10th K.C.

Law College National Moot Court Competition

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2-3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 05

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 06

STATEMENT OF FACTS 07

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 08

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 09

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-23

ISSUE 1: Whether leave be granted to the present appeal under Article 136 of The Constitution of

India.

ISSUE 2: Whether the MPA Act, 1976 is ultravires to the Indian Constitution 1949.

PRAYER 24

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[1]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

CASES REFFERED

1. Arunachalam v. Sethuratnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284

2. Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others (2014) 7 SCC 547

3. Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950 SC 188 (193)

4. Chikkrange Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731; State of U.P. v. Ram

Manorath, AIR 1972 SC 701

5. Hinsa Virdohak Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Others

6. Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others vs. Union of India and Others 1999 IIAD Delhi

7. Mahadayal Premchandra v. C.T.O., AIR 1958 SC 667; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. .v.

C.I.T., AIR 1955 SC 65

8. Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ (1998) 8 SCC 296 : (AIR 1999 SC 495)

9. Ms. ‘X’ v. Mr. ‘Z’AIR 2002 Delhi 217

10. PUCL vs. Union of India & others(1997) 3 SCC 433

11. Ram Saran Das & Bros. V. Commercial Tax officer, AIR 1962 SC 1326; Kunhayammed

v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587

12. Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715; Beli Ram v. Salig Ram, Air 1996

SC 757

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[2]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

13. S.G. Chemicals & dyes Trading Employees’ Union v. S.G. Chemicals & Dyes Trading

Ltd., (1986) 2 SCC 624

BOOKS & COMMENTARIES REFFERED

1. V.N. Shukla, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12th ed., 2013).

2. D.D.Basu, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA (21st ed.,2014).
3. D.D. Basu, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Vol I , 8th ed.)
4. P. M. Bakshi, THE CONSTITUITION OF INDIA (12th ed., 2014).
5. Dr. J.N. Pandey, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA(50th ed.,2013).
6. R. S. Bedi, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (10th ed., 2013).
7. S.C. Kashyap, FRAMING OF INDIA’S CONSTITUTION (2nd ed.,2008).
8. S.C. Kashyap, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA : INTRODUCTION AND
BACKGROUND (Vol. I, 2008).
9. H.M. Seervai, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Vol. I, 3rd ed.).
10. J.R.C. Lahoti, PREAMBLE: SPIRIT AND BACKBONE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA (1st ed., 2004).

LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES

1. Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary .Ed. (2004), Thomson West.

2. Justice R.P.Sethi, Supreme court on Words And Phrases , Ed.2 (2004).
3. Oxford English Dictionary, Ed. 10,(2005).
4. P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Law Lexicon , Ed.3 (2005), Vol. I, II & III.
5. Webster's Universal Dictionary, Ed. I,(1993).

LEGAL DATABASES

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.indiancaselaws.org
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
[3]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

3. www.indlaw.com
4. www.indiankanoon.org
5. www.judic.nic.in
6. www.lexisnexis.com
7. www.scconline.co.in
8. www.westlaw.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[4]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Hon’ble Honourable

MPA, 1976 Mahadpur Preservation of Animals Act, 1976

AIR All India Reporter

FSSA The Food Safety and Standards Act

Art. Article

Co. Company

Commr. Commissioner

Corp. Corporation

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

SCC Supreme Court Cases

S. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

T.N. Tamil Nadu

U.O.I Union of India

v. versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[5]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Article

136 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Under Article 136 the Supreme Court is authorised to grant Special leave to appeal where the

need of justice demand interference by the highest court of the land.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[6]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. BACKGROUND

An amendment was brought about to the Mahadpur Preservation of Animals Act, 1976 which

imposed a total ban on the transportation, slaughter, import and possession of any flesh of cows,

bulls and bullocks slaughtered outside the State of Mahadpur.

The amendment brought about new provision which stated that 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 MPA, 1976 is upon the accused.

2. THE CONFLICT

The amendment brought about by the government developed restlessness among certain class of

public as well as slaughter house owners who considered this act to be highly arbitrary and

unconstitutional.

3. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT

Being aggrieved by the said ban, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Hon’ble High

Court of Mahadpur challenging the constitutional validity of the Mahadpur Preservation of

Animals Act, 1976. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the validity of the amendments.

