Bal
Ram Bali & Anr Vs. Union of India [2007] Insc 857 (24 August 2007)
G.P.
Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan
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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
