IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA

Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a)

CIVIL APELLATE JURISDCTION
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Special Leave Petition (Civil) (CC) of
2016
[Petition for Special Leave to appeal under Article 136
of the Constitution of India against the final judgment
and order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Honble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana in W.P.(C) No.
200/2016 ]
(PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

IN THE MATTER OF :
Naresh Kadyan

Petitioner
Vs

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondents
With

PAPER BOOK
For Index Kindly See Inside
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

S. NO.
1.

INDEX
Particulars
Office report of limitation

2.

Listing Performa

3.

Synopsis and List of Dates

4.

Copy of judgment and final

Page No.
A
A1- A3
B-I
1-

Order Dated 08.01.2016

Passed by the Honble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana
in W.P.(C) No. 200/2016 ]
5.

Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

6.

Annexure P-1

32-33

The Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,

2015

Copies of minutes of meeting and Notification of

Other States are appended herewith as Annexure
P-5 and P-6. Copy of chart to show hide of cow is
appended herewith as Annexure P-4. Import of
Cosmetic tested on animals prohibited is appended
herewith

as

Annexure

P-3.

the

Haryana

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972-2

Details

of

Rashtriya

Gokul

Kamdhenu Breeding Centres

Mission

National

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The petitioner is moving the present Special Leave
Petition

against

the

judgment

and

order

dated

08.01.2016 passed by the Honble High Court of Punjab

& Haryana in W.P.(C) No. 200/2016
Kadyan Vs State of Haryana & Ors

titled as Naresh
by the Honble

Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Honble Mr. Justice

Harinder Singh Sidhu whereby the Honble High Court
completely

and out rightly in clandestine manner with

which the respondents are proposing to change in ____

post and highlights the complete arbitrariness,

19-11-2015

The

respondents

have

re-

notified/introduced Haryana Gauvansh

Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,
2015 for prohibition of cow slaughtering
and beef is completely banned but in this
Act instead of framing new Rules the
respondents

have

adopted

previous

defected rules of Haryana Prohibition of

Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972, which are
totally contrary to the New Act, 2015.

------------

From many eras the cow is animal which

is professed as a holy creature and is
worshiped throughout in the country of
India. This is agriculture animal and
various products and medicines are
prepared from its urine, whereas milk
have

A2 variety of beta casein

protein, Various States in India have

declared their agriculture animals as
State Animals like State of Bihar has
declared OX as their State Animal.
State of Rajasthan has declared Camel
their State Animal along with Chinkara.
Thus, cow which is supposed to be holy
creature and thus Cow Progeny should
also be declared as State Animal of
Haryana without disturbing the status of
Black Buck. Minutes of State Committee
for Slaughter Houses, Department of
Urban

and

Local

Bodies

(Govt.

of

Haryana), meeting was held in this

regard

under

the

chairmanship

of

Additional Chief Secretaries and Urban

Local

Bodies

and

this

Agenda

of

petitioner as non official member was

kept and approved therein, but no action
has

been

taken

Department

till

of

date,

Animal

whereas

Husbandry

confirmed that declaration of Cow as

state animal of Haryana, not in the
purview of them hence taking up this
matter with the Govt. of Haryana. It
would also be pertinent to mention here
that

as

per

article

48

of

Indian

Constitution, which prohibit slaughtering

of cow.
----------

As per section 35 of the Prevention to

Animal Cruelty Act, 1960, Infirmaries
were established to keep safeguard the
seized

animals

but

none

of

the

infirmaries are functional till date.

--------

as per section 2.5.1(a) of The Food

Product Standards and Food Activities,
Regulations,

2011

animals

means

animal belonging to any of the species,

specified as (1) Ovines (2) Caprines (3)
Suillines (4) Bovines. As per the said Act,
2011, the slaughtering of any animal,
other than the species mentioned above
are not permissible. It is pertinent to
mention

here

that

the

4th

species

mentioned above Bovine and as per

said Act, 2011 Indigenous Cow Progeny
is

comes

in

the

Bovine

species.

