The Allahabad High Court stated that taking property used in trade without reason is a serious violation of the basic right under Article 19(1)(G).
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the random seizure of property used for trade, profession, or occupation violates a citizen’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court overturned the confiscation order and ordered the return of the revisionist’s vehicle, which police had seized on allegations of transporting three bulls, seven cows, one calf, and one dead bull for slaughter from West Bengal through Prayagraj. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that confiscation means taking away someone’s property that they have the right to keep. Article 300A of the Constitution states that no one can be deprived of their property except by law. Unjust confiscation of property used for trade or business is a serious violation of a citizen’s rights under Article 19(1)(g). The law, specifically Section 5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act, allows the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police to seize a vehicle only if certain conditions are met.
Advocate Narendra Deo Shukla represented the revisionist. The prosecution claimed that local police stopped a vehicle on suspicion of illegal cow slaughter transportation. While twenty-one live cattle and one dead bull were discovered, the revisionist submitted a release application, stating that the vehicle’s seizure violated his property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The revisionist challenged the District Magistrate’s order to confiscate cattle, which was made under Section 5A(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. He claimed there was no evidence showing that cattle were moved across state lines, which is necessary under Section 5A, nor was there any breach of permit rules. The High Court observed that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) showed that none of the cows were harmed or injured. Additionally, the claim that the cows were being taken to West Bengal from Prayagraj for slaughter did not need to be considered, as the law states that the cattle must have been transported from anywhere in U.P. to outside the state. The Bench pointed out that even if the seizure story was accepted, the 21 cattle were taken from the Gopiganj Police Station area in Bhadohi, which is still within U.P., and the border is quite far. Therefore, it could not be concluded that the cattle were moved out of U.P.
As a result, the Court stated that Section 5A clearly shows that no permit is needed to move cow progeny within U.P. from one location to another, and there was no evidence supporting the claim that the cattle were being transported to West Bengal in violation of the law. Thus, the High Court approved the revision petition.
Cause Title: Kamare Alam v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:169619)
Appearance:
Revisionist: Advocate Narendra Deo Shukla and Vivek Shukla
