animal down into position, butchers take turns cutting throats one by one. The carcasses are dragged from place to place and ripped open and flayed. Frightened by their horrifying struggle to wriggle out, the other terror stricken animals panic to free themselves. They scream and wail, nervously bestirring with urino, dung and blood of the slain animals. Thus writhing in pain, they thrash about in this modley of filth, while other wait for their turn to come. Such gruesome scenes are not visualised even in the conventional pictures of hell." 64. The above description is not one of exaggeration or invention, but is in the words of N.S. Ramaswamy, who is Chairman of an Expert Committee appointed by Govt. of India. for development of meat industry. 65. It is these happenings to the innocent animals, which creates different reactions in india and Western world. While the Western countries see solution to these horrifying situations, by recommending stunnings of animals by electric shocks, and recommend modern slaughter houses, where machines takes over most of the jobs, and the Western reaction does not take congnizance of the life in animals at par with life in human beings, but takes the animal'as another chattel, on the basis of cultural thinking which seeks to win nature, by struggle. The Eastern world in India, on the other hand, has a culture based on harmony with nature and co-existence with the natural world. This harmony view does not envison such violent, relations with animals. Our culture makes provision for compassion as Dharma. The feeling of unity with all lives spontaneously creates a spirit of reverence for all forms earnestly seek their own security. The main instincts function equally in human and subhuman beings. It is, therefore, sometime said that it is beneath man's dignity to torture or destroy living things for food. 66. With this identity of life and respect for life arises a legal question whether the conditions or situations in which man sanctions deprivation of human life, can be much different for the animals, the subhuman. Under what conditions the life can be wiped out of animals? 67. It is, indeed unfortunate that forgetting Indian Culture, and inconsistent with that, Dr. N.S. Ramaswamy recommends Captive Bolt Pistols and Electric Stunners and recommends an expenditure of Rs. 5 crores in distributing such Pistols to all the Slaughter Houses 15

Page #17
68. What our late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, said regarding wildlife of India, is also true for other animals. He said: "I wonder sometimes what these animals and birds think of man and how they would describe him if they had the capacity to do so. I rather doubt if their description would be very complimentary to man. In spite of our culture and civilisation, in many ways man continues to be not only wild but more dangerous than the any of the so called Wild Animals."(Reference B.K. Tikader "Wild Life of India") 69. On our part, are we adults not guilty of environmentally irresponsible behaviour, when the children at right initial stages of education are told to learn the edicts of Ashoka the Great, Buddha and Mahavir, to respect life and to have love for animals, on the one hand; while on the other hand they are made to learn that balanced diet consists of animal proteins and such facts are mentioned in the text books often. Like wise the 3rd or 4th standard books speak of teeth and jaws of flesh eating animals and plant eating animals and it is told that human teeth structure resembles to those of latter ones. Such duplicity in practice and precept, is often unable to answer the pure simple questions asked by younger ones in their thirst and curiosity to harmonize the opposites. Gandhi, Budha and Mahavir and many others are remembered annually for ritual sake, but their views are left to be discarded or accepted at wish. It is like paying respect to the shadow, and insulting the Corpus Body. It is often told to the young ones that animals are our friends and useful to man, but at the dining tables and hotels and restaurants where elders reach out for animal product, truth and respect for animals is kept at distance and not talked. These environmentally unfriendly habits go down the generation in an unconscious manner. This is what a poem by G.F. Alexander in a 4th standard book "New Radiant Readers" says of creatures. GOD MADE THEM ALL All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful, The good God made them all. Each little flower that opens, Each little bird that sings, He made their glowing colours, He made their tiny wings. The purple headed mountain, The river running by, The morning and the sunset, That brighten up the sky. The tall trees in the greenwood, The pleasant summer sun, The ripe fruit in the garden, He made than every one. He gave us eyes to see them, And lips that we might tell. How great is GOD Almighty, Who has made all things well. 16

Page #18
70. This is not all about our relations with animals. Over the last many years there is also a growing concern for welfare of animals. Our descriptions of relations with them will not be complete unless the efforts going on in this direction are taken note of. 71. The decade of sixties saw the establishment of Animal Welfare Board, to carry out the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. This Act itself was a great milestone towards the recognition or conceding of some rights to animals against ill-treatment, though, not against the violence on them to die half way to life. This Act, too, was not result of any Government brought Bill, but it was by the efforts of a member by bringing a Private Bill. Sml. Rukmani Devi of south India in Madras made efforts to bring on statute book, the message of compassion to helpless animals. Her message took roots in 1960, when she had visited the Madras Slaughter House. She saw a calf following its mother into the Slaughter House. Before its very eyes it saw its mother's legs broken and throat slit for the blood to drain away, while she quivered in pain. However, it seems that Bill ended on a compromise. It stopped short of saying that animal should not ordinarily be killed, save in exceptional circumstances, when it does not qualify for compassion. The Act only sought to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. 72. The Act, in fact, followed the policy of being Pennywise and Pound Foolish, in preventing cruelty. Under the Act, to punch an animal is an offence but to kill is, not. It permits controllod experiments for purpose of research and advancement of knowledge but allows killing of any animal for food. It does not prescribe any particular animals permitted to be killed for food of mankind. The result in that any animal, whether to be used for food or not, or to be used for business can be slaughtered in the name of food. The Act also does not enumerate the circumstances or conditions in which alone, any animal could be killed for food. Thus, the permitted killing is not need based and is therefore used as a shield against greed based commercialised killings enmasse, as a private enterprise or any business. Act does not specifically speak of any right to life of animals. 73. The Board constituted under the Act, is a subject matter of the Ministry of Environment, while slaughter house, wherein, such unregulated killings take place are subject of Ministry of Agriculture in Department of Animal Husbandry. Both are staying stranger to each other in this area, which is of vital importance to the life of animals. Wild life as a whole has been taken care of since 1972, by an Act of Parliament, enacted after World Environment Conference of 1972. It was enacted to arrest the extinction of endangered species. The livestock animals and other are till today left out. 74. The movement is spreading. Animal Welfare Fortnight is celebrated from Jan. 14 to Jan. 30 every year. Mobile dispensaries for animal are used, camps and symposium organised. A government body with statutory powers of on the spot punishment in the case of cruelty to animals called Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been established, all over India. 75 Over the years various voluntary non-governmental organisations have come up to help spread awareness of need of compassion. The Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre is a centre where stray and wounded animals can have a comfortable stay till a home is found for them. Jeev Ashram puts to sleep animals with terminal diseases, an activity considered controversial. A body named KARE takes up the cause of circus animals. Animal Welfare Society is actively involved in spreading the message of kindness and propogation of vegetarianism and a simple way of life. SHRISHTI is a body for birds and wildlife sancturies 76 An organisation called BEAUTY WITHOUT CRUELTY informs public about the various cruelties cone to animals in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries in the name of research. KALPA 17

