________________
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