The petitioners not being satisfied by the orders passed by the Hon’ble High court, are now

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India invoking Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of

the Constitution of India, 1950.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[7]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

Whether leave be granted to the present appeal under Article 136 of The Constitution of

India.

ISSUE II.

Whether the MPA Act, 1976 is ultravires to the Indian Constitution 1949.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[8]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER LEAVE BE GRANTED TO THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER

ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the present case, that the case

before hand is not fit for the grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of

India, which vests it with a plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and

hearing appeals by granting of special leave. In the instant case, the facts are not clear

and leave can only be granted where the facts are undisputed. The power under Article

136 can only be exercised in extra-ordinary circumstances. This court itself has

imposed various limitations on its power.

II. WHETHER THE MPA ACT, 1976 IS ULTRAVIRES TO THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

The amendment to the MPA Act, 1976 brought about new provisions namely Sections

5A to 5D which imposed a total ban on the transportation, slaughter import, and

possession of any flesh of cow’s bulls and bullocks slaughtered outside the state of

Mahadpur. Also by Sections 9A and 9B the burden of proving that the slaughter

transports export outside the state sale purchase or possession of flesh of cow bull or

bullock was not in contravention of the MPA act, 1976 is upon the accused.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[9]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER LEAVE BE GRANTED TO THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER

ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

1. It is humbly submitted that the present case is not fit for the grant of leave by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution which vests it with a plenary

jurisdiction1 in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals, by granting of special leave.

2. The Supreme Court has affirmed in Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank2, that this

discretionary power though not subject to any limitation, is to be exercised sparingly and

in extraordinary cases only. The court has itself imposed certain limitations to its own

powers 3. The leave may be allowed and granted only in exceptional cases, such a breach

of principles of natural justice by the order appealed against4, or disregard to the forms of

legal process or substantial or grave injustice had been done. 5 There is a requirement of

“exceptionally sound reasons” for the appeal to be admitted under Article 136, when the

alternative remedies are not exhausted.6

1. Arunachalam v. Sethuratnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284

2. Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950 SC 188 (193)
3. Ram Saran Das & Bros. V. Commercial Tax officer, AIR 1962 SC 1326; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala,
AIR 2000 SC 2587
4. Mahadayal Premchandra v. C.T.O., AIR 1958 SC 667; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. .v. C.I.T., AIR 1955 SC
65
5. Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715; Beli Ram v. Salig Ram, Air 1996 SC 757
6. S.G. Chemicals & dyes Trading Employees’ Union v. S.G. Chemicals & Dyes Trading Ltd., (1986) 2 SCC
624

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[10]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

3. However in the instant matter, there is neither gross miscarriage of justice 7 nor violation

of the principles of natural justice by the order of the High Court. There is no substantial

question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution as nothing of this sort has

happened in the instant case. Therefore, this case lacks the “sound or extraordinary

grounds” requisite for being entertained under Article 136 since the claims of violation of

fundamental rights, or grave injustice and “special circumstances” existent are unfounded.

The same shall be established in the foregoing issues.

II. WHETHER THE MPA ACT, 1976 IS ULTRAVIRES TO THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the respondents that the

amendment of the MPA, 1976 (amendment) is constitutionally valid.

2. The amendment to the MPA Act, 1976 brought about new provisions namely Sections

5A to 5D which imposed a total ban on the transportation, slaughter import, and

possession of any flesh of cows bulls and bullocks slaughtered outside the state of

Mahadpur. Also by Sections 9A and 9B the burden of proving that the slaughter

transports export outside the state sale purchase or possession of flesh of cow bull or

bullock was not in contravention of the MPA Act, 1976 is upon the accused.

3. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the respondents that the

amendment of the MPA Act, 1976 (amendment) is constitutionally valid. The

amendment does not violate Article 21, 19(1) (g) and Articles 25 & 29 of the

Constitution of India.

7. Chikkrange Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731; State of U.P. v. Ram Manorath, AIR 1972 SC 701

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[11]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

 Article 21 of The Constitution Of India states that

Protection of life and personal liberty:- No person shall be deprived of his life or

personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

 RIGHT TO PRIVACY:

In India right of privacy has been culled out of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution and

other provisions relating to the fundamental rights read with the directive principles of State

Policy.