Therefore, it is necessary to exclude the

Cow Progeny from Bovine species in the
said Act, 2011 and this species is
required to be redefined, in case of
Haryana, keeping in view the Gauvansh
Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,
2015, which prohibit slaughtering of cow
progeny in Haryana.
-------

That the Cow, being agriculture animal is

required to be protected keeping in view
the

provision

mentioned

in

our

Constitution of India. Article 48 of the

Constitution

of

India

says

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. But the respondents despite all
these provisions are failed to protect
these animals, keeping in view the
Prohibition of Cow Slaughtering Rules,
1972 endorsed in original, which permit
cow progeny slaughtering under license,
their beef and its products can be
consumed as diet, due to medicinal
values, whereas no research has been
made, confirming the medicinal values in
beef.
05.12.2015

The writ petition filed before the Honble

High Court and dismissed by the Honble

High Court.
.02.2013

Hence the present Special Leave Petition

IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA

Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a)
CIVIL APELLATE JURISDCTION
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Special Leave Petition (Civil) (CC)
OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :
BETWEEN

POSITION OF PARTIES
In the High
In this
Court

Naresh Kadyan
Petitioner
s/o Sh. Om Parkash Kadyan,
R/o C-38, Rose Apartment,
Sector 14, Prashant Vihar Extension,
North West Delhi, Rohini, Delhi - 110085
Vs.
1.State of Haryana

Contesting
Respondent,
No. 1

Through
Its Principal Secretary
to Haryana Government,
Law and Legislative Department,
Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2. Principal Secretary to

Contesting

Haryana Government,

Respondent,

Animal Husbandry

No. 2

Department,
Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.
.

Honble
Court

Petitioner

Contesting
Respondent
No. 1

Contesting
Respondent
No.2

3.Haryana Gausewa Commission

Contesting
Through its Chairman,

Respondent

Mansa Devi Road,

Panchkula

No. 3

4. Chairman,

Contesting

Haryana Animal Welfare Board

Respondent
Through its Member

Contesting
Respondent
No. 3

Contesting

Respondent
No. 4

No.4

Secretary, Pashudhan
Bhawan, Sector 2,
Panchkula
5. Principal Secretary-

Contesting

Cum-Chairman,

Respondent

Urban Local Body,

No. 5

Contesting
Respondent
No.5

Haryana Civil Secretariat,

Chandigarh
To,
The Honble Chief Justice India and his
Companion Justice of the Supreme Court of India
At New Delhi
The humble Petition of the above
Named petitioner:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying

Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the
Constitutional of India against the impugned and

final judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed

by the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
W.P.(C) No. 200/2016.
2. QUESTION OF LAW:The

following

questions

of

law

arise

for

consideration by this Honble Court:(i)

Whether adopting previous defected

rules i.e. Haryana Prohibition of Cow
Slaughter Rules, 1972 as mentioned in
section

20(2)(3)

Gauvansh

of

the

Haryana

Sanrakshan

and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 is wrong,

illegal, against the Constitution of India
and Principles of natural justice?
(ii)

Whether

Haryana

Gauvansh

Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan act,

2015 is having constitutional value and
new rules are liable to be framed there
under forthwith?
(iii)

Whether

Article

violated/ignored?

51-A(g)

has

been

(iv)

Whether grave and manifest injustice is

being done to the petitioner?

(v)

Whether beef and their products have

medicinal values and consumed as diet?

(vi)

Whether cow progeny can be slaughter

for their beef purpose as medicinal
values?

(vii)

Whether any licensed or Authorised

slaughter

houses

are

functional

in

Haryana, keeping in view the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter Houses)
Rules, 2001?
(viii)

Whether

any

preventive

measures

introduced, to stop the violations of the

rules made out under section 19 of the
Gauvansh

Sanrakshan

Gausamvardhan
offenses

against

Act,

and

2015

these

because

rules

like

Prohibition of Cow Slaughtering Rules,

1972 are non cognizable and bailable
offenses in legal terms without any

punishments?
(ix)

Whether cow progeny can be offered for

any experimentation, when import of
cosmetics,

tested

on

animals

are

prohibited, likewise experimentation of

animals are also not allowed in India?
(x)

