- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bal Ram Bali And Another v. Union Of India .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners invoked Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and other respondents to impose a total ban on the slaughter of (i) cows, (ii) horses, (iii) buffaloes, (iv) any animal covered by Article 48, and (v) chameleons. They argued that these animals hold religious significance for Hindus and cited various Vedic references. The Court heard the petitioners in person, reviewed the record, and proceeded to determine whether the requested directions could be issued.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, can direct the Government to impose a total ban on the slaughter of specified animals.
- Whether the Court can mandate Parliament or State Legislatures to enact legislation effectuating such a ban.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja (2003) 6 SCC 195 | Parliament’s sovereign power to legislate cannot be controlled by judicial directions. | Relied upon to hold that the Court cannot compel the legislature to enact a ban on animal slaughter. |
| Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 | No court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. | Cited as authority that mandamus cannot issue to compel legislation. |
| State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki 1992 Supp (1) SCC 548 | Delegated legislative authorities also cannot be compelled to frame specific subordinate legislation. | Used to reinforce the inability of courts to order executive authorities to legislate. |
| A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 | Mandamus cannot be issued to enforce or compel enactment of legislation. | Supports the conclusion that the relief sought is beyond judicial power. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the relief sought— a total ban on slaughter of cows, buffaloes, horses, and other specified animals— involves a matter of legislative policy. Under the constitutional scheme, only the competent legislature may impose such a ban through duly enacted law. Relying on the precedents listed above, the Court reaffirmed that:
- Parliament exercises sovereign legislative power and cannot be directed by the judiciary to enact a specific statute.
- Similarly, executive authorities vested with delegated legislative power cannot be compelled to legislate in a particular manner.
- Article 32 provides a remedy for enforcement of existing fundamental rights, not for creation of new statutory prohibitions.
Because the petitioners sought judicial directions that would essentially require fresh legislation, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant the prayers.
Holding and Implications
Petition Dismissed.
Direct consequence: the Court refused to order any ban on animal slaughter, leaving the matter to legislative discretion. The decision reiterates the established separation-of-powers principle that courts cannot compel legislatures or subordinate law-making authorities to enact specific laws. No new legal precedent was created; the ruling relies on and reaffirms existing case law.
G.P Mathur, J.— 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 Paras 67-A and 67-B 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 26-1-1950.
(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 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 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 (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 (SCC 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, (1992) 20 ATC 285. In A.K Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 it was 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.
Alert