AJAY MARATHE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Party Details
- AJAY MARATHE
- THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- THE SECRETARY THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURE
- ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
- UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
- FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Case Summary
AJAY MARATHE filed Case No. T.C.(C) No. 000060 - / 2021 in the Supreme Court of India on 8 Dec 2021 against THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and THE SECRETARY THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURE. The case has undergone 11 hearings over 11 months. The case was disposed of on 8 Dec 2022. 47 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (11)
- 8DEC 2022Fixed Date by Court
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Heard & Reserved
- 7DEC 2022Fixed Date by Court
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
List On (Date) [08-12-2022], List before court/bench [At 2.00 PM]
- 6DEC 2022Fixed Date by Court
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
List On (Date) [07-12-2022], List before court/bench [at 2.00 pm]
Orders (47)
- 18MAY 2023judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 18MAY 2023judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 18MAY 2023orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
23 OF 2016 The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
24 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
25 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
26 OF 2016 1 Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.02.02 15:43:24 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
27 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
88 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
1059 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
1011 OF 2017 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
3528 OF 2018 (Diary No.
37267/17) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.3526-3527 OF 2018 (Diary No.
39253/17) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
1188 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
1193 OF 2017 2 J U D G M E N T R.F.
NARIMAN, J.
1.
The present batch of writ petitions was originally filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on 7th January, 2016, and to direct the Respondents to ensure compliance with this Court’s judgment reported as Animal Welfare Board of India v.
A.
Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547.
2.
However, while these writ petitions were pending, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which received the Presidential assent on 31st January, 2017, was passed.
The writ petitions were then amended so as to include prayers to set aside the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Amendment Act on several grounds.
3.
After hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents for some time, we are of the view that these writ petitions 3 need to be authoritatively decided by a Constitution Bench of 5 learned Judges, as the writ petitions involve substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution of India.
The questions, which require reference to a Bench of 5 learned Judges, apart from the other questions raised in the writ petitions, are set out hereinbelow: i. nbelow: i.
Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or does it further and perpetuate cruelty to animals; and can it, therefore, be said to be a measure of prevention of cruelty to animals?
Is it colourable legislation which does not relate to any Entry in the State List or Entry 17 of the Concurrent List? ii.
The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act states that it is to preserve the cultural heritage of the State of Tamil Nadu.
Can the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act be stated to be part of the cultural heritage of 4 the people of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to receive the protection of Article 29 of the Constitution of India? iii.
Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, in pith and substance, to ensure the survival and well-being of the native breed of bulls?
Is the Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India? iv.
Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act go contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it be said, therefore, to be unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? v.
Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act directly contrary to the judgment in A.
Nagaraja (supra), and the review judgment dated 16th November, 2016 in the aforesaid case, and whether the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments could be said to have been overcome by the Tamil Nadu 5 Legislature by enacting the impugned Tamil Nadu Amendment Act?
4.
Let the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice to constitute a Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges. ……………………….
CJI (Dipak Misra) .….…………………….J. (R.F.
Nariman) New Delhi; February 2, 2018.