Whether

animal

rights

are

being

protected as defined in the recent

judgment

of Supreme Court order

dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686

of 2007?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):The Petitioner states that no other Petition seeking
leave to appeal has been filed by him against the final
judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the
Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in W.P.(C)
No. 200/2016.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:The Annexure P-1 to P-

produced along with the

Special Leave Petition are true copies of pleading/

documents which formed part of the records of the

case in the court below against whose order the leave

to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:A. Because

at

the

Respondents

notified/introduced

have

renew

Act called The Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and

Gausamvardhan

Act,

2015

vide

Haryana

Government Gazzette Notification No. Leg. 27/2015

dated 19th November, 2015. Section 20 of the said
Act (Copy of which is appended herewith as
Annexure P-1) is read as under:20. (1) The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1955 (Punjab Act No.15 of 1956) as applicable
to the State of Haryana is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or
any action taken under the repealed Act and the
rules made there under, shall be deemed to have
been done or taken under this Act.
(3) The Haryana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter
Rules, 1972 framed under the said shall be deemed
to have been framed under this Act till new rules

are framed under this Act.

B. Because the from bare perusal of section 20 of the
Haryana

Gauvansh

Sanrakshan

and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, it would reveal that renotifying this Rules is having no constitutional
validity as on one hand the Haryana State
Government is publishing and broadcasting at large
that they have introduced this time very strong Act
with regard to protection and safeguard of Animals
i.e.

Haryana

Gauvansh

Sanrakshan

and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 under which Act the beef

is totally banned and the person(s) found indulged
in commission of offence under this Act shall be
liable to be prosecuted with rigorous imprisonment
of 10 years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac
whereas on the other hand the respondents are
sheltering the cow slaughtering by adopting the
previous Rules i.e. the Haryana Prohibition of Cow
Slaughter Rules, 1972 (Copy of which is appended
herewith as Annexure P-2), which is totally
contrary to the New Act, 2015.

The definition given under section 2 of the

Haryana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972 would
reveal that
1. Act means the Punjab Prohibition of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955.
2. Form means a Form given in the Schedule
to these rules.
3. Licensing

Authority

means

the

District

Magistrate or any other officer authorized by

him to perform the function of the licensing
authority under these rules.
4. Competent Authority means the District
Animal

Husbandry

Officer

or

Veterinary

Assistant Surgeon of the area.

5. Medical Purposes means the use of beef
products in the diet of patients or for
medicines as may be notified by the State
Government.
6. Local Authority includes Gram Panchayat,

Panchayat Samiti, Municipal Committee and

Cantonment Board, and
7. Words and expression used but not defined in
these rules shall have the meanings assigned
to them in the Act.
Thus, section 2(e) of Haryana Prohibition of
Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972 permits use of beef or beef
products in the diet of patients or for medicines as may
be notified by the State Government, likewise section 7 of
these Rules permitted experimentation on cows, Whereas
as per section 135-B of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945
- Import of Cosmetics tested on animals prohibited No
Cosmetic tested on animals shall be imported. Keeping in
view these rules, cow progeny cant be offered for
experimentation, like wise 148-C of the said Rules
Prohibition of testing of cosmetics on animals No
person shall use any animals for testing of cosmetics.
C.

Because the

few more sections of the said

new Act, 2015 are against the Constitution of India as

well as existing rules for protection of animals as well as

prohibition of cow slaughtering:(i)

Section 4: (1) Nothing contained in

section

slaughter

shall
of

apply
cow

to

the

where

certificate has been issued in the

prescribed from by the Registered
Veterinary

Practitioner

of

the

department in the area for a cow:1. xx xx

2. xx xx
3. who is subjected to experimentation in
the interest of medical, veterinary and
public health research.
(2) xx xx
(3) The removal of skin and hide from dead
cows, other than slaughtered cows, by the
authorized contractor shall not be construed
as cow slaughter:
Provided

that

the

authorized

contractor

engaged in removal or transportation of skin

and hide from the dead cows, other than
slaughtered

cow,

shall

obtain

the

authorization

to

this

effect

from

the

competent authority

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 4(1) (c) mentioned above is against the law
framed under the Constitution of India because it
does not speak anything as to whether the skin,
bones, tallow and hide of dead cow would be from
natural

dead

cow

or

killed

cow

and

what

measurement would be taken to identify the same.