Page #19
VRIKSHA is a body for restoration of natural habital of animals. There is FREIENDICOS for animais involved in road accidents. There is Jain Bird Care Centre for sick and injured birds. Various newspapers periodically write for animals. Recently, Delhi TV displayed a Film, "Are we se Insensitive to life?" which depicted the inside of the slaughter houses. October 4th is observed as "World Animal Day". Now, often Runs for Animals are organised. 77. Indeed, massive efforts are going on. But it seems that all organisations stop short of actually demanding stoppage of killing of animals in such an arbitrary style. 78. In fact, now it is difficul to distinguish between the killings which take place for food, and killings which take place for businoss or making a living. In fact a full fledged Meat Industry has come of age with government support. It is all set and ready for expansion, but is not able to take off at a jet spoed because of social prejudices or for cultural reasons. This Industry blames Indian Culture. It draws misplaced comparisons with total trade in meat in world, forgetting Indian cultural base, and laments only 1.2 million tonnes of flesh and export of only 180 crore worth of meat from only 60,000 tonnes of meat. Given the strength and occasion, this industry may at a future date may complain of shortage of animals, in this land which takes pride in having world's largos cattle. 79. In this situation two questions arise. First, whether today animals are being killed for food; and Second, whother those are being cater for food? The answers are clear. When animals aro being killed to meet the aspirations and projections of those involved in exports, those are being killed for economic ambitions or for making a living. Likewise, on eating as fooo, H is to be remembered that now the conditions of Stone Age do not exist, nor is the society primitive. Civilisation and agricultural development has taken strides; and conditions of food shortage no where exist, save in areas where still civilisation is yet to see the light of the day. In this space Age, when poople have enough of everything in big cities, villages and towns, ordering of animals in hotels or houses is not for Survival, but for taste or pleasure alone; or to get along with the fashion or vague norms, which consider diels without meal as domain of eccentric, the bizzare or the deranged or the poor and pitiable ones. The fact that people consume animals for taste is also corroborated by the fact of comparison of various basic elements in plant based food or milk. If one were to go for food value alone, one would on pure economic prudence will go for more food value; at less money value in plant based foods. But this is not so. Now, of course, vegetarianism is becoming a household word. People also do not always go for animal food for health or nourishment reasons. If that were so, the 70 major diseases well documented in medical sciences, associated with various organs of slain animals, would have made the flesh the dirties thing on earth to louch. 80. This Court cannot enter into this aspect of debate to pursuade or dissuade on such grounds except based on legal relationship between citizens and living creatures. However, it is interesting to note that some of the Historys outstanding figures have found it morally objectionable, because to do so necessitates killing animals. Such figures include Leo Tolstoy, H.G. Wolls, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw. Albert Schweitzer. Mahatma Gandhi, Henry David Thoreauu, Ralph Walde, Emerson, Richard Wagner, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, Sir Issac Newton, Leonard de Vinci, William Shakespeare and in early Rome and Greece, Virgil. Hoace, Plato and Phythagoras. 81. Of course, vegetarianism has also been the rule rather than exception among the World's great spiritual teachers. On pure consideration of economics of production of animal protein, vegetarianism has been advocated on the grounds of economic pressure of feeding the World Expanding population. It is said that from the perspective of land use and efficiency of agriculture, producing meat is much more expensive than producing vegetables food. A beef cow must be fed 21 pounds of Aiciones com mieste producing most is 18

Page #20
plant protein in order to produce 1 pound of animal protein for human consumption. In USA one half of all the agriculture land in use is planted with feed crops, most of which are used to produce meat. A great deal of protein is wasted by feeding it to animals and then eating them, rather than using the plant food directly. It has also been said that if meat were dropped from the diets of US and a few other countries, everyone on earth could eat well. These facts are important from ecological balance and environmental planning viewpoint also, which cannot be and should not be missed by any Government. 82. Thus, the net observation of this Court in regard to unregulated slaughtering is that now neither the animals are killed for food nor eaten for food. Such killings and export of animals for killing and eating them for taste are both environmentally distructive practices, and environmentally destructive food habits, respectively. This apart, as admitted by meat industry itself, it is also in letter and spirit against our age old traditions and culture handed down from generations that pays respect to all forms of life and enjoin co-existence with nature. Strands of this composite cultural heritage are woven around the views of our cultural leaders in the time frame of history. India has been known for this value, which alone attracts numerous tourists and other curious people to this soul satisfying rich soil. 83. Now, coming to cultural aspect in a brief way, our present Environment Minister Mr. Kamal Nath, in his address to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, at Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992 used the phrase VASUDHAIV KUTUMBAKAM which means, quite simply the world is one family. He said, "Our culture enjoins us to look at the whole of creation the world and all it contains living and non-living as a family in the widest sense, co-existing in mutual symbioses". This description nearly spells our cultural outlook to other living creatures who share earth with us. He further said, "The millenial civilisation of India is rooted in a tradition, which has consistently emphasised the need for harmony between man and nature". 84. These principles of ours, in fact, carry message of environmental protection for ecological balance, which was more known to our ancients, though the world seems to be looking for it now, to meet the challenging crises, created by man itself. These principles are eternal in nature and cannot be wished away on any reasons. These simple truth continue ever emerging as guidance to human beings, whenever man faces crisis. 85. In fact, the same truth and principles have been expressed by different people at different times in different ways. The Rule of Law against violence to Nature in thought and deeds was only reiteration of truth of co-existence in Nature. The Lord Mahavir expressed the same truth by stating AHIMSA PARMODHARM. When applied to nature it will mean in simple terms Preserving the ecology or environment is the law for all civilisations. Same thing is said in the prayer in the scriptures by stating, "Sarve Bhavantu Sukhina: Sarve Santu Niramaya." It wishes well for all. Vedic scriptures specifically state against killing of animals. 86. What is Culture? Shri C. Rajagopalachari, stated culture as the sum total of the way of living built up by groups of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another. According to S. Abid Hussain, in his National Book Trust Publication, 'The National Culture of India - "India's national culture consists of common temperament and outlook which constitutes the Indian mind and the intellectual influence of various movements and cultures which have been incorporated harmoniously with the national mind." He says that from time immemorial agriculture has been the main occupation of the people in India, and it stressed the values of peace and constructive activity more than those of war of other destructive activity in action. In my view, large scale destruction of animals involving violence of unparallel kind going for long period so far does not represent our culture, but are mere abbereations in it by few. Shri C. Rajagopalachari again states that Meanness 19

Page #21
dishonesty. cruelly the avoidence of these three vices make culture hout cruelty who is more tolevant to our discussion, he says. Do not be cruel show kindness to every being that is weaker than yourself Every living thing loves its own life and is sensitive to pain, be tender to them all. If you gre mean faisip or cruel, everyone will know it and know you are not cultured man or woman Do unto bers as you would be done by. This is the essence of culture in word and action, He contine's. "We can exaggerate and caricature every discipline. It is easy to paint the picture of foolish concern for the bugs and the ants and the mosquitoes. It is easy to prove the impossibility of avoiding all killings and to establish that eating one another is the law of Nature. But culture consists essentially in putting yourself in other's position and thinking and feeling in that position. Sementically speaking it is the standard of behaviour set before people and kept up steadily by the enlightened among them that should be called the culture of that group and not the actual performances and failures. 1 88. It is instructive to note what famous Constitutional Lawyer N.A. Palkiwala has to say on the quintessence of Indian Culture. (See Essential Unity of all Religions. N.A.Palkiwala, 1990. Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay) "The quintessence of ancient Indian culture, and of great religions flourishing today. can be reduced to the five immortal Ideals which, our rishis have been preaching indefatigably for ages-Satva. Dharma. Shanti. Prem and Ahimsa. None of these five hallowed words has an exact equivalent in the English language. The various nuances of each of these five words cannot be precisely encapsulated in a single word in any modern language. About Ahimsa he says: "There is far more to Ahimsa than merely non-violence and harmlessness. When you practise Ahimsa you identify yourself with all animate creatures. It involves a feeling of kinship. of oneness, with all life-your followman and animals birds and trees. In 1979, the world celebrated the centenary of Dr. Albert Einstein's birth; and tributes were paid to him in all continents. Dr. J. Rober Oppenheimer, the world renowned Physicist of USA said, "If I had to think of a single word for his attitude towards human problems, I would pick the Sanaskrit word 'AHIMSA." 89. In fact, now it is not necessary to go into ethics or morals or persuasive views of others in order to establish a relationship of compassion towards living creatures. As we will see shortly. the Constitutional 42nd Amendment, has given the constitutional place of pride to the value of compassion to living creatures, by enactment of a Fundamental Duty on the Citizens. In short now it can be said that one can kill the animals, only by violation of his Constitutional Duty. 90. Before coming to legal relation created by Statute etc. its scope and implications for the STATE, above discussion may be summarised: 91. The discussion shows that there exists vast unregulated killings of animals, particularly livestock which is destructive of the environment itself. Such killings now have nothing to do with the compulsion of man to go for the life of animal with the object of survival, as was the case in primitive era. Now it is economic greed based for personal economic ambitions. The killings are a trade and animals are killed to earn a livlihood. Meat Industry has come of age, which blames Indian Cultural values as impedimant to its fast growth. It is now clear, that in this age of advanced civilisation supported by advanced agriculture, with sufficient food for the world, animals are still consumed for taste and pleasure, cultivated by environmentally destructive food habits, handed down to generations in unconscious manner without thinking of its consequences. In short slaughtering is in the naine el food, and not for sake of food.

