{"id":1393,"date":"2024-10-23T19:31:03","date_gmt":"2024-10-23T19:31:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=1393"},"modified":"2025-03-12T16:29:09","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T10:59:09","slug":"state-of-gujarat-v-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-jamat-2005-scc-53","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/state-of-gujarat-v-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-jamat-2005-scc-53\/","title":{"rendered":"State of Gujarat V. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"1393\" class=\"elementor elementor-1393\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-405dec35 elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"405dec35\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-7b0e5b86\" data-id=\"7b0e5b86\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-74a0af00 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"74a0af00\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-5834350f\" data-id=\"5834350f\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-389f455d elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"389f455d\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">State of Gujarat V. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat 2005 SCC 53 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-617b1e57 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"617b1e57\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/WhatsApp-Image-2024-10-23-at-21.34.39_e37fd4bd.jpg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-1394\" alt=\"State of Gujarat V. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat 2005 SCC 53\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/WhatsApp-Image-2024-10-23-at-21.34.39_e37fd4bd.jpg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/WhatsApp-Image-2024-10-23-at-21.34.39_e37fd4bd-300x168.jpg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/WhatsApp-Image-2024-10-23-at-21.34.39_e37fd4bd-1024x574.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/WhatsApp-Image-2024-10-23-at-21.34.39_e37fd4bd-150x84.jpg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/WhatsApp-Image-2024-10-23-at-21.34.39_e37fd4bd-768x431.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-699a27b2 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"699a27b2\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In this Landmark case, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated the constitutional validity of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, balancing individual rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 with the broader public welfare objectives embedded in Articles 48 and 51A(g).<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/state-of-gujarat-v-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-jamat-2005-scc-53\/#Facts_of_State_of_Gujarat_v_Mirzapur_Moti_Kureshi_Kassab_Jamat\" >Facts of State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/state-of-gujarat-v-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-jamat-2005-scc-53\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/state-of-gujarat-v-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-jamat-2005-scc-53\/#Judgment_of_State_of_Gujarat_v_Mirzapur_Moti_Kureshi_Kassab_Jamat\" >Judgment of State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/state-of-gujarat-v-mirzapur-moti-kureshi-kassab-jamat-2005-scc-53\/#Click_here_to_read_the_Judgment\" >Click here to read the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_State_of_Gujarat_v_Mirzapur_Moti_Kureshi_Kassab_Jamat\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Gujarat Legislature passed the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994).<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The amendment imposed a total ban on the slaughter of cows and their progeny, including bulls and bullocks, by removing the earlier provision that permitted slaughter of bulls and bullocks over 16 years of age.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Butchers, including the Kureshi community, challenged the amendment, filing writ petition under Article 226 in the Gujarat High Court. They argued that the ban violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the complete ban on the slaughter of cow progeny, including bulls and bullocks of all ages, violates the butchers&#8217; fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_State_of_Gujarat_v_Mirzapur_Moti_Kureshi_Kassab_Jamat\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat<br \/><\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><b>Subordinate Court Judgment<\/b><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The High Court allowed the writ petitions and struck down the impugned legislation as ultra vires to the Constitution.<\/span><\/p><p><b>Judgment of the Present Case<\/b><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court primarily analyzed Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution to determine whether the total ban on cattle slaughter constituted a reasonable restriction on the petitioners&#8217; right to trade. Additionally, it referred to Article 48 and Article 51A(g).<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court applied Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to practice any trade or profession, to assess the constitutional validity of the total ban on cow progeny slaughter imposed by the Gujarat Amendment. The Court clarified that such a ban could qualify as a restriction under Article 19(6) if it serves legitimate public welfare objectives and passes the reasonableness test. It emphasized that fundamental rights are not absolute and must sometimes yield to public interest; thus, the ban, while comprehensive, did not eliminate the butchers&#8217; trade entirely since other animals remained available for slaughter. Evaluating economic, agricultural, and public welfare concerns, the Court concluded that the benefits of preserving cow progeny for agriculture, organic farming, and biogas production outweighed the burdens on butchers, rendering the prohibition proportionate. The judgment relied on Directive Principles, particularly Article 48, which directs the State to promote animal husbandry and prohibit cow slaughter, as well as Article 51A(g), which mandates compassion toward animals. Further, by referring to precedents like Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar, 1958), the Court highlighted the necessity of a case-specific analysis, asserting that reasonable restrictions must be justified within the context of public interest, thereby balancing individual rights with societal welfare.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court\u2019s majority judgment upheld the <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">ruling that the total ban on cow progeny slaughter was a reasonable restriction in line with public policy objectives under Articles 48 and 51A(g). The judgment reflects the Court\u2019s effort to balance individual rights with societal welfare by acknowledging the importance of agriculture, animal preservation, and public sentiment. However, the dissent by Justice Mathur highlighted the economic burdens imposed on certain communities and cautioned against using public policy objectives to disproportionately restrict fundamental rights.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Click_here_to_read_the_Judgment\"><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/State-of-Gujarat-V.-Mirzapur-Moti-Kureshi-Kassab-Jamat-Judgment.pdf\"><b style=\"color: #993300; font-size: 1.22222rem; font-style: inherit; background-color: var(--ast-global-color-5);\">Click here to read the Judgment<\/b><\/a><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-71081d60 elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"71081d60\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/State-of-Gujarat-V.-Mirzapur-Moti-Kureshi-Kassab-Jamat-Judgment.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In this Landmark case, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated the constitutional validity of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, balancing individual rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 with the broader public welfare objectives embedded in Articles 48 and 51A(g).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1394,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8],"tags":[23,13,24,25,12],"class_list":["post-1393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-constitutional-law","tag-article-191g","tag-article-21","tag-article-48","tag-article-51ag","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1393"}],"version-history":[{"count":33,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4434,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1393\/revisions\/4434"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1394"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}