Updated: August 2026 · GS-II Polity & GS-III Agriculture
Article 48 Organisation of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
Article 48 is the Constitution's agricultural modernisation clause — and its most litigated Directive Principle. It directs the State to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines, and in particular to preserve and improve breeds and prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. Notably, the Article makes no reference to religion at all — the Constituent Assembly framed it on agricultural and economic grounds.
Two limbs
Modernise · Preserve cattle
Amendment
Never amended
Leading case
Mirzapur Moti Kureshi, 2005
India's global rank
1st in milk production
Article 48 — Bare Text
Explanation — Two Limbs
Article 48 · Two Obligations
1 · Modernisation — the general limb
Organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. This covers mechanisation, improved seed and inputs, irrigation, research and extension, credit, veterinary science and breeding technology. It is the constitutional basis for everything from the Green Revolution to today's digital agriculture missions.
2 · Cattle — the particular limb
Preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. Note that breed improvement comes first in the text — the emphasis is on the productive quality of the herd, not on numbers alone.
📌 The single most important reading point — Article 48 is framed economically, not religiously
The Article contains no reference to religion, sentiment or sanctity. It speaks of "milch and draught cattle" — animals that give milk and animals that pull the plough. In the Constituent Assembly the clause was deliberately placed in the agriculture and animal husbandry Article rather than in the religious-freedom Part, and was defended on the ground that draught animals were then the backbone of Indian farming and their premature slaughter was an economic loss.
This framing is why the Supreme Court has consistently upheld cattle-protection laws as reasonable restrictions in the public interest under Article 19(6), and why it has held that cow sacrifice is not an essential religious practice protected by Article 25. In a Mains answer, leading with the economic framing is both accurate and analytically stronger.
Reading the key expressions
Modern &
scientific
scientific
A forward-looking standard that changes with technology. What satisfied Article 48 in 1950 (improved ploughs, canal irrigation) is not what satisfies it in 2026 (precision agriculture, AgriStack, sexed semen, genomic selection). The Article's content is therefore self-updating.
Milch &
draught
draught
Milch = milk-yielding; draught = used for haulage and ploughing. The Article names cows and calves specifically, and then the wider functional category. It does not extend on its own terms to all animals — that is the textual hook on which the early litigation turned.
Legislative
competence
competence
Entry 15 of the State List — preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice. Entry 14 covers agriculture. Prevention of cruelty to animals is Entry 17 of the Concurrent List. This is why cattle-slaughter law is State law, and varies widely across India.
Classification and companions
- Article 48 is a Gandhian Directive Principle, alongside Articles 40, 43, 43B, 46 and 47.
- Read with Article 51A(g) — the Fundamental Duty to have compassion for living creatures — and with Article 48A on environment and wildlife.
- Statutory companion: the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the State cattle-preservation Acts.
Amendment to Article 48
None
Article 48 has never been amended. Its text stands exactly as adopted on 26 November 1949 and commenced on 26 January 1950.
Do not confuse it with Article 48A. Article 48A — protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life — is a separate Article, inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, Section 10, with effect from 3 January 1977. Article 48 is original; Article 48A is an addition.
Do not confuse it with Article 48A. Article 48A — protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life — is a separate Article, inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, Section 10, with effect from 3 January 1977. Article 48 is original; Article 48A is an addition.