Page #22
92. Now, coming to the legal question of legal relation of citizens and living creatures, firstly, it is to be noted that, Environment is no longer a term of art. It is now a legal term after the enactment of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which defines Environment to include the relation that exists between human beings and among other living creatures. Therefore, the slaughtering of animals which brings into sharp focus the interplay of relations of human beings with animals, has to be environmentally controlled legal activity. With this legal perspective in view, now after the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, incorporating therin certain Fundamental Duties of citizens towards living creatures, the question of killing, value of compassion etc. are no longer open to subjective opinions or matters of personal views. Nor are those questions, now open to debate or subject to moral or ethical view points and considerations. It is no longer open to arguments or subject to individual preferences or a matter of privato liberty. 93. All legal relations are expressed in terms of rights or duties towards each other. Now after the incorporation of Article 51 A, it is enjoined upon all citizens to have compassion for living creatures, as a Fundamental Duty laid down by State. Constitution is the first legal document of the State, and in the language of jurisprudence a grundnorm and it will not be wrong to describe Constitution as Religion of State by which all constitutional functionaries swear and take oath to uphold the Constitution; and on its touchstone Courts judge the executive actions. This Fundamental Duty. In the Constitution to have compassion for all living creatures, thus determines the legal relation between Indian Citizens and animals on Indian soil, whether small ones or large ones. This gives legal status to view of ancient sages down the generations to cultivate a way of life to live in harmony with nature. Since animals are dumb and helpless and unable to exercise their rights. their rights have been expressed in terms of duties of citizens towards them. Their place in the Constitutional Law of the land, is thus a fountain head of total rule of law for the protection of animals, and provides not only against their ill-treatment, but from it also springs a right to life, in harmony with human beings. Parliamentary debates show that these duties were ordained as Ten Commandents, to citizens and they were trusted to give effect to these voluntarily, without providing for enforceable sanctions or penalties, through a Court of Law. In my view, when enforced this Duty will take away the right and freedom of individuals, it any to take the life of animals for personmal economic ends or for taste and pleasure, ordinarily, or on the plea that animal has become unserviceable. 94. The respect to animal life conceded by this legal provision and duty of compassion will mean that after the animal has served you, on your commands, it is now the turn of the master to serve it, when it is incapable, in old age etc. The notion of animal as a machine and its being unserviceable and deserving the fate of dismantling will not now stand to legal scrutiny. Such a machine approach to animals and human approach of compassion to animals are anathema to each other. 95. The Duty to have compassion forms part of the general comprehensive duty with a view to protect the natural environment among other things. Therefore, vast unregulated incompassionate killings with a view to get foreign excahnge affect the environment. According to Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary 'Compassion as noun means fellow feeling, or sorrow for the suffering of another, pity, mercy, merciful. 95a Compassion, as a value is much broader and comprehensive in narrow concept of avoiding specific cruelty in behaviour. its scope than only as In this discussion, it is important to understand the true meaning of word 'compassion' mentioned in the Fundamental Duty. Here it is not used in the narrow sense of avoiding cruelty in the specific act of slaughtering of animal. It is used here in its broadest dimension as a standard of behaviour of citizens Compassion as a value is also much deeper in its reach

Page #23
To accept narrow meaning is to do violence with the concept of compassion, as well as with the duty to observe it. In fact, the provisions of law of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, to undertake slaughtering without unnecessary pain or suffering is only with a view to extend the reach of compassion to the last act of killing. whenever necessary. Dictionary meaning dictates fellow, feeling. sorrow etc. 96. As discussed earlier, the grounds of permitting animal slaughtering for the vague reasons of overgazing and land pressures and its numbers, are now to be taken care of by the State by weaving into the planning process the need for providing grazing grounds and green pastures, right from the villago, Block and City level, to permit co-existence in harmony. 97. Once this axiom of constitutional compassion to living creatures is understood, certain corollaries inevitably, follow. First, at any point of time, the observance of this duty by the citizens, will turn on the will of the State to frame laws for its Implomontation, or to tho oxtont otherwiso permitted by law, or at its worst at tho option of tho Stato. Second, al no point of time, its binding on tho Stato itself can be wished away. When State Constitution prescribes certain duties for its citizens, State/Government. itself becomes bound by it in its day to day State functions, having sworn by the provisions of the Constitution, to uphold it and Courts can enforce #, as unlike Directive Principle, made unenforceable by Article 37, these duties remain enforceable, being nol a part IV of the Constitution of India. . 98. If this enforceable obligation of State is understood, certain results follow. First, Indian State cannot export live animals for killing: and Secong, cannot become a party to the killing of animals by sanctioning exports in the casings and cans stuffed with dead animals after slaughter. Avoidance of this is preserving our Indian Cultural Heritage, of which we claim proud by claiming India as land of Gandhi, Buddha and Mahavir. India can only export a message of compassion towards all living creatures of the world, as a bacon to preserve ecology, which is the true and common Dharma for all civilizations. This is in keeping with the culture of living in harmony with nature by showing respect to all life; and that is VASUDEV KUTUMBHAKAM referred by our Minister of Environment, Mr. Kamal Nath, at the Environment Conference at Rio, in June 1992. 99. It may be noted that no amount of Foreign Exchange can redeem back the cultural mortagage by India by allowing export of meat by killing the animals here or sending animals for killings abroad. State cannot trade in the life of its animals. Since all animals are helpless, as a child is, therefore, itself, the helpless animals are in the care of State, if not safe in the hands of its citizens. Tourists from other countries visit India, for the uniqueness of its rich culture. They do not come here for sake of tourists facilities, which are in abundance in their own land. The administrative policy of the Government, therefore, of sanctioning. setting up and releasing crores of rupees for investment except for modernisation in these ventures is questionable. 100. The place of value of compassion for living creatures in the Constitution, brings animal life under the protective heritage of Indian State, and India should strive to get the animals declared at United Nations as under the Protective Common Heritage of Mankind. 101. However, it is to be noted that this principle of Compassion cannot be absolute Animals are to be protected, unless they qualify out of the compassional protection for various reasons. A question was raised earlier, as to whether, conditions and circumstances, in which animal life is to be sacrificed can be absolutely different from the principles followed by man. State is certainly within its right to make law to say that when an animal turns dangerous, damages and threatens life and property. becomes health risk, spreads disease and epidemics. turns ferocious and wild or otherwise destructive of life and property of man and his environment. Siate has right to destroy it. 22

Page #24
To say that killing itself should be compassionate without much pain or cruelty, is only to insult life and protect form. It is a first rank contradiction. To use violence and to take away a bubbling life is per-se cruelty. 102. Elsewhere, a question was raised, whether, when wild life is protected, other domesticated and other animals can be ignored. In my view, after the conceding of constitutional place for protection of living creatures one life cannot be discriminated, in prefereance to other ono. In my view, now, State should enact the Animal Life (Protection) Act, by replacing Wild Life (Protection) Act1972, and by bringing the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act-1960, under the same Act. The new law should clearly and sharply define the conditions and circumstances in which only animals could be destroyed for food, in the slaughter house. 103. As was discussed earlier, environmental destructive activities and practices are carried out in the namo of freedom of trade and profession. State should empower itself to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of preservation of environment, by introducing an Amendment in the Constitution to amend Article 19(6). In my view, the vico of environmentally destructive practices and acts, for whatever reasons, are not at par with other social vices or evils, which could be allowed to rest in society in the hope of eradiction by passage of time on the spread of education ofc. Effect on environment are often irreversible, unlike effects of other social evils. Environmental jurisprudence is to be restatod or created. This Court, therefore, suggests Environmentally Destructive Trade Practices (Restriction & Regulation Commission. A national body of Scientists and other concerned people should constantly go on defining and redefining the Critical Line or Laxman Rekha.in respect of use etc. or various national resources of environment, consistent with sustainable development.. Such a body could independently take cognizence, make orders and recommend to be Government. with a right of appeal to National Environmental Tribunal or Supreme Court. 103a. An Environmental Procedure Code is also appears to be immediate need of the day, as the Ordinary Civil Court and Civil Procedure Code are not suitable in many ways for trial of disputes for protection of environment, immediately, when needed. 104. It is equally true to accuse and easy to say that, if we breath invisible creatures and walk on them or eat them in micro-forms and that bacteria are useful, how is it possible to fulfill the duty by citizens or State? No principle or value is for the sake of it only. There is a legal maxim that law does not demand impossible and, therefore, impossibility of avoidable of killing to many is no ground to intentionally and openly close the eyes to avoideable killings of large livestock population. It can also be said that, plants too have life. It is true, but there is no Constitutional legal duty or obligation towards plant life, except to the extent of Forest Act etc. and, therefore, the objection is invalid. It is essentially a question of values of culture, not of logic alone. 105. Environmental conservation demand that killings for food are strictly need based rather than greed based. 106. This order is principally directed against the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry. and Ministry of Environment, who have chosen to remain ONLOOKERS totho situation, and have not filed their case despite notice and having engaged a counsel. 107. The observations and suggestions etc. have been made, keeping in view the vital interest of community and nation in the environment and in the interest of the welfare of the animals and our cultural heritage, and particularly the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shri Sachidanand Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 23

