Power of the Deputy Chairman or other person to perform the duties of the office of, or to act as, Chairman. Archived from on 22 March 2006. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to Civil matters. Insert articles 258A, 290A, 298, 350A, 350B, 371, 372A and 378A. Article 350B Constitution of India Article 249 in The Indian Constitution Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in the national interest 1 Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, if the Council of States has declared by resolution supported by not less than two thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in national interest that Parliament should make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List specified in the resolution, it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to that matter while the resolution remains in force 2 A resolution passed under clause 1 shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified therein: Provided that, if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of any such resolution is passed in the manner provided in clause 1 , such resolution shall continue in … Article 112 in The Indian Constitution Annual financial statement 1 The President shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government of India for that year, in this Part referred to as the annual financial statement 2 The estimates of expenditure embodied in the annual financial statement shall show separately a the sums required to meet expenditure described by the Condition as expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India; and b the sums required to meet other expenditure proposed to be made from the Consolidated Fund of India, and shall distinguish expenditure on revenue account from other expenditure 3 The following expenditure shall be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India a the emoluments and allowances of the President and other expenditure relating to his office; b the salaries and allowances of the Chairman and the Deputy…. Similarly, clause g of Article 51A imposes a duty on every citizen of India, to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. Andour Hindu society, or our Indian society, has included the cow in our fold. Date on which the Act came into force: 12-3-1991 Date of Assent 69. The Constitution Seventy-third Amendment Act, 1992.
In primary school, we had a composition book in which we wrote compositions on different topics. I might have written that cow is a domestic animal; that cow gives us article 48a of indian constitution that cow has four legs and a tail;or that cow dung is used as manure. Excuse me, I hail from the State of Kerala, where I never came across anything about cow worship, though I adored Krishna and used to admire the pictures in Amarchithrakadha where I saw pictures of the charming Krishna with his beautiful cows. It is true that I had habitually touched with respect the stone Nandi in Shiva temples, but had not given much thought to it, as I had done the same with the stone mouse at the Ganapati temple too. It is nothing but a matter of faith to worship anything, or believe in God or follow any particular religion. This is common sense in a civilized world. But there comes the dilemma of legal restrictions. Living under a state, one is legally entitled to do all that is not prohibited by law. So what if law prohibits beef eating. Is such a law reasonable and if so on what account. But then in 1958, Quareshi decision had made it clear that a total ban on slaughter of cows and calves both male and female is valid. But so far as other such animals in the progeny, such as she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocksare concerned, the ban on slaughter article 48a of indian constitution animals which have ceased to be draught or milchis not in public interest and hence invalid. Overruling Quareshi in 2005, Mirzapur decision made it explicit that an effective total ban on slaughter of cow and its progeny is valid. The reasons given were agricultural and economic and also on the finding that cow and it progeny never becomes useless, even after the cattle cease to breed, to work, or to give milk. They still continue to give dung for fuel, manure and biogas and, therefore, they cannot be said to be useless. I wonder if the utility of the cattle dung and urine increased from 1958 Quareshi to 2005 when the Mirzapur judgment was delivered. Or is it that the earlier court failed to consider such a known fact. It is equally possible that the later Court over valued the utility factor to buttress the justification on total ban on slaughter. It could even be a camouflage of the religious factor super added to the utility factor. Lahoti had observed in his judgment that cow and its progeny, i. I fail to understand the need for this observation by the Court, when the parties themselves have not argued onany religious grounds or Article 25, unless judicial process was inclined towards the religious sentiments as well. Going back to the Constituent Assembly Debates is needed to trace why prohibition of cow slaughter finds a place in the Constitution under a misleading title of organization of agriculture and animal husbandry. If the purpose is the one in the title, then why should there be an absolute ban on slaughter of cows, even when they cease to be milch and breeding. There has to be something attached to the cow which makes it protection prone than a buffalo or an ox or a bull, which are milch or draught as well. One finds it difficult to imagine that it could be religious reasons because our Constitution establishes a secular state. I would have misunderstood that the call for slaughter prohibition in Article 48 is indeed for agriculture and animal husbandry purpose, if not for the Constituent Assembly Debates. Was our Constituent Assembly working on religious emotions and passion while framing the greatest document for a secular nation, assuring Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship to all its citizens. Andour Hindu society, or our Indian society, has included the cow in our fold. It is just like our mother. In fact it is more than our mother. I can declare from this platform that there are thousands of persons who will not run at a man to kill that man for their mother or wife or children, but they will run at a man if that man does not want to protect the cow or wants to kill her. Ambedkar was instrumental in including the provision in Directive Principles instead of in Fundamental Rights. The inclusion in Fundamental Rights would have made this provision an enforceable fundamental right, whereas its inclusion in the Directive made it a non-justiciable, nevertheless an enabling article 48a of indian constitution. Therefore he expressed that he does not like to use his veto when his Hindu brethren want to place this matter in the Constitution from a religious point of view. The cow should be protected from slaughter and therefore we want its provision either in the Fundamental Rights or in the Directive Principles. Lari expressed his strong disapproval to article 48a of indian constitution indirect manner in which the provision found an entry in the Constitution. According to him, the preceding portion of the clause speaking about modern and scientific agriculture and the subsequent portion banning slaughter of cattle do not fit in with each other. He made it clear that he was not opposing the provision per se, but demanded clarity in the matter. Lari preferred that the clause be rather placed with clarity in Fundamental rights than in the ambiguous way in which it was put in the Directive. Attempts made by the Drafting Committee headed by Dr. Ambedkar to change the words of Article 48 to give it a milder effect was effectively blocked by Thakur Bhargava when the draft Constitution was taken up for approval a year later on 14 th November 1949. On 25 th November 1949, a day before the Constitution was adopted by the Assembly, Mr. Frank Anthony expressed his strong views on the matter. Sir, I am not a beef eater; I am not holding a brief for beef eaters. I say, you may ban co-slaughter, but we should have done it honestly without our tongues in our cheeks, without resorting to methods which may give rise to the accusation of subterfuge. I now understand that the intention of the makers in incorporating prohibition of cow slaughter in Article 48 was religious reasons predominantly, though economic reasons were projected as well. Ambedkar saw to it that the clause was placed without any religious language. This might have been a measure of giving in to the majority in the Constituent Assembly which was inevitable on one hand and appeasing the minority on the other. However the apprehension of Mr. Lari turned out to be true as we can see from the disputes in and out of court in respect of Article 48 and the growing religious intolerance in the country arising out of beef eating and prohibition of cow slaughter. Categorizing people on the basis of their eating habits and determining their corresponding entitlements has a long history tainted with untouchability and social stratification. This is regressive and violative of the constitutional goals of rule of law and liberty. It is not to be forgotten that secularism is part of basic structure of the Constitution as has been held in S. If that be the case, State should not directly or indirectly enter into policy making or legislating on religious grounds whatever it may be. There is a need to re-look at Article 48 in the light of S. The beef ban and cow slaughter prohibition laws emanating from Article 48 have to be in tune with the purpose of the legislation, which cannot be a religious one per se. Any other objective should stand the test of reasonableness and constitutionality. Citizens are to be sternly told by the government that liberty is to each to believe, to worship, to eat or not to eat. Matters of religion, like the personal laws are personal to each religion, which they may choose to abide by or not. But no one can force any of his beliefs on others. I only hope that matters of religion be sorted out in heaven, consequences article 48a of indian constitution faced over there and till then let us be. But these fond memories never made me think against beef eating. I believe it is an individual choice and it remains so. Salgaoacar College of Law, Goa The Views expressed above are personal only and it does not reflect the view of Live Law.