The Litigation — Fifty Years from Hanif Quareshi to Mirzapur
Hanif Quareshi (1958)
5 judges · total ban on bulls unreasonable → Abdul Hakim Quraishi (1961)
Followed → Mirzapur Moti Kureshi (2005)
7 judges · overruled on that point
5 judges · total ban on bulls unreasonable → Abdul Hakim Quraishi (1961)
Followed → Mirzapur Moti Kureshi (2005)
7 judges · overruled on that point
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1958) Five-judge Constitution Bench |
Challenges by butchers to cattle-preservation laws in Bihar, UP and Madhya Pradesh under Article 19(1)(g). Upheld: a total ban on the slaughter of cows and calves, as a reasonable restriction supported by Article 48. Struck down: a total ban on bulls, bullocks and buffaloes irrespective of age or usefulness — held unreasonable, because Article 48 speaks of milch and draught cattle, and an animal that has permanently ceased to be either is outside that description. On religion: held that the sacrifice of a cow on Bakr-Id is not an essential religious practice of Islam, so Article 25 was not infringed. |
| Abdul Hakim Quraishi v. State of Bihar (1961) | Followed Hanif Quareshi and struck down provisions imposing a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks regardless of age. |
| State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri (1995) | Struck down a State exemption permitting slaughter of healthy cows for religious purposes on Bakr-Id, reaffirming that such sacrifice is not an essential religious practice and cannot justify an exception to a general preservation law. |
| State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) Seven-judge Constitution Bench, 26 October 2005 |
The governing authority today. Upheld the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, which imposed a total ban on the slaughter of cows and their progeny — bulls and bullocks of all ages. It overruled Hanif Quareshi on the point that a total ban on bulls and bullocks was unreasonable. The reasoning: • Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary, not in conflict; a restriction that gives effect to a DPSP is prima facie reasonable in the public interest. • Cattle remain economically useful even after they cease to give milk or work — dung and urine have value as manure, biogas and inputs, so the premise of the 1958 judgment no longer held. • Article 48 was read with Articles 37, 39(b), 47, 48A and 51A(g). • A butcher's right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), and a total ban was held reasonable in this context. |
| Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat (2008) | Upheld a municipal decision to close slaughterhouses for a limited period during the Jain festival of Paryushan as a reasonable restriction, while cautioning against extending such closures indefinitely — a decision on tolerance and proportionality rather than on Article 48 directly. |
A restriction placed on a Fundamental Right in order to give effect to a Directive Principle is to be regarded as reasonable. The two are complementary — Part IV supplies the goals which Part III's reasonable restrictions may legitimately serve. — The reasoning in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005), paraphrased
📌 Why Mirzapur matters beyond cattle
The judgment is cited far outside animal-husbandry law, because of its holding on the Fundamental Rights–Directive Principles relationship. It carries the Minerva Mills "harmony" doctrine a step further: a law implementing a DPSP enjoys a presumption of reasonableness when tested against Article 19's restriction clauses. Use it in any answer on the FR–DPSP question alongside Champakam (1951), Kesavananda (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980).
📌 The State-law picture — handle it factually
Because cattle preservation is a State subject (Entry 15, State List), the law varies. Most States have cattle-preservation or animal-preservation Acts, ranging from a total ban on cows and progeny to partial restrictions with fit-for-slaughter certification. A few States and Union Territories — including Kerala, West Bengal, Goa and most of the North-East — have no comparable prohibition.
This is a politically sensitive area. In a Mains answer, set out the constitutional position, the legislative competence and the case law, and note the policy considerations on both sides — livestock economics and farmer income on one hand, livelihood of those in the meat and leather trades and the problem of stray and unproductive cattle on the other — without adopting a position.
Government Schemes — The Modernisation Limb
A. Agriculture
| Scheme | Content |
|---|---|
| PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana (PM-DDKY) Announced in Budget 2025–26; Cabinet approval July 2025; launched 11 October 2025 |
The flagship new programme. ₹24,000 crore annual outlay over six years from 2025–26, covering 100 districts selected on three indicators — low productivity, low cropping intensity and low credit disbursement. Works by converging 36 existing schemes across 11 departments, and is expected to benefit about 1.7 crore farmers. Modelled on NITI Aayog's Aspirational Districts Programme, but focused exclusively on agriculture and allied sectors. |
| Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses Launched 11 October 2025 |
₹11,440 crore to raise pulse productivity, expand area, and strengthen the procurement, storage and processing value chain — with special focus on tur, urad and masoor. Launched alongside PM-DDKY, taking the combined outlay to ₹35,440 crore. |
| PM-KISAN | Income support of ₹6,000 a year in three instalments to landholding farmer families, by direct benefit transfer. |
| PM Fasal Bima Yojana and the Modified Interest Subvention Scheme | Crop insurance against yield loss, and subsidised short-term credit through the Kisan Credit Card. |