It is important to mention here that after intensive
efforts by People for Animals (PFA) Haryana, United
Nation affiliated International Organisation for
Animal Protection : OIPA in India and others, the
Indian Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has
made an announcement that will save millions of
animals from being blinded, poisoned and killed in
cruel and useless tests for products sold to Indias
billion-plus population. Experimentation on animals,
like rat, mice and gunny pigs are replaced with
alternatives and no one can test cosmetics on
animals, likewise cosmetics tested on animals, also
not allowed to import in India. The Act says that

..authorized contractor engaged in removal

or transportation of skin and hide from the
dead cows, other than slaughtered cow, shall
obtain the authorization to this effect from
the

competent

authority

but

no

measurement has been taken as to when any

authorized contractor is transporting of removed
skin and hide of Cows to identify it as to whether
skin/hide is taken from natural dead cow or it is
from slaughtered cow. Copy of draft rules inserting
section 135-B and 148-C, Import of Cosmetic
tested on animals and cosmetics testing on animals
prohibited is appended herewith as Annexure P-3.

Section 4 (3) allows removal of skin and hide from

naturally dead cow to the authorized contractor and
with the permission same can be transported by
them. But this section is totally silent about horn,
tallow and bones of naturally dead cows as to how
and where the horn, tallow and bones of dead cow
would be utilized or kept. Whereas there are so
many products like bone-china are being used as
utensils and horn and bones are used as raw

material, tallow also being used as raw materials by

soap

manufacturers,

whereas

there

is

no

mechanism introduced by the State Government to

identify whether these raw materials are being
procured from the source of slaughter house or any
dead cow progeny. Besides it, sugar is purified
using phosphorus and bone powder. The same
mechanism is required for this purpose as well.
Likewise, hides of cow are being used by the
Leather Shoe Industries and this product is being
used by the general public without knowledge of
leather they are wearing as to whether raw material
of this leather came from dead cow animal or
slaughtered cow animal. Copy of chart to show hide
of cow is appended herewith as Annexure P-4.

(ii)

The Section 8: Notwithstanding

anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, no
person shall directly or indirectly
sell, keep, store, transport or offer
for sale or cause to be sold beef or

beef

products

except

for

such

medicinal purpose and in such form

as may be prescribed

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 8 of the said Act, allowed beef products, for
medicinal purposes and in such form as may be
prescribed, whereas neither beef have medicinal
qualities

nor

prescribed

by

any

Authority.

Moreover, beef of natural dead animal (cow) is/can

not eatable and if beef is taken from killed animal
(cow) then it is not permissible even as per this
New Act, 2015. Slaughter of a cow, which is
objected to experimentation in the interest of
medical and public health research, would not be
permissible. Likewise section 8 of the Haryana
Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972, allowed
license to sell or transport beef and beef products
for medicinal purpose, on FORM F. Moreover, as
per section 10 of Haryana Prohibition of Cow
Slaughter Rules, 1972, which are adopted as per
section 20(2)(3) of the New Act, 2015, feeding

charges are fixed Rs. 20/- which is very less, hence

not feasible.

(iii)

Section 12:: (1) The Government

shall

establish

laboratories

for

differentiation of beef from that of

the

meat

of

other

species

of

animals, testing and identification

of various constituents of milk and
milk

products

and

testing

and

differentiation of A1 and A2 milk

for

providing

incentives

for

wholesome production of milk and

milk products
Explanation For the purposes of this sub
section A1 and A2 milk means the milk
obtained from cows having A1 and A2 genetic
variant

of

the

beta-casein

milk

protein

respectively

(2) The analyasis report of such laboratories

established under sub section (1) shall be

used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other

proceeding under this Act.

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 12 of the said Act allowed establishments of
laboratories for testing of milk, differentiation of
beef from the meat of other species of animals. But
it is pertinent to mention here that no provision or
mechanism has been developed yet nor any such
provision has been provided in the said New Act,
2015 to identify as to whether skin and hide from
natural dead animal or it is from killed animal.
Before testing and experimentation on skin/hide of
cow it is necessary to be identified as to whether it
came

from

naturally

dead

cow

animal

or

slaughtered cow animal. Whereas this section

speaks only identification of milk and milk products
along with the confirmation of beef only.