Page #25
"Where an administrative action or order of the government involves the problem of environment and the government is alive to the various considerations requiring thoughts and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for the Court to interfere in the absence of malafides. On the other hand, if relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations influenco the decision, the Court may interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the public. Whenever, a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Article 48A of the Constitution, the Directive Principle....... and the Article 51(A), which proclaims to be the Fundamental duty of every citizen of India...... When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the Fundamental Duty, the court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy making authority. The least that the court may do is to examine, whether appropriate considerations have are borne in mind an irrelevant are excluded.............(emphasis supplied). 108. The Supreme Court made these observations, after noting the following: Today society's interaction with nature is so extensive, that the environmental question has asumod proportions affecting all humanity. Industrialisation, urbanisation, explosion of population, ovar exploitation of resources, depletion of traditional sources of energy and raw materials and the disruption of natural ecological balances, the destruction of multitude of animal and plant species for no good reasons at all are factors, which have contrituled to onvironmental deterioration........(emphasis supplied). The Court further observed: "Ecologists are of the opinion that the most important ecological social problem is the widespread disappearance all over the world of certain species of living organisms. Biologists forecast the extinction of animal and plants species on a scale that is incomparably greater than their extinction over the course of million of years. It is said that over half the species which became extinct over the last 2000 years did so after 1900. The International Association for the Protection of the Nature and Natural Resources calculates that now, on the average, some species or sub-species is lost every year. It is said that approximately 10.000 birds and animals species are facing extinction at present. So it is that the environmental question has become urgent and has to be properly understood squarely by Man. Nature and history. It has been said are two components part of the environment in which we live move and prove ourselves". 109. It may be noted that even in 1958, when the number of slaughter houses was not so large as today, nor there was Corporate Sector or Meat Industry as such engaged in the trade of export of moat, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clearly spelt out the role of cattle and livestock animals in the agricultural economy of India, and future needs of the nation. It upheld the total ban of slaughter of Cow, and Calves of all ages and Calves of Butfaloes, male and female. The Supreme Court of India emphasised the importance of protecting these animals and improving of their breeds etc. and clearly outlined the triple role the Cattle play namely (i) to produce milk for food. (ii) bulls for draught and (iii) manure for agriculture. The fourth role is of breeding future stock. The Supreme Court, after balancing the competing needs of man and animals, and the interest of very poor class of butchers, who made little earnings of about Rs. 150-300/- in those days by slaughtering of that cattle which was now unproductive or useful for any other purpose, and keeping in view, the interest of small traders in hides, skins and other products held that only that part of cattle or buffalo can be allowed to be sacrificed, which were not capable of yielding milk, or of breeding or 24

Page #26
working as draught animals. It was stated that their sustainment was not in the interest of general public, and if even this was prohibited, it would amount to unreasonable restriction by State on the Fundamental Right of trade of butchers etc. 110. It may be noted that at that time such a large scale killings for export purposes could not have been envisioned nor in those days there was any legal concern of environment preservation or welfare of animal kingdom, except on the moral, religious or ethical choices. At that time, Compassion as a legal value to protect and serve the most deserving aged animals, who once served to their best, could not have been urged in answer to the plea of butchers that after animals have served the purpose of man, these could be eliminated. It is interesting to note that Hon'blo Supreme Court in 1958, also referred to practice to pass-off the useful cattle for premature slaughtering by greasing the palms of Veterinary Officers, or by maiming the animal by breaking its Horns etc. to show it up as useless. Supreme Court mentioned various other reasons. To quote from the Judgement : "The growth of cities and heavy demand for milk in the urban areas have contributed to the slaughter of good stock. For want of space no freshly calved animal can be brought in without getting rid of once that had gone dry. Salvages facilities not being available or, if available being uneconomical, the professional gowalas, who are mostly. , if not wholly. Hindus, find it uneconomical to maintain the cow after she goes dry and consequently sell her to the butcher for slaughter at Rs. 30 to Rs. 50 per head, irrespective of her age and polential productivity, and import a fresh cow. The veneration professed or the sanctity attached to the cow does not prevent them from doing so. In big towns the Municipal Regulations are stringent and slaughter is premitted only of unserviceable and unproductive animals. Instances are not uncommon, however, that to got an animal passed for slaughter the teeth or the rings round the horns of the animal ara tampered with an sometimes a cow is even maimed in order that she may be passed by the veterinary inspector as fit for slaughter. Cows, which are rejected by the inspector are taken out of the limits of the cities and slaughtered in the rural areas. As slaughter is not confied to registered slaughter houses, the number of useful animals which are slaughtered cannot be given accurately. It is estimated in the Report of the Expert Committee at P.2 that at least 50.000 high yielding cows and she-buffaloes from cities of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras alone are sent annually for premature slaughter and are lost to the country". 111. Now, it is easy to understand that whenever, a killing comes to be linked to the earning or livelihood there will always be a motive to surreptiously increase the earning, by resorting to unpermitted killings. What was being done by poor butchers to increase the earnings, is today replaced and magnified manytimes by organised Meat Industry for export. It is not difficult to appreciate that when there is full-pledged Corporate Industry to export meat, and there are export commitments, how long and why will this industry wait for availability of an aged or useless animal to arrive? How will economic ambitions and needs of the business will keep pace with the slow process of aging to make the livestock of no use any longer. 112. If only useless animals alone are to be slaughtered how does one explain the Meat Industry's lament over social prejudices, and culture in coming to the levels of World Trade figures and Comparison to show that this Industry in India lacks behind. In my view, emperically it is thus established beyond any shadow of doubt that only by slaughter of the young. capable and strong buffaloes or other cattie irrespective of their age, the Meat Industry can sustain. 113 High profits yields of the export market will always be a governing consideraton to keep-up with foreign market needs and demands. In fact a visit to the animal markets outside slaughter 25

Page #27
houses will corroborate these facts. Similar considerations operate for killing of Camels by smuggling to Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Given this situation, the sanctioning of more and more Slaughter Houses: Corporations and modernising the old ones with increased capacity of killings per hour, is only adding fuel to the fire. 114. It is thus amply clear that what is being permitted by allowing killings of Cattle of all ages in some parts of India; and Calves of Cows and buffaloes for export purposes, is being permitted by Ignoring the Supreme Court decision of 1958. The decision of Supreme Court is magnum-opus on the subject in many ways, in so far as livestock wealth is concerned. When Supreme Court stated and spelt out the loss to the nation by premature slaughter despite regulations, and stressed the necessity of protecting cow and its progeny, buffaloes and its calves male and female, keeping in view, the needs of agriculture economy and needs of our population for Milk, Manure and Good stock while upholding the total ban, the same could not have been wished away by 'State'. In case, if at that time, itself State should have brought a uniform countrywide legislation to ban slaughter of cow, its calves, buffaloes its calves male and female, except of totally useless ones, the present day scenario of greed based killings of animals for export, by clandistine or otherwise, as reported by India Today in case of cows, referred to earlier (July 31) and otherwise know to all, could have been avoided. In my view, after the Supreme Court pronouncement on need to protect livestock, State is/was clearly under an obligation to frame Laws for the purpose; and no Court can allow the Supreme Court Judgment to be ignored. 115. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed that buffaloes probably did not need as much protection of total ban, as Cows, as at that time the Court observed: "The causes of slaughter of useful cattle namely, lack of space in the cities and sub-urban areas, long dry period, want of arrangerment for breeding bulls at the proper time. the anxiety to get as much milk out of the cow as possible, the high cost of maintenance of cow in the cities, and the difficulties in the matter of obtaining adequate fodder. For these reasons many animals are sent to the slaughter houses through sheer economic pressure and are replaced by fresh animal imported from breeding areas. The danger of such premature slaughter is greater for cow. For, being an animal with a scanty yield of milk it does not pay the owner to maintain her through the long day period and hence there is an inducement for adopting even cruel practices to get her passed by the inspectors. But a dry-she-buffalo is well worth preserving and maintaining in expectation of rich return at the next lactation. Besides, buffaloes for slaughter will not fetch as good a price as a cow would do." 116. But, today it appears that, situation has changed for buffaloes. In the absence of any law, today buffalo is being projected as the future food animal of the world by Meat Industry. What a senior government official has to say on this is appalling. To quote Dr. A.K. Chaaterjee : Buffalo is the future meat animal of the world "The importance of buffalo to the Meat Industry is being recognised worldwide. For example, Brazil has been able to build up a stock of 10 million in 1985 after introducing this animal from India and Italy. Brazil considers buffalo as 'BLACK GOLD' Currents Trends in the country suggest that the buffalo would soon emerge as the animal of choice of the Indian Meat Industry. One untapped avenue in this direction is the economic utilisation of the male buffalo calves, which are presently neglected and allowed to die soon after birth. If reared for meat, not only they could become a valuable meat resource, but, would also generate 26

