Table of Contents

Index of Abbreviations....................................................................................................2

Index of Authorities.........................................................................................................3

Statement of Jurisdiction.................................................................................................4

Statement of facts............................................................................................................5

Statement of issues...........................................................................................................8

Summary of arguments....................................................................................................9

Arguments Advanced......................................................................................................10

Prayers...............................................................................................................................15

1
 Index of Abbreviation

PIL Public Interest Litigation

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme court cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Art. Article

Sec. Sections

I.C Indian Cases

DPSP Directive Principles of State policy

2
 Index of Authorities

1. Hinsa Virodhak Sangh V. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat & Others AIR 2008 (SC) 1892
2. Narendra Kumar V. State of Haryana, JT (1994) 2 SC 94
3. Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others (1986) 3 SCC 545
4. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others V. The State of Bihar 1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629
5. The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam 1951 AIR 226,1951 SCR 525
6. I. C. Golaknath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anrs. 1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762
7. Haresh M. Jagtiani vs The State Of Maharashtra
8. Hashumatullah V State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2076
9. Abdul Hakim and Ors V State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 448
10. Mohd Faruk V State of Madhya Pradesh 1970 AIR 93 SCR
11. State of Gujrat V. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasaab Jamat and Others case no 4937-
4940 of 1998
12. Chiranjitlal CHowdhari V. The Union of India (1950) SCR 869 at 891-892

Statement of Jurisdiction

3
The Divisional Bench of Hon'ble High Court of MEEREEN has jurisdiction to hear matter as:

 PIL is filed to challenge the constitutional validity and reasonableness of 'Animal

Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2019' by a registered human right organization named
"Society For Protection Of Human Dignity".
 This Writ petition is presented under the Art. 226.

Statement of Facts

4
 "SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN DIGNITY", a registered human rights
organization, is presenting the Public Interest Litigation before Hon'ble court. The Petitioner
humbly submits that:
1. Westeros was a British colony for about 150 years till 1955 and has adopted Parliamentary
form of government wherein the President is the executive head of the government.
2. Meereen is the capital of Westeros where the state government had imposed a prohibition
on slaughter of certain category of animal as specified in concerned Act. To implement this
policy of restricting slaughter of such category of animals (as mentioned in Act), the state
government of Meereen enacted an Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2019.
3. The petitioner is a association of social workers and registered to play important role in
protecting the basic human rights of human being to pursue its aims and objectives. The
Society studied many cases. Discussion of one of them is necessary to know about the
problems with the challenged Act.
On 14th September, 2019 George Martin an elderly aged, middle class man residing in
Winterfell, another state of republic of Westeros received an order to deliver a considerable
amount of cattle meat comprising of category of cattle as specified in act in the state of
Meereen. Acting accordingly upon the business order and completely unaware of the fact
that transporting or carrying such meat in the state of Meereen is prohibited and deemed as
an illegal practice, he acted upon his commitment to fulfill business obligation. it was 15th
September, 2019 while transporting meat from Winterfell to Meereen, he was stopped by
police authorities at inter-state police checkpoint, he was found containing a considerable
amount of cattle meat, hence he was handcuffed and held guilty for having possession of
strictly prohibited cattle meat.
4. George had no intention to commit any offence. He was charged for carrying prohibited
meat that is charged for violation of Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2019 followed
by punishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year.
5. Concerned sections which are the base of dispute are as under.
"Sec. 5
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any
usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter cause to be slaughtered or
offer for slaughter any cow, [bull or bullock] in any place in the State of Maharashtra.
5A. (1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported cow,
bull or bullock from any place within the State to any place outside the State for the
5
purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the of provisions of this Act or with the
knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, slaughtered.
(2) No person shall export or cause to be exported outside the State of Maharashtra
cow, bull or bullock for the purpose of slaughter either directly or through his agent
or servant or any other person acting on his behalf, in contravention of the provisions
of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be slaughtered.
5B. No person shall purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase, sell or
otherwise dispose of any cow, bull or bullock for slaughter or knowing or having
reason to believe that such cow, bull or bullock shall be slaughtered.
5C. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force
no person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull or bullock slaughtered in
contravention of the provisions of this Act.
5D. No person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull or bullock slaughtered
outside the State of Maharashtra.
Sect. 6
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any
usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered
any scheduled animal in any place in the State of Maharashtra, unless he has obtained
in respect of such animal a certificate in writing from the competent authority that the
animal is fit for slaughter.
(2) No certificate shall be granted under sub-section (1), if in the opinion of the
Competent authority:
(a) The scheduled animal, whether male or female, is or is likely to become economical
for the purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural operations;
(b) The scheduled animal, if male, is or is likely to become economical for the purpose
of breeding;
(c) The scheduled animal, if female, is or is likely to become economical for the
purpose of giving milk or bearing offspring.
(3) The State Government may, on an application by any person aggrieved by an order
passed by the competent authority refusing to grant him a certificate, made to it within
sixty days from the date of receipt of such order, or at anytime suo motu, call for and
examine the records of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or
propriety of any order passed by the competent authority under this section, and pass
such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
6
 (4) A certificate under this section shall be granted in such form and upon payment of
such fees as may be prescribed.
(5) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), any order passed by the competent
authority granting or refusing to grant a certificate, and any order passed by the State
Government under sub-section (3), shall be final and shall not be called in question in
any Court.
Sect.9
Whoever contravenes [the provisions of section 5, 5A, or 5B] shall, on conviction, be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to[five years] or with fine
which may extend to [ten thousand rupees]or with both.[Provided that except for
special and adequate reasons to be recorded in the judgment of the court such
imprisonment shall not be of less than six months band such fine shall not be less than
one thousand rupees.]
[9A. Whoever contravenes the provisions of sections 5C, 5D or 6 shall, on conviction,
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine which
may extend to two thousand rupees.
9B. In any trial for an offence punishable under sections 9 or 9A for contravention of
the provisions of this Act, the burden of proving that the slaughter, transport, export
outside the State, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock was not
in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall be on the accused."
6. Due to similar instances individuals were attacked on the accusation that they stored flesh
of cattle in their home, more particularly, a minority community was affected drastically,
as meat eating was part of their daily meal.

