In Brief
Petitioners challenged a 1986 Madhya Pradesh notification regulating grazing in government forests. The State had imposed higher rates on non-resident cattle owners and a 45-day transit limit. The Court held that differential pricing based on State residency violates equality rights and found no rational basis for the distinction. The 45-day ceiling for non-residents conflicted with the one-year period for residents and was declared unconstitutional. However, the Court upheld reasonable route restrictions to protect forests. The State was directed to revise its rules consistently with constitutional principles and earlier precedent, particularly regarding route prescription and carrying capacity limits, without imposing discriminatory charges or blanket prohibitions on transit grazing.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.