Referring to the case of Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’8

The right to privacy was more specifically in issue in the context of disclosure of the

outcome of the blood test in Mr. "X" v. Hospital "Z", reported in in which the appellant's

blood sample was tested and he was found to be HIV positive which resulted in the

appellant's proposed marriage being called off. The Supreme Court held that the right to

privacy has been culled out of the provisions of Article 21 and other provisions of the

Constitution. However, the right was not absolute and may be lawfully restricted or

prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and

freedom of ethers. It was held that, having regard to the fact that the appellant was found

to be HIV (+), its disclosure would not be violative of either the rule of confidentiality or

the appellant's right of privacy as "A", whom the appellant was likely to marry, was saved

in time by the disclosure, otherwise, she too would have been infected with the dreadful

8
Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ (1998) 8 SCC 296 : (AIR 1999 SC 495)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[12]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

disease if the marriage had taken place and consummated. Once the law provides

"venereal disease" as a ground for divorce to either husband or wife, such a person who

was suffering from that disease, even prior to the marriage cannot be said to have any

right to marry so long as he is not fully cured of the disease.

It was held that, as one of the basic Human Rights, the right of privacy is not treated as

absolute and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken for the prevention of

Crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedoms of

others.

Also if we refer to the case of Ms. ‘X’ v. Mr. ‘Z’9

The wife filed the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and

adultery against husband under Section 10 of Divorce Act. The husband also asserted that

his wife had adulterous affairs with one person which resulted in family way. The

pregnancy of wife was terminated at All India Institute of medical Sciences and records

and slides of tabular gestation were preserved in the hospital. The husband filed an

application for seeking DNA test of the sides with a view to ascertain if the husband is the

father of the foetus. The Court held that the right to privacy though a fundamental right

forming part to right to life is not an absolute right. When the right to privacy has come

under a public document, in that case the person cannot insist that that such DNA test

would infringe his or her right to privacy. The foetus as no longer a part of her body and

when it has been preserved in AIIMS the wife who has already discharged the same

9
Ms. ‘X’ v. Mr. ‘Z’AIR 2002 Delhi 217

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[13]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

cannot claim it and that it affects her right to privacy.

The Court held that the right to privacy though a fundamental right forming part to right

to life is not an absolute right. When the right to privacy has come under a public

document, in that case the person cannot insist that that such DNA test would infringe his

or her right to privacy. The foetus as no longer a part of her body and when it has been

preserved in AIIMS the wife who has already discharged the same cannot claim it and

that it affects her right to privacy.

In reference to the above stated cases and the Courts decisions it can be well established

that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and also cannot be read in isolation. It

has to be read along with the Directive Principle of State Policy and Public interest.

Indiscriminate raids on slaughterhouses and private gatherings of people peacefully

consuming meat have often led to riot like situations in many states, however, such a right

being a fringe right, the said ban does not violate Articles 19 or 21. In order to gage

validity of the Act on the touch stone of Article 21, the scope of Article 21 had to be taken

into consideration. The context of life which is to be taken away had to be considered. In

this context what had to be seen was the core aspect of the legislation and peripheral

aspects. Though the core aspect could not be breached, any fringed right could be taken

away.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[14]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

 RIGHT TO FOOD

The right to choice of food falls under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The right to food is one of the most basic human rights, closely linked to the right to life. Human

Rights are indivisible and inalienable.

Referring to the case of PUCL vs. Union of India & others10

In 2001, during a visit to Jaipur it was observed that 5 kms outside the city of Jaipur city, the

Food Corporation of India (FCI) go downs were overflowing with grains. The grains were kept

outside the go-downs and the rain had fermented the grain and it was rotting. 5 kms from the go-

downs was a village where the people were eating in rotation, classically called “rotation eating”,

or “rotation hunger” where some members of the family eat on one day and the remaining

persons eat on the other day. In 2001, 60 million tonnes were in the Food Corporation of India

(FCI) go-downs, whereas the buffer stocks required were 20 million tonnes. The Government had

40 million tonnes above the buffer stock and people were dying of starvation - such were the

reports all over the country. On that simple proposition the PUCL in Rajasthan filed a case,

which came to the Supreme Court.

The court affirmed the right to food as necessary to uphold Article 21 of the Constitution of

India, which guarantees the fundamental right to “life with human dignity.” It decreed that all the

PDS shops, if closed, were to be re-opened within one week. The Food Corporation of India

(FCI) was ordered to ensure that food grains do not go to waste.