Statement of Issues

1) Whether the Respondent has the power to enact such Act as Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act, 2019.

7
 2) Whether the Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates any basic human
rights and fundamental rights of citizens of Meereen.

3) Whether the Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2019 or certain sections of the
Act is unconstitutional as it is arbitrary, unreasonable and do not uphold any reasonable
classification.

Summary of Arguments

Issue no. 1
Any Act or law which violates person's natural rights or basic human rights which is recognized
as fundamental right should not be permissible. Art. 48 of part IV of constitution talks about
prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle but it does not

8
mean that state has the right to direct its citizen what to eat what not to. Art. 48 comes under
Directive Principles of State Policy and till how extent it is binding.

Issue no. 2
This Act violates the basic human rights such as right to food, right to trade and right to
livelihood. This Act prohibits people to eat a particular category of meat which is cheapest of
all and thus violates the right to food of public. This Act prohibits the trade of cattle meat and
thus violates the right to trade. It interferes in the personnel lives of the people thus violate the
right to livelihood.
This Act violates the Art. 19(1)(g), Art. 25, Art. 21 of constitution which allows every citizen
of India to practice any profession, or to carry any occupation, trade or business and gives
freedom of free profession and right to life and provide right to liberty to its citizens.

Issue no. 3
As per the sect. 5,6,7 and 9 of the Act is not reasonable as these sections violates the basic
human rights such as right to food, right to trade, right to livelihood and is against the spirit of
constitution. Further the courts have directed that restrictions may be imposed but they should
be reasonable whereas this Act put an absolute ban which could not be considered as
reasonable. Further the classification of Animals is not reasonable classification.

Arguments advanced

Issue no. 1 Whether the state has the right to enact such Act as Animal Preservation
(Amendment) act, 2019.

1.1 The Art. 48 states that The State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal
husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and
9
improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and
draught cattle.