| PM Krishi Sinchayee Yojana | "Har Khet Ko Pani" and "Per Drop More Crop" — irrigation expansion and micro-irrigation efficiency. |
| Soil Health Card and the National Mission on Natural Farming | Nutrient-based advisory to farmers, and promotion of chemical-free natural farming through the mission launched in 2024. |
| e-NAM and the Agriculture Infrastructure Fund | Electronic national market integration of mandis, and a ₹1 lakh crore financing facility for post-harvest and community farming assets. |
| Digital Agriculture Mission and AgriStack | Farmer registry, crop-sown registry and geo-referenced village maps — the digital public infrastructure layer of "modern and scientific lines". |
| 10,000 FPOs scheme, Namo Drone Didi and Kisan Drones | Aggregation of small farmers into producer organisations, and drone-based spraying and survey services delivered through women's self-help groups. |
B. Animal husbandry and breed improvement
| Scheme | Content |
|---|---|
| Rashtriya Gokul Mission Launched 2014 |
The scheme most directly implementing Article 48's "preserving and improving the breeds" mandate. Development and conservation of indigenous bovine breeds, genetic upgradation of the herd, Gokul Grams, semen stations, and adoption of sexed semen and IVF technology to raise the share of high-yielding female calves. |
| Nationwide Artificial Insemination Programme | Free door-to-door artificial insemination for farmers, targeted at low-coverage districts — the practical delivery arm of breed improvement. |
| National Livestock Mission | Entrepreneurship development in poultry, sheep, goat and piggery; feed and fodder development; risk management and breed improvement in small ruminants. |
| Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund | ₹15,000 crore facility for private and cooperative investment in dairy and meat processing, animal feed plants and breed multiplication farms. |
| National Animal Disease Control Programme | Mass vaccination against Foot and Mouth Disease and Brucellosis, with an outlay of over ₹13,000 crore — the largest animal-disease programme India has undertaken. |
| National Digital Livestock Mission and Bharat Pashudhan | A unique identification and traceability system for every animal, linking breeding, health, nutrition and productivity records. |
| White Revolution 2.0 and dairy cooperatives | Expansion of milk procurement through cooperatives under the Ministry of Cooperation, extending the Amul model — connecting Article 48 to Article 43B. |
| GOBARdhan | Conversion of cattle dung and agricultural waste into biogas and organic manure — the economic argument that Mirzapur (2005) itself relied on. |
Key Figures
₹24,000 crAnnual outlay of PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana, over six years from 2025–26
100 districtsCovered by PM-DDKY, converging 36 schemes across 11 departments for about 1.7 crore farmers
₹35,440 crCombined outlay of PM-DDKY and the Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses, both launched 11 October 2025
No. 1India's global rank in milk production; it is also the world's second-largest fish producer
332 MTRecord foodgrain production reported for 2023–24
Entry 15State List entry on preservation and improvement of stock — the reason cattle law differs across States
Persistent Challenges
- Low productivity per animal. India leads the world in total milk output but average yield per animal remains well below global leaders — which is precisely the "improving the breeds" gap Article 48 identifies.
- Stray and unproductive cattle. Restrictions on slaughter combined with declining draught use have produced a large stray-cattle population, causing crop damage, road accidents and municipal burden. This is the sharpest practical tension inside Article 48's own two limbs.
- Mechanisation has displaced draught animals. The economic premise of the draught-cattle clause has weakened as tractors replace bullocks — while the dung-and-urine argument accepted in Mirzapur supplies a different justification.
- Fodder and feed deficit, and shrinking common grazing land, constrain herd productivity.
- Fragmented landholdings limit the returns to mechanisation, which is why FPOs and custom hiring centres matter.
- Water stress and input imbalance — over-extraction of groundwater and skewed fertiliser use run against "scientific lines".
- Climate variability affecting both crop yields and animal heat stress, requiring climate-resilient varieties and breeds.
- Livelihood displacement in the meat, leather and allied trades where slaughter restrictions are strict — a distributional question that policy has to address rather than ignore.
Article 48 at a Glance — Mind Map
Article 48 · Agriculture & Cattle
Limb 1Organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines
Limb 2Preserve and improve breeds · prohibit slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle
The framingNo mention of religion — economic and agricultural justification
AmendmentNever amended · Art. 48A is separate, inserted by the 42nd CAA, 1976
CompetenceEntry 15, State List (stock) · Entry 14 (agriculture) · Entry 17, Concurrent List (cruelty to animals)
1958Hanif Quareshi — cow ban upheld; total ban on bulls and bullocks struck down; cow sacrifice not an essential religious practice
2005Mirzapur Moti Kureshi — 7 judges; total ban on cow progeny upheld; Hanif Quareshi overruled on that point
DoctrineFRs and DPSPs are complementary; a law giving effect to a DPSP is prima facie a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(6)
SchemesPM-DDKY ₹24,000 cr · Pulses Mission ₹11,440 cr · Rashtriya Gokul Mission · NADCP · AHIDF · GOBARdhan
Prelims Traps to Guard Against
- Article 48 has never been amended. Article 48A is a different provision, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, Section 10.