The above case has demonstrated “that a State cannot escape the responsibility of ensuring the

10
PUCL vs. Union of India & others(1997) 3 SCC 433

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[15]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

Right to Food and the case continues – seeking to further strengthen the formulation and

implementation of food and other related social security schemes”.

Article 19(1)(g) in The Constitution Of India allows:-

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

Thus Article 19(1)(g) of The Constitution of India provides Right to practice any profession or to

carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens subject to Art.19 (6) which enumerates

the nature of restriction that can be imposed by the state upon the above right of the citizens. Sub

clause (g) of Article 19 (1) confers a general and vast right available to all persons to do any

particular type of business of their choice. But this does not confer the right to do anything

consider illegal in eyes of law or to hold a particular job or to occupy a particular post of the

choice of any particular person. Further Art 19(1) (g) does not mean that conditions be created by

the state or any statutory body to make any trade lucrative or to procure customers to the

business/businesssman. Moreover a citizen whose occupation of a place is unlawful cannot claim

fundamental right to carry on business in such place since the fundamental rights cannot be

availed in the justification of an unlawful act or in preventing a statutory authority from lawfully

discharging its statutory functions.

Referring to the case of Hinsa Virdohak Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Others11

Here, with a view to appease the Jain community the State Government and the Ahmedabad

Municipal Corporation have, from time to time, taken decisions/passed resolutions for closure of

the municipal slaughter houses in Ahmedabad during the period of the Paryushan festival (which

is an important Jain festival). This has resulted in serious violation of the fundamental rights of

the respondents to trade and do business in meat etc. The respondents have alleged that in the
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
[16]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

year 1993, the State Government accepted the demand of some organizations belonging to the

Jain community for closure of the municipal slaughter houses during the period of Paryushan and

issued directions to the Corporation to take appropriate action accordingly. In subsequent years,

the Corporation passed resolutions for closure of the municipal slaughter houses for different

period ranging from 8 to 18 days during the Paryushan festival.

It is alleged that the impugned resolutions were passed by the Corporation in view of the demand

made by some organizations belong to the Jain community and it has nothing to do with the

general public interest. It was further submitted that the fundamental rights of those engaged in

the trade and business of slaughtering animals and/or selling meat etc which is guaranteed under

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be put to peril or jeopardized with a view to assuage

the feelings of any particular community or a particular section of society, or as a mark of

religious sentiments of a particular community. It was submitted that a large number of people

living in Ahmedabad are non-vegetarians and their right to food of their choice is an integral part

of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution which cannot be violated at the

whims and fancies of the Jain community.

However, in the present case, the closure of the slaughter houses is only for 9 days and not for a

considerable period of time. Therefore, a balanced view of the matter was to be taken.

Article 25 of The Constitution Of India states that:-

Freedom of conscience and free profession practise, and propagation of religion.- Subject to

public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally

entitles to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess practice and propagate religion.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[17]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

(1) Nothing in this article shall affect this operation of any existing law or prevent the state

from making the law-

(a) Regulating or restricting any economic financial political or other secular activity

which may be associated with religious practice,

(b) Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious

institutions of a a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

In the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar12 the main issue that was raised

Whether Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1955 (Bihar II of 1956) is

violative of Article 25?

Thus it was held by the court that

(i) A total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-

buffaloes, male and female, is quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with

the directive principles laid down in Art. 48,

(ii) A total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks

(cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are as milch or draught cattle is also

reasonable and valid and

(iii) A total ban on the slaughter of 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 cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public. The

impugned Acts in the light of the aforesaid conclusions were arrived at.

12
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 Guj 220, (1999) 3 GLR 2007

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[18]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

Article 29 in The Constitution Of India states that:-

Protection of Interest of Minorities.- (1) any section of the citizens residing in the territory of

India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the

right to conserve the same.

(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State

or receiving aid out of the state funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of

them.

Article 48 of the Constitution of India states that:-

Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall endeavour to organise

agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take

steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves

and other milch and draught cattle.

As we know, the said Act was passed in furtherance of Article 48 of the Constitution of India.