(iv)

Section 16.(1) Any police not below

the rank of Sub Inspector or any
person authorized in this behalf by

the Government, with a view to

secure

compliance

provisions
satisfying

of

this

himself

with
Act

or

that

the
for
the

provisions of this Act have been

complied, may
(a)

Enter, stop and search any vehicle

used or intended to be used for the

export of cows;
(b)

Seize cow in respect of which he

suspects that any provisions of this Act

has been, is being or is about to be
contravened along with the vehicle in
which such cow is found, and thereafter
take all measures necessary for securing
the production of the cow so seized, in a
Court and for the safe custody pending
such production
(c)

Enter and search any premises

used or intended to be used for the

slaughter

of

cow

and

seize

any

document regarding activities related to

slaughter and export of cow
(2) The provisions of section 100 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of
1974), relating to search shall, so far as may
be, apply to search and seizure under this
Act.

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 16 doesnt not speak as to whether any
common citizen, except police official/officer, can
perform their fundamental duties, as defined under
article 51 A (g) of The Indian Constitution to protect
the life of animals or not. Article 51-A of The
Constitution of India is read as under:-

Article 51A in The Constitution Of India

1949

51A. Fundamental duties It shall be the duty

of every citizen of India

(a)

to abide by the Constitution and respect

its ideals and institutions, the national Flag

and the National Anthem;

(b)

to cherish and follow the noble ideals

which inspired our national struggle for

freedom;
(c)

to uphold and protect the sovereignty,

unity and integrity of India;

(d)

to defend the country and render

national service when called upon to do so;

(e)

to promote harmony and the spirit of

common brotherhood amongst all the people

of India transcending religious, linguistic and
regional or sectional diversities; to renounce
practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f)

to value and preserve the rich heritage

of our composite culture;

(g)

to protect and improve the natural

environment including forests, lakes,

rivers

and

wild

life,

and

to

have

compassion for living creatures;

(h)

to

develop

the

scientific

temper,

humanism and the spirit of inquiry and

reform;
(i)

to safeguard public property and to

abjure violence;
(j)

to strive towards excellence in all

spheres of individual and collective activity so

that the nation constantly rises to higher
levels of endeavour and achievement PART V
THE UNION CHAPTER I THE EXECUTIVE The
President and Vice President.

(v)

Section

17.

(1)

Whenever

an

offence punishable under this Act

has been committed, any vehicle
used in the commission of such
offence

shall

be

liable

to

be

confiscated by a police officer not

below the rank off sub-inspector or

any

person

authorized

in

this

behalf by the Government

(2) where any vehicle referred to in subsection (1) is confiscated in connection with
the commission of any offence punishable
under this Act, a report about the same,
without unreasonable delay, be made by the
person seizing it to the competent authority
and whether or not a prosecution is instituted
for

commission

of

such

offence,

the

competent authority, having jurisdiction over

the

area

where

the

said

vehicle

was

confiscated, may, if satisfied that the said

vehicle was used for commission of offence
under this Act, order confiscation of the said
vehicle;
Provided

that

before

ordering

confiscation of the said vehicle, reasonable

opportunity of being heard shall be afforded
to the owner of the said vehicle.
(3) Whenever any vehicle as referred to in
sub section (1) is confiscated if connection

with commission of an offence under this Act

then notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, no
Court, Tribunal or other authority, except the
competent authority, shall have jurisdiction
to make order with regard to the possession,
delivery, disposal, release of such vehicle
(4) where the competent authority is of the
opinion that it is expedient in public interest
that the vehicle, as referred to in sub-section
(1), confiscated for commission of offence
under this Act be sold by public auction, he
may at any time direct it to be sold;
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order made
by the competent authority under sub section
(2) or sub section (4) may, within a period of
thirty days from the date of such order prefer
an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of the
District concerned
(6) Any order of confiscation made by the
competent authority shall not prevent the
infliction of any punishment to which the

person affected thereby is liable under this

Act.

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 17 provides three opportunities to the owner
of confiscated vehicle of the accused found indulged in
the offence under the said New Act, 2015, i.e. one
before order of confiscation, second at the time of
disposal of confiscated vehicle and third to the Deputy
Commissioner at the time of appeal against the order
of confiscation, which makes this section invaluable,
toothless and meaningless.
D. Because as per section 15, which defined an
offenses under section 13 are the cognizable and
non bailable in legal terms, hence all rules, to be
made under section 19 to be non cognizable and
bailable in legal terms, meaning hereby section 3,
4, 5 and 8 be cognizable and non bailable in legal
terms, whereas offenses against rest sections of the
said Act are non cognizable and bailable in legal
terms and no punishments defined for the violation
of the rules made out under section 19 of the said

Act.
E.