Page #28
additional sizeable income lo dairy farmers. At six months of age, the male calves can altain bodyweight of some 100 kg. or even more, the scope for this resources can well be appreciated by the last that adult female buffaloes number about 28 million, as against less than 8 million male buffaloes. With drassing percentage conservatively could be produced from some 20 million male buffaloes, tonne, which would almost double the present level of Meat Production." 117. How stringent are the regulations in Delhi will be discussed later, but is. it indisputable that export market will not compromiso on quality. It is, therefoero, clear that such export of young. healthy, live animals to Gulf for killing; or killing them here for export by large scale Corporate Bodies in private sector such as Brooke Bond India Ltd., or by Government sector, such as MAFCO, is clearly in violation of spirit of Supreme Court decision, where only a small exception was made for sake of poor traders and butchers etc. keeping in view, the harship faced by them in the event of total closure of killing of oven aged and useless animals, whose maintenance was not considered in public interest for various reasons. 118. What is admitted into the Municipal Slaughter Houses for slaughter must necessarily depend upon the regulations and Bye-laws and has to be only legally permitted slaughtering. but question arises, as to how to determine the uselessness of animal at the Slaughter House, where it reaches after change of many hands. Now, at the slaughterhouse one does not know whether the original owner made a distress sale for economic reasons, or other reasons, or that export market offered far more than what he could earn by maintaining the cattle in good health. With the machanisation of agricultural operations, how does one know whether the animal was not useful as draught cattle. With the large scale acquisition of land by government, migration of population to Urban areas, how does one know that sold animal is incapable of yielding milk or not capable of breeding. All these questions cannot be given a short answer, by presuming that no one will sell a Cattle or Buffalo, unless useless for any purpose. 119. Now, till such time the 'Stale' brings the old animal, who once served us to the best of their ability. also into the fold of compassion, in pursuance of its obligation under Article 51(A) of the Construction, the position laid by Supromo Court that only those she-buffaloes, bulls, and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk, or of breeding or working as draught animals, could be allowed to be slaughtered, is the only lawfully permissible course. 120. In fact, after the birth of Constitutional Fundamental Duty to have compassion for living creatures, the relevance of throwing open the Municipal Slaughter Houses to general public, for getting slaughtered any animal, itself needs to be reviewed by State. How could State throw open its Public Premises for violation of a Fundamental Duty by its citizens.? It seems that now State is under an obligation to reconsider the continuance of provisions of Municipal Slaughter Houses, in the archaic Municipal Regulations, which already prohibit killings of animal at Private places. Such a prohibition is not only with a view to safeguard Public Health by nuisance or pollution etc., but also to keep all killings under public eye, to keep a check on impermitted killings. 121 in the case of BUDDHU VS. ALLAHABAD MUNICIPALITY (FB) AIR 1952 al p. 753, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad considered the provisions of U.P. Municipality Act, providing for the places for slaughter of animals and other connected matters. The Court held that "these provisions are mere empowering. authorising the Boards or Corporations or Municipalities to fix premises for the slaughter of animals intended for sale, or not intended for sale. The power to fix premises for slaughter of animals does not imply a free and unretricted right to slaughter any animal. The court further held that.

Page #29
"Slaughter-houses are established not for the purpose of slaughter of bulls, bullocks, cows or calves only but for many other animals. The interests of public health require the rogulation of such slaughter-houses. It would be improper to have such a slaughter-house in the midst of a thickly inhabited area. It would be against public health to allow diseased animals to be slaughtered for food. The slaughter must be made and the meat must be sold in hygoinic conditions. There are so many other considerations which have to be kept in view, in this connection. It is for this reason that, licensing has been provided for in S.241. Sections 237 to 241 do not deal with the right of slaughter of animals. They apply to these animals whose slaughter is not prohibited. They come into play only when there is not prohibited. They come into play only when there is a slaughter. They are inapplicable to those classes of animals whose slaughter is prohibited." 122. The result of this Duty of the Citizen and obligations of State itself demand the relevant Byelaws relating to Slaughter Houses to be consistent with this duty and obligation so that, question of opening of Municipal Slaughter House comes into question, only when it has been decided to slaughter the animals, in the light of existing laws. 123. Returning back to slaughter of animals for export purposes, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Civil Writ No. 2267/90 in the case of MOHD. IQBAL QUARESHI VS. MANAGER, DELHI SLAUGHTER HOUSE, on October 1st, 1992, held that Delhi Municipal Corporation was nol under any obligation to provide any slaughter house for meeting the export needs. 124. But now, once this Constitutional obligation of the 'STATE' towards living croaturos, particularly. livestock population is understood, on the touchstone of the Constitution, a few relevant questions arise in respect of existence, growth, a modernisation of slaughter houses with increased capacities of killings per hour, or otherwise, for the Meat Industry as a 'trade'. particularly by the 'Stale' by sanctioning. promoting, protecting and nursing the export sector for the sake of foreign exchange needs. 125. First, it is to be realised that catering to the economic ambitions of a few in the trade, or earning small foreign exchange for a certain period is no compensation to irreversible situation that the Country might face in terms of its National animal wealth, and cancerous attack on the ecological base and cultural system, which at no cost can bo retreived. That means that country should be prepared to pay a heavy price in the long term for small gain now by nursing growth of Meat Sector, for export as well as domestic business. 126. Second, even if, we concentrate on the existing Constitutional provision of freedom of occupation, trade or business, Clause (6) of the 19(1) empowors the 'STATE' to impose reasonable restrictions to the excercise of this right in the interest of general public. The power inherent in the Stale, itself does not permit 'STATE' to cater to the needs of Meat Industry, when it is not in the interest of general public. Obviously, as discussed, hereinbefore, the patronising of Meat Industry cannot be in the larger interst of the public in the long run. It follows, therefore, that any trading activity, which is not in the interest of general public. can even be totally banned. Even 'State' itself is under no obligation, whatsoever, to provide Meat Industry by extending the facilities of Slaughter House. In AIR 1952 All p. 753 at 758), it was held that at all event, the interest of a small class must yield place to larger interest of society, as a whole. 127. Third, Can Municipal Slaughter House, vested and managed by the Boards. Municipalities or Corporation as executive instrumentalists of Stale, allow the citizens to exercise freedom of trade and business, in a manner, which throttles and violates the citizen's Fundamental Duty in the Constitution 28

Page #30
to have compassion for living creatures. The rule of Harmonious Construction will negative such an exercise of freedom of trade. 128. Fourth, whether freedom of occupation, trade or business, itself gives rise to freedoin to kill any animal, or any number of animals? What is the trade or business activity in the act of taking life out of an animal without returning anything back to animal kingdom, in consideration; if all business or trade has its basis in one or other consideration? 129. Fifth. The freedom in this regard availed by people in the slaughtering business is destructive of Environment and an epitome of destructive relation of man with animals, who can not reason out with man. Today's Public Policy of Law to protect Environment by defining environment legally. clearly negatives the freedom so far availed. 130. "The Judgement of Supreme Court negatives freedom to kill, useful animals of livestock. Now, in fact, entire regime of laws of 'environment' defining 'onvironment' to include living creatures, and regulating relationship of man with those living creatures, negatives the freedom so far availed. Concern for animals now is not a matter of mere individual concern, but a Paramount Public Concern. This public concern is manifested in various laws touching treatment and protection of animals e.g. Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, The Wild Life Act, 1972. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rules of 1989, under the Act to regulalo the handling of hazardous substance 10 protect inter-alia living creatures. Lastly, the Fundamental Duty to have compassion in the Constitution caps the Public Concern in animal kingdom. Now, with the recognition of 'environment' as a legal concern, the animals, it appears can no longer be considered as Res nullius and force natural. as now public has legal interest in its conservation, preservation and protection. 131. In fact rearing of good livestock animals have always been considered community concern in view of their use and role in our agriculture based economy and our requirements. In 1952, in the case of MUKAND RAM, APPELLANT VS STATE, AIR (39) 1952 All 26, it was held that a dedicated bull to LORD SIVA, was a public property and was neither res nullius properties or res nullius, nor property of a deity, explaining this Hon'ble. Justice Aggarwal said: "in an agriculture country like India good cattle is a necessity and for good cattle stud bulls are required. To ensure a supply of good bulls the practice was encouraged on certain cermonial occassions to brand a young bull of certain specifications and let it loose so that, no one may be able to misappropriate it, it was dedicated to LORD SHIVA and there were directions that nobody should kill it up or ill-treat it. This duty was enjoined as a part of religious duty and ensured the country of a free supply of good stud bulls..Dedicated to LORD SIVA, however, merely meant dedication for the benefit of the public at large and not to any particular deity installed in any temple or place....." 132. The 1958 decision of Supreme Court as already discussed, is magnum opus on the interest and obligation of State in protecting useful livestock population. The well-known role and utility of such animals to Community as a whole, leaves no doubt now, that slaughter of cows, and its progeny, of all ages, pre-mature slaughter of calves; males and females of buffaloes, and shebuffaloes and buffaloes, irrespective of age or without prescribing any test of usefulness, is a wrongful luss and damage to Public and Nation, 133. Once this wrongful loss and damage to public. is understood, the large scale killings for export of domestic purposes, by people engaged in slaughter business clearly fall in the four corners of criminal offence of 'Mischief defined under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, and made punishable for killing iivestock animals of whatever value, under Section 429 of Indian Penal 29

