This is therefore one aspect where we can distinguish this judgment in cases where the ban on the slaughter of  bulls and bullocks of any age is put by an enactment, and yet it does not amount to unreasonable restriction on trade and business of a citizen, if it could be shown that the impugned ban operates only against a small segment of his total business.

Infect, in that case a contention was raised and argued at length, that a total ban on only a singular aspect of one's wide ranging business is only of a regulatory character and not of a prohibitory character which would offend Art. 19(1) (c). The court has, however, expressed "no final opinion on the vexed question as to whether restrictions permissible under cl. (6) of Art. 19 may extend to total prohibition (vide Para 20). This is therefore one point on which this decision can be distinguished if the facts of a case give justification to the plea.

2.. The above decision, and those which follow it including the decisions given in Abdul Hakim Quraishi & others vis. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 S.C. 448), Hashmatullah v/s. State of M. P. (1996) 4 sec. 391 and Mohd. Faruk v/s State of M. P. (1969) 1 sec. 853 have taken into account only the

utilitarian aspects involved in the disputes. While interpreting the Constitutional provisions involving directive principles of State policy, this type of approach is rather lopsided, because these directive principles are formulated principally with a view to preserve and enhance the historical perspectives of national ethos, culture and aspirations.

From times immemorial our nation has developed a culture of non-violence and tendency to treat all living creatures on the footing of equality with human beings. So far as cow and her progeny are concerned, they have acquired a special place in this treatment as their economic and social usefulness throughout the history of our nation has been unique. It is for this reason that the grateful nation has gone to the extent of bestowing divinity in cow, and it is only for this reason that Art. 48 has envisaged an absolute ban on the slaughter of cow and calves. Even the S.C. has recognized this reality in the above referred case of Mohd. Hanif by observing as under-

" after recent partition of the country this agitation against slaughter of cows has been further intensified. While the constitutional question before us can not be decided on the grounds of mere sentiment, however passionate it may be, we, nevertheless, think that it has to be taken into consideration, though only as one of many elements, in arriving at a judicial verdict as to the reasonableness of the restriction." (vide para-22) (emphasis supplied).

With great respect to the learned judges, there is nothing "sentimental" or "religious" in the Indian partiality for the cow and her progeny because this partiality is born out of historical perceptivity of cows contribution to the agricultural economy and agrarian culture of our nation.

The courts have repeatedly used the expression "useless" while referring to the bulls and Bullocks who have crossed the age of utility for material gains. Question is whether this materialistic approach is proper or reasonable when you are considering a directive principle which seeks to enhance the cultural values entertained by a nation since ages.  >>>