1.2 The Act directly compromises the fundamental rights of the citizen and also the right to
food of a person. Article 48 comes under the part IV of constitution which is Directive
principles of State Policy and it is not enforceable by law, but just directives to the state. All
fundamental rights are superior over DPSP1. Thus this Act is violating the fundamental rights
of the citizens of Meereen and thus no State should enact such Act on the basis of any DPSP
because no fundamental rights can be violated over DPSP. Fundamental Rights cannot be
abridged or diluted2.

1.3 Art. 48 authorizes state the power to enact such Act and make such laws which do not
compromises any legal rights or Fundamental rights of citizens. Here the state is violating the
fundamental right that is Art. 21 right to personal liberty. Thus the State of Meereen could not
and should not enact acts like Animal Preservation (Amendment) act, 2019. The State has
enacted the Act without application of mind. The State has right to make the law but it should
not be in contravention to the Fundamental rights.

Issue no. 2) Whether the Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates the basic
human rights and fundamental rights of citizens of Meereen.

2.1 The hides and bones of slaughtered cattle are used in a variety of industrial production,
leather being the biggest consumer. Several manufacturing units including those of soap,
toothpaste, buttons, paint brushes, surgical stitches and musical instruments and many more
require products obtained from these animals. About 22 lakh people are employed in the cattle
slaughter business directly or indirectly. Leather industry, which is heavily dependent on cattle
slaughter, employs even greater - 35 lakh - number of people. Thus restricting these animals
slaughter will affect the jobs of people thus it interferes with the right to work of the people.
Thus it violates the Art. 19(1)(g) as it restricts people to practice their profession or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. It is used as raw material in many industries as well as meat

1
The State of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam 1951, AIR 226 SCR 525
2
I. C. Golaknath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 1967, AIR 1643 SCR (2) 762

10
industries are also affected due to this act and has suffered injury of their rights and their
fundamental rights.
The injury of legal rights is very delicate issue and no Act has the authority to do so. And DPSP
cannot be enforced in such a way where it violates any fundamental right.

2.2 Cattle meat is a nutritious food with high percentage level of protein and thus form a good
diet for the poor people. It is the duty of state to raise the level of nutrition as per Art. 47 but
here state has banned the one of the most nutritious food in the state which will impact widely
on the general public health.

2.3 Art. 21 is one of the most important fundamental right as it comprises of a natural right that
is right to life and right to personal liberty. Personal liberty has a very vast scope and it ensures
liberty of a person. The State shall work for the welfare of the people because State is from
individual no person shall be deprived of his right. If State restricts a person's right to food and
tell him or direct him what to eat and what not to the State is no way possible working in the
direction of welfare of people. Its totally the choice of a person what he wants to eat and what
he does not and it is directly the violation of the right to personal liberty.

2.4 The sect. 5A of the Act completely prohibit the trade of the cows, bulls, or bullocks
Within the state or to any place outside the state for the purpose of its slaughter thus it prohibits
the trade of meat of cattle as prescribed in the act. It is the violation of Article 19(1)(g) as it
does not let them to carry their occupation which is delivering or trading of meat or trade or
their business.
The section 5D of Act states that no person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull
or bullock slaughtered outside the State of Meereen. Thus it prevents the trading of cattle meant
inter-state of from one state to another. According to Article 301 trade, commerce and
intercourse throughout the territory of Meereen shall be free. Thus the Section 5D violates the
Article 301 and also violates the Article 19(1)(g) on the basis that it violates the right of trading
of a person outside the State of Meereen which he do not want to be deprived of as he is not
committing any crime in his state and mere trading of the meat in the State of Meereen cannot
be crime as it is his fundamental right.
Thus the section 5D restrict person to eat the cattle meat even slaughtered outside the state
thus this act violate the right to livelihood of a person and personal liberty of a person and

11
section 5D infringes the Article 21 of constitution3. Thus further rising the question that state
has only enacted this law to improve the economical factors but at the same time prohibiting
to eat the meat of cattle slaughtered outside the State of Meereen shows that their intention is
not only to ban slaughter of cattle but to stop people from eating the meat of cattle. IT even
violates right to life of a person as Right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life4.
No person can live without the means of living that is the means of livelihood5.