The Amendment Act, 1995 also is in furtherance of the said Article. However, the object and

scope of the said act travelled far beyond the legislative sphere.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES AND PUBLIC INTEREST:

The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties are

sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the State to its

citizens and the duties of the citizens to the State. These sections comprise a constitutional bill of

rights for government policy-making and the behavior and conduct of citizens. These sections are

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[19]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

considered vital elements of the constitution, which was developed between 1947 and 1949 by

the Constituent Assembly of India.

Firstly, Clause (2) of the objects and reasons and submitted that the words used viz "Indian

Agriculture" which have to be taken into consideration

.Secondly, Clause (3) indicated that this is for the purpose of securing directive principles and in

larger public interest.

Article 31(C) of the Constitution is relevant in this context.

‘Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles Notwithstanding anything contained

in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the

principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent

with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19 and no law

containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any

court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy: Provided that where such law is

made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this Article shall not apply thereto unless

such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent

Right to Constitutional Remedies’

Validity of Section 5A-5D:

The aim and object of the legislation was to ban cow slaughter as also slaughtering of its conjoins

and for that purpose Sections 5A to 5D were incorporated so that the State could implement the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[20]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

said Act and for that purpose the said provisions ban the trade of beef both, import and export and

possession of beef. A complete ban has been imposed on lot of things, for example, ivory.

The complete ban has been upheld on different commodities. Section 5D was incorporated to

prevent mischief.

The policy of the State to further the goal under Article 48 could not be faulted and Sections 5A

to 5D are ancillary provisions to advance the goal under Article 48. The State could impose ban

for the purpose of implementation of the object of the Act. The main goal of the Act being

prevention of slaughter, ancillary provisions making ban on import and export had a nexus with

the object which was sought to be achieved viz prevention of slaughter and there were no

extraneous reasons for which the said provisions were added.

Referring to the case of in Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others vs. Union of India and

Others:12

The court gave the following judgement:

“We, therefore, are of the opinion that the respondents would be entitled to take physical

possession of the ivory now in seizure. The question, however, would be as to whether the

Central Government should destroy the articles including idols of gods and goddesses and

household items like sofa sets depicting cultural and religious heritage.

It is stated that similar articles are being displayed in museums as a part of cultural and religious

heritage of India. In view of our findings afore mentioned, the appropriate authority would be

12
Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others vs. Union of India and Others 1999 IIAD Delhi

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[21]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

entitled to continue to keep in possession the said articles. We, however, direct that the same be

kept at appropriate museums or at such suitable places where the statutory authorities feel fit and

proper but they should not be destroyed. With the afore mentioned directions and observations,

these appeals and writ petition are dismissed.”

RIGHT OF LIFE FOR ANIMALS

Amongst all the fundamental rights, Article 21 has influenced the development of landscape of

human rights in India, the most. In order to draw the content of ‘life’ under Article 21, the court

identifies every basic requirement for guaranteeing dignified life of human being as part of the

celebrated provision of the Constitution and made it integral part of the rights framework. A new

dimension has been added to the interpretation of ‘right to life and personal liberty’ by

introducing ‘negative’ as well as ‘positive’ obligation on the state which covers not only ‘duty to

restraint’ but also of ‘duty to facilitate entitlements’. For determining the constituent of the

‘right’, the judiciary has always looked for such facets of ‘life’ which is essential for human

existence in contrast with animal.

Referring to the case of Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others13

“The PCA Act, as already indicated, was enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain,

suffering or cruelty on animals. Section 3 of the Act deals with duties of persons having charge of

animals, which is mandatory in nature and hence confer corresponding rights on animals. Rights

13
Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others (2014) 7 SCC 547

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[22]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

so conferred on animals are thus the antithesis of a duty and if those rights are violated, law will

enforce those rights with legal sanction.”

The Apex Court has brought within its ambit the Right of Life for Animals as well. This right

therefore ensures that the government ensures organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry

on modern and scientific lines. The cow and its progeny are the backbone of the state’s agrarian

economy and to protect it and to prevent cruelty the law was brought into effect.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[23]
 10th K.C.Law College National Moot Court Competition

PRAYER

In light of the Issues Raised, Arguments Advanced and Authorities Cited, the counsel for the

Respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble SupremeCourt be pleased:

1. TO DECLARE the case not fit for the grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of

India.

2. TO DECLARE the MPA Act, 1976 to be intravires to The Constitution of India.

AND / OR

Pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[24]