The Allahabad High Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to Uttar Pradesh authorities over what it terms the “casual and frivolous” use of the state’s cow slaughter law, expressing concern about its misuse and its links to rising vigilantism and mob violence.
The court’s observations come from a petition filed by one Rahul Yadav, a vehicle owner who was seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The police intercepted Yadav’s vehicle—driven by an employee—carrying 9 live cow progeny within the state. There was no evidence of slaughter, injury, or attempt to transport the animals outside UP, and yet, an FIR was filed, invoking major sections of the above Acts.
ALSO READ | Odisha: Dalit man beaten to death on suspicion of killing cow
The court called out the FIR as part of a ‘disturbing pattern’, wherein cow protection laws are being misapplied, often wasting police and judicial resources.
In recent years, there have been multiple reports of a spike in erroneous FIRs filed under the said laws. Such reports target individuals based on vague suspicion or hearsay, and are not supported by concrete evidence of slaughter or intended export. They result in the harassment of innocent owners, drivers, and transporters.
The court noted that it was an abuse of legal process and judicial time.
In 2018, Mohammad Qasim, a cattle trader from Hapur, was beaten to death by a mob that accused him of cow slaughter. In the same year, in Bulandshahr, a police officer was killed during unrest sparked by rumours about illegal slaughter. These are just two cases in which law enforcement agencies focused on the law and not the violence.
The Allahabad HC has now warned that such applications of the law could encourage vigilante attacks and threaten constitutional order.
“Violence, lynching, and vigilantism is the order of the day,” the bench noted, referencing Supreme Court directions that states must prevent mob law.
Seven years ago in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India (2018) case, which specifically addressed cow vigilantism, the SC had declared:
“Vigilantism cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be given room to take shape, for it is absolutely a perverse notion ... A country where the rule of law prevails does not allow any such thought.”
The HC has directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police to explain, within three weeks, why such FIRs continue and what concrete steps are being taken to halt the misuse of the law. It has also warned that non-compliance would lead to appearances before the court.
The four specific points that the Court wants addressed are:
Why do such casual FIRs continue to be filed throughout the state?
What action will be taken against officials who file improper cases?
Why shouldn’t directions be issued requiring a government order to prevent such FIRs?
Why exemplary costs shouldn’t be imposed on authorities wasting judicial time?
The HC has also deemed "inadequate" a July 2018 circular on misuse of the law. It has said that a proper Government Order under Article 162 (a state’s executive powers extend to all such matters in which the state legislature can make laws) should have been issued, and not just a police circular.
The Court has also directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner (vehicle owner) until further orders.
It noted that the petitioner was merely the owner of the vehicle and that the driver had taken the vehicle and not returned it. Yadav was not even in the vehicle, so he could not be charged.
The case will come up for hearing on November 7, 2025. |