Because likewise Section 19 (2)(a to d) of the

said Act, 2015 allowed to make rules for cow slaughter,

as defined under section 4, whereas experimentation on
cows, seems to be objectionable. Section 19 (2)(f)
allowed, to make rules for beef or beef product can be
sold under section 8, whereas no need to frame any rules
for this purpose, without any scientific reports and
recommendations about medicinal values of beef, as
explained above. Section 19 (2)(i) allowed to make rules
and under this legal provision, rules can be made for cow
transportation, either by road, rail and on foot, whereas
cow can be shifted in ISI specified vehicles, as per their
shape and size, after obtaining pre transport clearance
about vehicles, as per Central Motor Vehicle (Fourteenth
Amendment) Rules, 2015 read with the section 96 of the
Cattle Transport Rules, 1978 amended in 2001.
F.

Because the

last so many eras, Cow is

deemed to be holy creatures and is worshiped in entire

country of India. Many voices have been raised together
to make this animal as state animal. Minutes of 4th

meeting of State Committee for the Slaughter House held

on 25.7.2014 took place under the chairmanship of the
Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana
at Chandigarh in which it was Agenda No.7 that State
Committee

should

recommend

the

case

to

the

Government of Haryana to declare the cow progeny as

state animal of Haryana in domestic animal category,
for which the committee agreed but no action till date has
been taken by the respondents. Besides it, Haryana
Gausewa Commission also took this matter, whereas per
section 19 (2)(i) authorized Govt. to declare cow as state
animal of Haryana, Likewise the Government of Bihar
adopted Ox as State Animal of Bihar State. Recently the
Government of Rajasthan State has also adopted Camel
as State Animal of Rajasthan sharing with wild Animal
Chinkara. No doubt cow progeny has special status being
holy creatures in Hindu Religion. The government of
Haryana gave special status to the species. Likewise the
state government of Punjab also introduced Prohibition
on Cow Slaughter. Hence, to protect this indigenous cow
progeny being the interest of natural justice it is

necessary to declare this Cow progeny as state animal of

Haryana. Copies of minutes of meeting and Notification of
Other States are appended herewith as Annexure P-5
and P-6.

In furtherance to above, for development and

conservation of indigenous cattle and buffalo breeds, the
following initiative have been taken up

Rashtriya Gokul Mission launched with the aim to

conserve and develop indigenous bovine breeds.
Details

are

available

on

website

www.dahd.nic.in.guidelines.large ruminants. Copy

of the same is Annexure P-7.
National Kamdhenu Breeding Centres are being set
up one in north and one in south and will serve as
repository
available

of

indigenous

breeds.

on

Details

are

website

www.dahd.nic.in.guidelines.large ruminants. Copy

of the same is Annexure P-8.
Furthermore, the Animal Cow is deemed to be

holy and religious animal and is worshiped in whole

country. 24 States in India and 5 union territories have
banned the cow slaughtering being holy and religious
animal, therefore, this animal deserves to be declared as
State Animal of Haryana State without disturbing the
status of Black Buck in Haryana, as per legal provisions
under section 19 (2)(i) of the Gauvansh Sanrakshan and
Gausamvardhan Act, 2015.
G.

Because as per section 35 of the Prevention

to Animal Cruelty Act, 1960, Infirmaries were established

to keep the seized animals, during court trials for
treatment, care and shelter. Section 35 is read as under:Section 35 in The Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960
35. Treatment and care of animals.
(1) The State Government may, by general or
special order, appoint infirmaries for the treatment
and care of animals in respect of which offences
against this Act have been committed, and may

