Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 478 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Bal Ram Bali & Anr
RESPONDENT:
Union of India
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/2007
BENCH:
G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.478 OF 2006
G.P. Mathur, J.
1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed
praying for the following reliefs :
"PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed to kindly issue a writ
of mandamus under Article 32 and direct the respondents
to ensure and guarantee with immediate effect for :-
(i) Total ban on slaughter of cows, who are regarded
by Hindus as their divine mother, to respect the
Hindu religion and its followers of all sects as per
details of petition.
(ii) Total ban on slaughter of horses in view of Vedic
quotations quoted at para Nos.67A & 67B of the
grounds.
(iii) Total ban on killing of buffaloes as a mark of
gratitude, by Hindus for drinking her milk.
Buffalo is to be regarded sister of mother cow.
Commitment of the constitution in this respect also
is pending since 26.01.1950.
(iv) Total ban on slaughter as proposed under Article
48 in its expression literally where personal
interpretations have no say.
(v) Total ban on killing of a chameleon as it is being
killed by Muslims by naming it Hindu-Hindu vide
para 35(ii) of the grounds of appeal. The
chameleon has suffered much killings since arrival
of Muslims in India for about 1000 years as its
only fault is that it hails name of "Hindu" as per
Muslim concept. Hindus are obliged to have
sympathy for such an innocent creature."
2. We have heard the petitioners in person and have perused the
record.
3. It is not within the domain of the Court to issue a direction for
ban on slaughter of cows, buffaloes and horses as it is a matter of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
policy on which decision has to be taken by the Government. That
apart, a complete ban on slaughter of cows, buffaloes and horses, as
sought in the present petition, can only be imposed by legislation
enacted by the appropriate legislature. Courts cannot issue any
direction to the Parliament or to the State legislature to enact a
particular kind of law. This question has been considered in Union of
India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 195, wherein in
para 30 of the reports it was held as under :
"30. Under our constitutional scheme Parliament
exercises sovereign power to enact laws and no outside
power or authority can issue a direction to enact a
particular piece of legislation. In Supreme Court
Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4
SCC 187 (para 51) it has been held that no court can
direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly,
when an executive authority exercises a legislative power
by way of a subordinate legislation pursuant to the
delegated authority of a legislature, such executive
authority cannot be asked to enact a law which it has
been empowered to do under the delegated legislative
authority. This view has been reiterated in State of J&K
v. A.R. Zakki (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 548. In A.K. Roy v.
Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 it has been held that no
mandamus can be issued to enforce an Act which has
been passed by the legislature..........................."
4. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the opinion
that this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners, as prayed for,
in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.