2.5 The section 9B of the Act is against the basic principles of burden of proof as adopted in
Evidence Act. It is not reasonable that a person who is charged by prosecution for certain
offence prove his innocence. It is the prosecution who has liability to prove the offence the
Respondent knows very well that in the cases like George cannot prove the guilty of accused
that's why they introduced section 9B only to be discharge from their own duty. This is totally
unreasonable and arbitrary. For the sake of argument in case a person is found with flesh of
scheduled animal in negligible amount and as we know after some process like keema flesh
cannot be identified of which specific animal it is. He buys the meat at the assurance of the
seller. Whether the seller obtained required certificate or not or transported as per the rules of
the Act or not the purchaser cannot prove it. Thus the section 9B of the Act is unconstitutional.

Issue no. 3
Whether the Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2019 is unconstitutional as it is arbitrary,
unreasonable and do not uphold any reasonable classification.

3.1 Stating that this Act it is in the welfare of the people is just a vague statement.

So total ban on the slaughter of buffaloes, bulls, bullocks after they ceases to be capable of
yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animal cannot be supported reasonable in
the interest of general public6.

3.2 The share of cattle meat in the overall meat production is only 5 per cent. Buffalo meat
constitutes 23 per cent of the total meat production. Poultry meat contributes 46 per cent of
total meat production in the country7. At present Westeros is one of the biggest exporters in the

3
Haresh M. Jagtiani vs The State of Maharashtra
4
Narendra Kumar V. State of Haryana, JT (1994) 2 SC 94
5
Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986) 3 SCC 545
6
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others V. The State of Bihar 1958, AIR 731 SCR 629
7
According to the Department of Animal Husbandry annual report for 2016-17

12
world. The meat industry employs over 22 lakh people in the country. The new regulation of
banning sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets is likely to affect the meat industry
adversely. Thus the permanent ban will hamper the right to work 19( 1)(g) and large number
of people are non vegetarian for a long period of time.8

3.3 Section 5 of this Act states that no person shall slaughter cause to be slaughtered or offer
for slaughter of any COW, [BULL OR BULLOCK] in any place in the state of Meereen. And
in section 6 of the Act states that the prior certificate in writing should be granted by slaughter
houses for slaughter of Schedule animals from the competent authority that the animal is fit for
slaughter thus State has established some conditions for slaughter for schedule animals. The
Article 48 do not give authority to the State to put restrictions on what to eat and what not to.
In section 6 of the Act the state imposed restrictions on the slaughter of schedule animals and
State has no authority to do it. State has no authority to direct a commodity to what to eat what
not to. It is the personal choice of the person which do not concerns the State. So why does
state does this partiality between bulls, bullocks and schedule animals as schedule animals also
contribute into the agriculture. No reasonable classification is there by the State. Keeping the
cow aside bulls and bullocks have no other importance then the agricultural field. So why did
state build this distinction between the Bulls, Bullocks and schedule animals. The State has
some other intention for this distinction between the cattle's. Due to this The State is rising
many other problems including right to clear environment etc. The State should have included
the Bulls and Bullocks in section 6 and thus imposing reasonable restrictions but including
them in section 5 and putting absolute ban on their slaughter violate the Art. 21 of the
Constitution.

3.4 As of religion every person has the right to follow his or her religion but it does not mean
that it will interfere in the rights of the other person. The State should clarify this type of
classification in cattle because as in economic effect the classification is just between foods.
State cannot ban the one of the most nutritious and cheap diet of a person as it is the source of
his daily meal.

8
Hinsa Virodhak Sangh V. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat, AIR 2008 (SC) 1892

13
 Prayers

Wherefore in the light of Issues Raised, Argument Advanced Authorities Cited, the Hon'ble
High Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1 The Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2019 enacted by the State Government of
Meereen is unconstitutional and should be struck down.
2 The section 5D and section 9B of the Act should be declared null and void.
14
And pass any order, direction, or relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.

15