authorise the detention therein of any animal

pending its production before a magistrate.
(2) The magistrate before whom a prosecution for
an offence against this Act has been instituted may
direct that the animal concerned shall be treated
and cared for in an infirmary, until it is fit to
perform its usual work or is otherwise fit for
discharge, or that it shall be sent to a pinjrapole, or,
if the veterinary officer in charge of the area in
which the animal is found or such other veterinary
officer as may be authorised in this behalf by rules
made under this Act certifies that it is incurable or
cannot be removed without cruelty, that it shall be
destroyed.
(3) An animal sent for care and treatment to an
infirmary shall not, unless the magistrate directs
that it shall be sent to a pinjrapole or that it shall be
destroyed, be released from such place except upon
a certificate of its fitness for discharge issued by the
veterinary officer in charge of the area in which the
infirmary is situated or such other veterinary officer

as may be authorised in this behalf by rules made

under this Act.
(4) The cost of transporting the animal to an
infirmary or pinjrapole, and of its maintenance and
treatment in an infirmary, shall be payable by the
owner of the animal in accordance with a scale of
rates to be prescribed by the district magistrate, or,
in presidency-towns, by the commissioner of police:
Provided that when the magistrate so orders on
account of the poverty of the owner of the animal,
no charge shall be payable for the treatment of the
animal.
(5) Any amount payable by an owner of an animal
under sub-section (4) may be recovered in the
same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
(6) If the owner refuses or neglects to remove the
animal within such time as a magistrate may
specify, the magistrate may direct that the animal
be sold and that the proceeds of the sale be applied
to the payment of such cost.

(7) The surplus, if any, of the proceeds of such sale

shall, on application made by the owner within two
months from the date of the sale, be paid to him.
But, to ill luck would have it, none of the
infirmaries established under the above said Act is
functional, therefore, this is big problem to keep safe the
seized animals when they are recovered from the accused
while transporting illegally.
H.

Because as per section 2.5.1(a) of The Food

Product Standards and Food Activities, Regulations, 2011

animals means animal belonging to any of the species,
specified as (1) Ovines (2) Caprines (3) Suillines (4)
Bovines. As per the said Act, 2011, the slaughtering of
any animal, other than the species mentioned above is
not permissible. It is pertinent to mention here that the
4th species mentioned above Bovine and as per said Act,
2011 Indigenous Cow Progeny is comes in the Bovine
species. Therefore, it is necessary to exclude the Cow
Progeny from Bovine species in the said Act, 2011 and
this species is required to be redefined.

I.

Because the Cow animal, being agriculture

animal is required to be protected keeping in view the

provision mentioned in our Constitution of India. Article
48 of the Constitution of India is concerned which is read
as under:Article 48 in The Constitution Of India 1949
48.

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.
J. Because animal rights are being protected as
defined in the recent judgment Extracts of some Paras
of Supreme Court order dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C)
No.11686 of 2007 reproduced as below:

Para 77.

We, therefore, hold that AWBI is right in

its stand that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such

events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and
11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act and hence we uphold the
notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the

Central Government, consequently, Bulls cannot

be used as performing animals, either for the
Jallikattu events or Bullock-cart Races in the State
of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the
country.

We,

therefore,

make

the

following

declarations and directions:

(1) We declare that the rights guaranteed to the
Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with
Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or
curtailed, except under Sections 11(3) and 28 of
PCA Act.
(2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to
earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act,
be protected and safeguarded by the States,
Central Government, Union Territories (in short
Governments), MoEF and AWBI.
(3) AWBI and Governments are directed to take
appropriate steps to see that the persons-in-charge
or care of animals, take reasonable measures to
ensure the well-being of animals.
(4) AWBI and Governments are directed to take
steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain

or suffering on the animals, since their rights have

been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11
of PCA Act.
(5) AWBI is also directed to ensure that the
provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii) scrupulously
followed, meaning

thereby, that the person-in-

charge or care of the animal shall not incite any

animal to fight against a human being or another
animal.
(6) AWBI and the Governments would also see that
even in cases where Section 11(3) is involved, the
animals be not

put to unnecessary pain and

suffering and adequate and scientific methods be

adopted to achieve the same.
(7) AWBI and the Governments should take steps to
impart education in relation to human treatment of
animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating
the spirit of Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the
Constitution.
(8)