Page #31
Code. The interest of public in such animals in particular, and general interest of 'man' in role of any animal in ecological balance in nature, makes every animal in care or custody of anyone, a property which is lointly held with others in Community, within the meaning of Explaination 3 to Sec. 425, defining 'mischief. It is therefore, imperative that such a criminal activity is checked. 134. Doctrine of Compulsion and nocessity, leaving no choice of action, but to commit the offence under threats or apprehension of Instant deaths to those engaged in slaughtering business, can only mako the activity a non-oftonte. This is the policy of Law in Sec.94 of the Indian Penal Code. The above discussion will lead to already stated proposition that there cannot be business based killings to earn a livelihood, by export etc. The Criminal Law, thus respects 'need based' killings only. 135. Now, before considering the case of the plaintiff, the whole matrix of existing legal relations, between State, Its Citizens and other living creatures particularly with reference to livestock animals may be stated alongwith what follows from these; State itself is under Constitutional obligation to have compassion for all living creatures, as a part of total duty and obligation towards environment in the Animal Kingdom. What follows from this is that a wholo legal regime for protection and preservation of Animal Kingdom, as such is called for, which should be based on 'Harmonious Co-existence of man and animals in a manner consistent to both. It thus follows, that State cannot stay 'Onlooker' to massive killings of animals for whatever reasons within the Municipal Slaughter houses or outside, much less it can itself sel up and nurse Meat Industry or Slaughter House Corporations by providing Finance, Machinery and other means.Keeping in view, the large scale environmentally destructive activity. State is under an obligation to regulate by Law in massive way the unbridled, unregulated freedom of individual to kill animals for sake of making a living. In the absence of any law permitting killing of any animal at will, or sharply defining the conditions and circumstances, in which 'man' can turn to 'animal' for 'food', the killings for food can be related only to primitive conditions which necessitated killing for continuous kindling of light of life in 'man' and State is under a duty to see that the animals are not destroyed for any and every reason. It also follows that Slate cannot export nor allow export of live animals for killing, or allow export after getting them killed here. Stale being under a duty under Article 48 of the Constitution to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle, is under a legal obligation as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of 'Mohd. Hanif Quarashi Vs. State of Bihar', AIR 1962, 731 to see that healthy, young, strong and useful livestock population for breeding, milking and draught population is saved from slaughter, and killing of livestock population without any reference to test of age and usefulness does not take place. This requires framing of Bye-laws and State Managed identification Centres for useless cattle. by regulating the sale of animals to butcher directly, so that distress sales of animals and sale for other changing circumstances by mechanisation of farming, shift of rural population and acquisition of land etc. do not send potentially useful animals to slaughter house, as it is a loss to the nation, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 1958. Penal Policy of Law, as contained in Indian Penal Code U/s 428 and 429 will make it an offence to kill useful animals as slaughter of useful animals is a wrongful loss to public and nation and such animals are a property jointly with others in the Community. No exception to this law exist. In the absence of unavoidable circumstances, or situations critical in nature leaving no choice of action, but to kill an animal for 'food for sake of survival, as may be permitted under Sec.94 of the Indian Penal Code, all killings for sake of earning livlihood 30

Page #32
d. are nothing but a criminal offence in the Public Premise and State is under obligation to prosecute and prevent such killings. The policy of the Criminal Law u/s 429 of the 1.P.C. in respect of named animals i.e. elephant, camel. horse. mule, buffalo bull, cow, or ox is two fold; One, to protect absolutely these animals by excluding the 'man' determined value, in terms of their use to owner, by using the words, "Whatever may be the value thereof. Second, to prescribe enhanced sentence upto 5 years or fine or both in punishing their killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering them useless. When the policy of law is to punish for their killing irrespective of their value by other persons, how can this policy permit the killing of these by owner by sending to slaughter house. The effect of the word "Whatever may be the value thereof in Sec. 429 is to amend the definition of 'mischief' u/s 425, qua animals named in Sec. 429. Therefore, words "Whosoever in Sec. 429 will also include the owner of these animals or who so ever owns it at any time, in the slaughter business. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act-1960, regulates in massive way the relation of man with animals generally, in dealing with them, whether outside the Slaughter House or inside it. The Act permits destruction of suffering animals, permits controlled experiments etc. for purpose of advance-ment of knowledge. It does not give any right to kill any animal at will for food. It however, by S.11 (3) (c), gives unintended impression of right to kill for food, but exempts from punishment, if cruelty is caused by an act or omission, in the course of destruction of any animal as food for mankind, unless destruction or preparation was attempted by infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. It deals with manner of killing rather than with a right of killing. 136. If slaughtering is viewed in the perspective of above described matrix of legal relations, a slaughter house is not and cannot be only a place earmarked for purpose of killing any animal at will and in any manner by payment of a fee. Therefore, it follows that any slaughtering in the Municipal Slaughter House is necessarily regulated by Laws which are consistent with the above legal framework. Rules and Laws have to check that animals of whatever kind are not killed arbitarily and in particular that useful animals are not slaughtered prematurally. 137. Having considered the legal relations with reference to cattle and livestock etc. the case of plaintiff who are seeking injunction against setting-up of Slaughter House at Narela may be considered. Such an injunction has been claimed on various grounds, the chief among them being that Zonal plan and Development Plan does not envisage this activity. The DDA has filed on record a notification dated 9/3/92, issued by the Land & Building Department of Delhi Administration, showing intentions to acquire land at Narela for the construction of a slaughter house, under the development of Narela Township. DDA has also placed on record Minutes of a meeting held on 3.12.91, in which identification of sites for slaughter house was taken up, at five places including Narela, and it was decided to recommend to DDA, to change the prescribed land use, in the 'Master Plan-2001' to extensive industrial land use, for purpose of locating Slaughter House. It was opined in the said meeting that M.P.D.-2001, provides that industries which are ancillary to the slaughter house activity are permitted under the extensive industries land use category, and as such the slaughter houses themselves would Iso have to be located, within the self same use zone. 138. At this stage, it is necessary to maintain that in Civil Writ No. 2267/90 (referred to earlier as pending and now decided) in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also directed setting-up of a new modern slaughter house on or before December 31, 1993, at an area away from the city, which is not 31