- Article 48 makes no reference to religion. It is framed in terms of milch and draught cattle — an economic classification.
- Breed improvement is named before slaughter prohibition in the text.
- Article 48 is a Gandhian principle.
- Preservation and improvement of stock is Entry 15 of the State List — hence the variation in State cattle laws. Prevention of cruelty to animals is Entry 17 of the Concurrent List.
- Hanif Quareshi (1958) was a five-judge Bench; it upheld the ban on cows and calves but struck down a total ban on bulls and bullocks.
- Mirzapur Moti Kureshi (2005) was a seven-judge Bench and overruled Hanif Quareshi on that specific point, upholding a total ban on cow progeny.
- The Supreme Court has held that cow sacrifice is not an essential religious practice — Hanif Quareshi (1958), reaffirmed in Ashutosh Lahiri (1995).
- PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana covers 100 districts selected on low productivity, low cropping intensity and low credit — converging 36 schemes across 11 departments.
- Rashtriya Gokul Mission (2014) is the indigenous-breed scheme; the National Animal Disease Control Programme targets FMD and Brucellosis.
Mains Angle
Question (GS-II / GS-III, 15 marks, 250 words): "Article 48 asks the State both to modernise animal husbandry and to protect cattle; four decades of mechanisation have placed those two directions in tension." Examine the constitutional mandate under Article 48 and its contemporary implementation.
Structure the answer around three pivots:
- The constitutional mandate.
Two limbs — organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines, and preserve and improve breeds while prohibiting slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle.
The framing is economic, not religious — the Article never mentions religion, and rests on the productive value of the herd.
A Gandhian DPSP; competence lies in Entry 15 of the State List, which is why the law differs across States. - The judicial trajectory.
Hanif Quareshi (1958, five judges): cow and calf ban upheld; total ban on bulls and bullocks struck down as unreasonable; cow sacrifice held not an essential religious practice.
Ashutosh Lahiri (1995): no religious exemption from a general preservation law.
Mirzapur Moti Kureshi (2005, seven judges): overruled Hanif Quareshi on the bulls-and-bullocks point, holding that FRs and DPSPs are complementary and that cattle remain economically useful through dung and urine — a doctrine now cited well beyond animal-husbandry law. - Implementation and the tension.
Modernisation: PM-DDKY (₹24,000 crore, 100 districts, 36 schemes converged), the Pulses Mission, AgriStack, drones and micro-irrigation.
Breed improvement: Rashtriya Gokul Mission, the Nationwide AI Programme, sexed semen and IVF, NADCP and AHIDF.
The tension: mechanisation has displaced draught use, and slaughter restrictions combined with falling productivity have produced a large stray and unproductive cattle population — with crop damage, road accidents and municipal cost, alongside livelihood displacement in the meat and leather trades.
Conclusion: the resolution Article 48 itself suggests lies in its first-named obligation — improving the breeds. Raising yield per animal, extending genomic and IVF-based selection, developing fodder security, and monetising dung through GOBARdhan make the herd economically viable, which is the only durable answer to the stray-cattle problem. Protection without productivity generates the very burden the Article was meant to prevent.
Key Takeaways
- Article 48 directs the State to endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines, and in particular to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
- The Article contains no reference to religion — it is framed on agricultural and economic grounds, which is why cattle-protection laws have been sustained as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). It is a Gandhian Directive Principle and has never been amended.
- Article 48A is a separate Article on environment, forests and wildlife, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976. Legislative competence for cattle preservation lies in Entry 15 of the State List, so the law varies across States.
- Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1958), a five-judge Bench, upheld a total ban on slaughter of cows and calves but struck down a total ban on bulls and bullocks, and held that cow sacrifice is not an essential religious practice.
- State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005), a seven-judge Bench, upheld a total ban on cows and their progeny and overruled Hanif Quareshi on that point — holding that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary and that cattle remain useful through dung and urine even after ceasing to give milk or work.
- Implementation runs through PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana (₹24,000 crore a year, 100 districts, 36 schemes converged, launched 11 October 2025), the Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses (₹11,440 crore), and on the livestock side Rashtriya Gokul Mission, the Nationwide AI Programme, NADCP, AHIDF and GOBARdhan. India is the world's largest milk producer.