Parliament is

expected

to make

proper

amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective

deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the

Act and for violation of Section 11, adequate

penalties and punishments should be imposed.
(9) Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights
of animals to that of constitutional rights, as done
by many of the countries around the world, so as to
protect their dignity and honour.
(10) The Governments would see that if the
provisions of the PCA Act and the declarations and
the directions issued by this Court are not properly
and effectively complied with, disciplinary action be
taken against the erring officials so that the purpose
and object of PCA Act could be achieved.
(11) TNRJ Act is found repugnant to PCA Act, which
is a welfare legislation, hence held constitutionally
void, being violative of Article 254(1) of the
Constitution of India.
(12) AWBI is directed to take effective and speedy
steps to implement the provisions of PCA Act in
consultation with SPCA and make periodical reports
to the Governments and if any violation is noticed,
the Governments should take steps to remedy the
same, including appropriate follow-up action.

6.GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

The Petitioner is seeking interim relief inter-alia on
the following grounds:a. Because the petitioner has a very good
prima facie case in their favour and
balance of convenience also lies in his
favour.
b. Because

the

petitioner

suffered

irreparable loss, if the Honble Court

not stayed the impugned order dated
08.01.2016 passed in WP (C) no.
200/2016 passed by the Honble High
Court of Punjab & Haryana.
7.MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Honble Court may graciously be pleased to:1. Grant Special Leave to Appeal
against the final judgment and
order dated

08.01.2016 passed

by the Honble High Court of

Punjab & Haryana in W.P.(C) No.

200/2016
ii. issue a

direction to the respondents to

set aside sub section (2) and (3) of

Section 20 of The Haryana Gauvansh
Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,
2015,

re-notified

vide

Haryana

Government Gazzette Notification No.

Leg. 27/2015 dated 19th November,
2015; AND
iii. further issue a

direction to

the

respondents to adopt and declare Cow

Progeny as State Animal of Haryana;

iv. further issue the direction to make all

the infirmaries functional which were set
up under section 35 of the Prevention to
Animal Cruelty Act, 1960.
v. further issue direction the respondents
to

exclude

completely

the

Cow

Progeny from the definition of Bovine

species,

defined

under

The

Food

Product Standards and Food Activities,

Regulations,

2011,

as

per

which

Indigenous cow are accepted for

slaughtering purpose as food for human
being and redefine the definition of
Bovine under said Regulations, 2011;
vi. further

issue

respondents

the

direction

to

protect the Cow as

guaranteed under Article 48 of the

Constitution of India, keeping in view
the decreasing the census of said animal
day by day;
vii. Issue directions, not to offer beef and
their products, to consume as diet on
medicinal purpose, without any scientific
reports and recommendations.
viii. Issue directions to the respondents, to
restrict

the

experimentation,

offer

of
to

cow

for

introduce

mechanism, to identify the skin and hide

of cow naturally dead or slaughtered,

besides it disposal of horn, bones and
tallow also needs mechanism for their
disposal.
ix. To issue directions about classification
of punishment for the violations of rules
made out under section 19 of the said
Act.
x. Any other relief which this Honble
Court deems fit and proper may also be
passed in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
this Honble Court may graciously be pleased
to grant:(a)

ex-parte stay of the operation

of the judgment and order
dated 08.01.2016 passed by
the Honble High Court in WPC
No. 200/2016, And

(b)

Ex party stay

on the Haryana

Prohibition of Cow Slaughtering

Rules, 1972
(c)

Any other relief which this

Honble Court deems fit and
proper may also be passed in
favour of the petitioner and
against the respondent.

DRAWN BY

FILED BY

Rajender Yadav, Adv,

Advocate for Petitioner

DRAWN ON:
FILED ON:

/02/2016
/02/2016

IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA

Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a)
CIVIL APELLATE JURISDCTION
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Special Leave Petition (Civil) (CC)

/2016

IN THE MATTER OF :
Naresh Kadyan

Petitioner
Vs

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondents

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only
to the pleadings before the Court and the documents
relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts
documents or ground have been taken or relied upon in
the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the
copies of the documents/ annexures attached to the
Special Leave Petition are necessary or to make out
grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for the
consideration of the Honble Court. This certificate is
given on the basis of the instructions given by the

petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special

Leave Petition.
DRAWN BY

FILED BY
(R.P. Goyal)

Advocate for Petitioner

DRAWN ON:

/02/2016

FILED ON:

/02/2016