Page #33
populated. The Court also directed closing down of the existing Slaughter House at idgah for reasons of its present location in the centre of the City creating health problems for people, and environmental problems. In the face of directions of Hon'ble High Court to locate this activity to an unpopulated area away from city, the approach of DDA etc. for acquisition of land for this activity as a part of authority for acquisition of land for this activity as a part of development of Narela Township, Itself appears to be patently illegal, questionable and in violation of Delhi High Court Judgement, as Narela is already a heavy populated area, and Policy of Law laid down by High Court is that Slaughter House cannot be a part of township, as such which houses population. The approach of authorities in respect of location of slaughter house by changing land use, as shown by 'the Minutes of Meeting held on 03.12.91, by arguments mentioned in the note, also smack poor understanding of the Master Plan-2001, which came into force in August, 1990 by "The Gazette of India-Extraordinary, Part-Il- Section-3-Sub-section (ii). No.437, New Delhi, Wednesday, August 1, 1990/Sravana 10, 1992 at pago 115." It is interesting to note that Slaughter Houses under the uncommon synonim of 'ABBATOIRS' has been shown as one of the industrios which are totally prohibited in the Union Territory of Delhi, as its characteristic is to give out obnoxious smell and waste water etc. However, it is shocking to note and reveal that Master Plan page 180 (Group H) has tried to camaflouge this industry under the head 'FRUITS'. This aspect needs to be looked into by the Government. It is also wrong to mix the industry which are ancilliary to slaughter house with * slaughter house itself. Such ancilliary industry may be of bone-crushing, leather, medicines etc but that will not permit or cause to locate Slaughter House itself, when it is specifically prohibited in the Master Plan - 2001. 139. In the light of the above discussion, acquisition of land for Slaughter House, as a part of Narela Development Township appears to be in violation of Delhi High Court decision. Assuming that it is not so, and is in pursuance of Delhi High Court directions then also, it is to be noted that as per law. provisions of MCO to locate Slaughter House are only enabling to choose a place, but that does not make the killings which are illegal into legal. Only the permitted killings can take place in a Municipal Slaughter House. Therefore, S.405 of the MCD Act, which provide for Municipal Slaughter House has to be read alongwith following provisions, which speak of Byelaws for purpose of admitting animals for slaughtering. 481.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Corporation may, in addition to any bye-laws which it is empowered to make by any other provision of this Act, make bye-laws to provide for all or any of the following matters namely: Bye-laws relating to markets, slaughter houses, trades & occupations. The manner in which animals shall be admitted in a slaughter house. The manner in which animals may be slaughtered. The disposal or destruction of animals offered for slaughter which are suffering. from disease or any other cause, unfit for human consumption. The regulation of the entry of animals into slaughter house and the bringing out of the carcasses of such animals after slaughter and the fee to be paid for use of slaughter house. 140. Municipal Slaughter House has also been defined u/s 2(30) of DMC Act as that which is vested and manged by Corporation. MCD being an executive authority under the policy control of Central Govt. cannot violate law to check that only useless cattle are slaughtered. What is legally permitted will depend on what is legally admitted into the Slaughter House. The bye-laws in respect

Page #34
of regulating manner of admitting the animals, necessarily has to deal with elaborate proceedure for identification etc. of useful or potentially useful cattle by prescribing the test of age etc. 141. In order to know the bye-laws of MCD, in admitting animals into slaughter house, the MCD through its Legal Adviser, was asked to place on record the Bye-Laws framed. The Manager, Slaughter House, who is a party in this suit, was also summoned to make statement in the regard. 142. One can do no better than to quote him in extenso. What he stated on oath is this: "I am Manager, Slaughter House, Delhi. MCD has not framed any bye-laws under the MCD Act in relation to Slaughter House. MCD is following the bye-laws framed under Punjab Municipal Act, vide EX-D1. The export section_of the slaughter house is in respect of Buffaloes and Sheep. Out of total buffaloes slaughtered per day 3/4 are buffaloes and 1/4 are sheeps. The animals are not checked before slaughter by Veterinary Surgeon one by one, but on the basis of superficial examination etc. Doctors also see for the milch cattle, though, the bye-laws applied as such do not provide for this checking. Chief Commissioner Notification of 1961 of Delhi, provides for ban on slaughter of pregnant heifer and animals in milking condition. Mulking Condition is not defined therein. There is no restriction as regards age of buffaloes. There is no prescribed procedure to check how long the buffalo is in milking condition, and whether it can be nursed to make milch cattle by good feed etc. The present proposal is for setting slaughter house at Narela, site has been selected." 143. A bare reading of his statemein will show that MCD has not so far, since 1958, when the Supreme Court expressed itself against the premature slaughter of cows, buffaloes etc. irrespective of the test of age or usefulness, opened its eyes to the recurring loss of useful cattle to the nation, by framing Bye-Laws to give effect to it. It is still depending on the superficial examination by Vets by looking at Udders of buffaloes etc., to know whether they are in the milking conditions or not. These are not sure method to determine its use for milking, breeding or as draught cattle. 144. Whether these buffaloes are potentially capable of various uses being made milking given care and food is important. At a slaughter house, when an animalreaches after walking hundreds of miles, starving for food, a superficial look only adds insult to animal life. As already discussed and observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, MCD is under no obligation to provide slaughter for export purposes, yet, MCD has been over the years, allowing large number of buffaloes, calves irrespective of age for export, little realising that export will not compromise on quality of meat, for the money paid by them and it will necessitate killings of only healthy claves or buffaloes, not aged or useless, which will become available only in due course of time but not on demand. Union of India or Central Government, under whose directions and policy control MCD functions, is no less responsible for this patronage and killings against the views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 145. The Central Government/M.C.D. was clearly under an obligation to frame Bye-laws for the purpose of admitting the cattle and animals in the slaughter house. Likewise, after the enactment of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act-1960, it was obligatory to frame bye-laws to regulate the manner of slaughtering. The word 'MAY' in Section 481 of MCD Act already reproduced above, in the face, of existing Supreme Court Judgement and Act of 1960 can no longer be construed as directory only ar.d word MAY has to be read as 'SHALL'. What MCD and Central Govt should do now is too obvious to be stated by this Court. 33

Page #35
146. MCO is still following the outdated Bye-laws framed in 1946 under the Punjab Municipal Act framed by the British Regime, when there was no obligation of State to protect livestock and milch cattlo. Those Bye-laws define animal by a inclusive defination as follows: *Animal" includes any horso, mare, golding. pony, feal, colt, filly, stallion, ass, donkey, mulo, bull, cow, bullock, heifar, calf, stoer, ox, shoep, lamb, owe, thether, ram, pig. hog, sow, goat or kid. 147. These Bye-laws proscribe no legal bars of age or usefulness. In the absence of any such logal ban how MCD can enforce ovon Its superficial examination rogimo is not clear. However, these bye-laws contain various salutory last gestures which pay respect to animal life, as well as, are moant to protect consumers of meal. It is well known that, oven these are not being followed. The notable provisions are as under: Suitable arrangements shall be made for the proper care and food of the animals while in the waitig yard by the owners or butchers at their own expenso. A person shall not cause or suffer to be slaughtered in the Slaughter House any animal in view of another animal. No animal other than that intended for slaughter shall be allowed into the Slaughter House and no animal shall be kept in a slaughter house for a longer period than is necessary for preparing such animal for slaughter. The Suprintendent Slaughter Houso shall not at any timo koep any dog. pig or bird or cause or suffer any dog. pig or bird to be kept in or to have access to such slaughter house. Tho opon aroa in a slaughter house shall bo so covered by wiro or ropo netting to provont carrior birds from carrying away tho material therofrom and dropping it in the vicinity of any inhabited area. No person affected with tuberculosis or any other infoctlous or contagious disoaso, leprosy, sores or any other skin disease shall enter the slaughter houso premises. A periodical medical inspection of butchers and flayers shall be obligatory. 148. The above discussion will show that MCD should not allow slaughtering of cattle anywhere in Delhi without framing Bye-laws which are consistent with the Supreme Court views, penal provision of law and the fundamental Duty of Compassion on citizens and obligtion of State in this regard. Without such Bye-laws oven Modern Slaughter House to be set-up anywhere in Delhi, cannot function. Age of animal is the first threshhold test_to consider its use or potential use for breeding. milking etc. 149. Kooping in view the recurring loss to the nation by allowing premature slaughter of useful animals of livestock and the fact that this practice is going on for the last 24 years, it is in the interest of justice, that MCD is directed to stop all killings of buffaloes for whatever purpose till it frames Byelaws in consultation with the Central Government. The Central Government is also under obligation to get the killings stopped by issuing appropriate directions to MCD in the light of this Judgement. 150 There is clear necessity as already discussed of an independent identificaton centre and a machinery consisting of well experienced, qualified and independent public persons and persons from of Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which can enforce Bye-laws and also certify 34

Page #36
each animal as unfit for milking purposes, breeding purposes and capable of being used as a draught cautio. Regime of a perficial examination is ng examination and is purely arbitrary and subiective, and likely to be under the influence and dictatos of business needs. Such machinery should be stationed at the slaughter house itself. Additional duties of such a machinery should be to see that provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal are followed, while treating animals, when unloaded, kopt outsido slaughter house, and when these are actually slaughtered, to soo that no unnecessary pain or suffering is caused, and people ignoring the law are prosecuted and punished. This is particularly necessary in view of the following factors mentioned in a work of CLINICAL VETERINARY TEXICOLOGY AND JURISPRUDENCE, (published by Anubha Prakashan, 351 Booharbagh, Jabalpur, M.P.) The fraudulent dealers Invariably play mischief while selling the livestock. These dealers try to alter the identity of the animals and thus their description is changed. This is as follows: Changing colour of the body by bleaching or by dying with a colouring dyo by which the gray colour becomes black. Entire males aro castrated. In caso of horses the mane and tail is clipped. Decking of tail may be done 5. Rasping of horns are done to disturb the age of the animals. 6. They oven trim the horns or change the direction of the horns. 151. Now when there is no denial of the fact by MCDthal Narela is a populated area, and in itself is a completo zone of MCD, and when it is not also in dispute that prosont proposal is to construct the Slaughter House at Narela in collaboration with the Govrnment of Hungary, the irresistable conclusion is that construction of Slaughter House in Narola will be in violation of Delhi High Court Judgement in Civil Writ No. 2267/90, in which the Hon'ble High Court has directed to construct a slaughter house in an area away from the city, which is not populated. As a result, the suit of the plaintiffs is to be decreed. As already stated MCD functions under the Policy Control of Central Government, in the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment etc. under a Central statute who have chosen to remain as 'ON LOOKER' not only in this suit, but also a muto specialor to dance of death in the Slaughter House, the suit is to be decreed against them principally with suitable directions. 152. This Order is, therefore, divided in two parts. Summary of Sugestions a. Union of India should define very sharply the conditions and circumstances in which alone animals could be destroyed for 'food. This is suggested so that greed based economic ambition linked, killings and killing otherwise for whatever trade etc. are replaced by Need based killings, in a manner which is consistent with the harmonious coexistence of man and animal kingdom, as both are mutually interdependent in environment rather than independent. Much of the killings today are in the name of food for taste etc, rather than for sake of food. 35

Page #37
The Union of India may consider the transfer of subject of slaughter Houses, from the Ministry of Agriculture to Ministry of Environment, keeping in view the large scalo killings of various types of animals in the slaughter Houses, so that whole activity is also monitored on environmentally relevant considerations. The Union of India should weave the necessity of sufficient green pastures and grazing grounds for livestock animals in the city/Town planning process, so that cattle roaring practices do not dio, and distress sales are avoided. This suggestion is also with an objective that sufficient milk is made available to the poorest of poor locally to maintain national health. The Union of India may consider bringing a comprehensive legislation so that all animal lifo and, not wild life alone, is rospected and protected. The slaughter of any animal in the sight of another animal should be included in the description of cruelty for purposes of punishment. Union of India may think to empower itself to impose reasonable restrictions by a Constitutional Amendment in the interest of preservation, protection and conservation of environment and its resources, as well as to the Fundamental Right of freedom to carry trade, occupation or profession. Such an amendment will go a long way in cloaning ground for take off of environmental jurisprudence. The Government may with a view to contain unnecessary damage to resources, consider enacting Environmentally Destructive Practices (Regulation & Restruction) Commission, by an Act of Parliament as discussed at para 103 of this Judgement. The function of the Commission should be to determine from time to time on continuing basis, the nature of various trade and other practices of today, which may, unless regulated or restricted today, by drawing a critical or threshold line. will become destructive of environment tomorrow. In a democratic society with fundamental right of freedom of trade and occupation with no legal controls 'on expanding population, the finite resources and infinite needs, are to be constantly regulated to maintain balance. At what point of time, for example, the use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides or insecticides, plastics etc, may start having irrevesible effect on soil, vegetation or other creatures or bio-organisms, need to be constantly monitored on the basis of scientific knowledge, facts and other material, to determine the regulation etc. Likewise, at what point of time, eg. the freedom of speech and expression and freedom of circulation, when oxercised as a trade for business or profit aims, by multiplication of new titles on various subjects may start having a demand to be met by illegal felling of trees, in number more than, what could be grown, are to be watched. The examples are only illustrative. PART. 11 ORDER Having given my careful thought and consideration to Constitutional obligations of the State, as already discussed, in the prevailing scenario of entirely unregulated freedom of killing animals for greed based economic ambition of few, unwittingly promoted by State for small monetary gain, by its permitting killing of animals for export of meat; and other mentioned reasons, resulting in 'marginalisation of animals, with potentially environmentally destructive dimensions: AND taking sorious note of 'enormous silence' of Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment; when they had an inescapable duty. to share, concern for animal life in general, and loss of 36

Page #38
livostock population in particular, in the Slaughter Houses; THIS court deems it fr to direct the Union of India and M.C.D. as under : The Union of India in order to discharge its own obligations of compassion towards living croaturos; as also in kooping with India's Culture and Civilisation of living in harmony with all living beings in Nature; our culture and tradition of love and respect for animal life: and clear nocossity to protect and prosorve livestock wealth: SHOULD tako steps with a sense of urgency to regulate the State promoted massive killings of animals for export of moat, obtained by slaughtering of animals by: stopping export of livestock live animals, In particular, for purpose of slaughtering, to sorvo as food. prohibiting killing or slaughtering of livestock animals, in particular, for export business. tako such other steps as may be necessary to regulate animal killings including roviow of Export Policy of meat, if necessary. MCD is directed to take action in consultation with Union of India to frame suitable Bye-Laws w/s 481 as provided under the MCD Act, providing Inter-alia therein the test of age and ussefulness of buffaloes in terms of their milking potential, breeding capacity and capacity to work as draught cattle, and prohibiting slaughter of calves, male and female of buffaloes. In respect of other animals eligible for slaughter, suitable Bye-Laws should be framed fixing the number and other relevant considerations as mentioned in para 'c' below. The Bye-Laws should be consistent with the penal policy of Law and should prescribe punishments for violation of Bye-Laws. Till such time the Bye-Laws are framed prescribing test of age and usefulness and methodology discussed in para 150 to determine it, no buffaloes, calves, male or female, shall be admitted in the existing Slaughter House, for any purpose, except those requiring emergency slaughter to allievate the suffereing to animal, or for advancement of scientific knowledge or research; or for religious occasions or other just exceptions. In respect of other animals till the Bye-Laws are framed, MCD should obtain policy directions from Union of India, which is directed to make policy at the earliest, keeping in view (i) present day necessity; if any for such killings for food. (1) Obligation of Stale and Fundamental Duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures under Article 51 (g) of the Constitution of India. (iii) penal policy of law and the various uses of these animals to community and the role in ecology. before they are permitted to be slaughtered, if necessary. MCD is also directed to station a team of qualified doctors at the earliest to medically examine every person entering the slaughter House to check that such person is not suffering from or affected with tuberculosis or any other infectious or contagious disease. leprosy. sores or other skin diseases. It should also arrange an obligatory periodical medical inspection of butchers and flayers. MCD/Manager slaughter House is also directed to ensure by suitable means that no animal is slaughtered or lies slaughtered in the sight of another animal. The Modern Slaughter Houses to be constructed, anywhere in Delhi, will not allow slaughter of buffaloes unless. Bye-Laws as directed at 'c' above come into force and will also comply with 'd' and 'e' above.

Page #39
9. in respect of existing slaughter Houso, it is directed that till Bye-Laws are framod in respect of other animals the number of killings should be progressively reduced to bring those within a reasonable limit, so that above directions can be complied in a reasonablo manner. Union of India/MCD is also directed to immediately ban public display of slaughtered animals, friod, roasted ofc. In and around the most shops and restaurants as such sights desensitizo and dehumanizo pooplo and such practice is not in kooping with the spirit of duty of compassion towards living creatures. MCD is also directod to make a condition of licence ws 415 of DMC Act for Meat Shop and restaurants. The caging of birds slorod for sale, out sido moal shops should be prohibited, as those are used for illegal slaughter on road sido shops etc. Before parting with this Judgement, le may be observed that our loys, galties and celebrations should not be allowed to become 'horror', 'Torror' and 'sorrow of innocent animals, who are often described as 'our friends'. That is the compassion in action. With the above directions, the sult of the plaintiffs is docrood and Union of India is rostrained by permanent injunction from constructing a slaughter House In Narola area, in violation of Delhi High Court Judgement in CW No. 2267/80. Costs of the suit allowed. A copy of this order be served personally by the counsel of plaintiffs on Socrolary, Ministry of Agriculture, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Commissioner, MCD for compliance. File bo consigned to Record Room. (C.K. CHATURVEDI) SUB JUDGE 1ST CLASS Delhi. 16.12.1992 Announced in Open Court Dated : 16th Doc. 1992 38

Page #40
_