The Tamil Nadu government on Wednesday approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's recent order that imposed a blanket ban on the slaughter of cows and calves in the state. The state has argued that the High Court's directive goes beyond the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, and effectively amounts to judicial legislation.
In its appeal, filed through the Secretary to the State Government, Tamil Nadu contended that the 1958 Act permits the slaughter of cows that are over 10 years of age and are unfit for work or breeding, provided a certificate is issued by the competent authority. The state maintained that the High Court's order disregards the statutory framework established by the legislature.
The government further submitted that several laws regulate animal slaughter in Tamil Nadu, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023. While these laws prescribe conditions and procedures for slaughter, none of them impose a complete prohibition on cow slaughter, the plea stated.
The petition names K. Surya, also known as K. Surya Prashanth, Secretary of the youth wing of Hindu Makkal Katchi and the original petitioner before the Madras High Court, as a respondent. The Director General of Police and other state officials have also been arrayed as respondents. Advocate P.V. Yogeswaran, appearing for Surya, has already filed a caveat in the Supreme Court.
The legal challenge arises from a May 27 order passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan. While hearing a petition alleging illegal slaughter of cows in public places, the bench directed the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police to ensure that no cow or calf was slaughtered in Tamil Nadu on the eve of Bakrid or on any other day.
The High Court's order was based on a 1976 policy directive aimed at boosting milk production and strengthening the rural economy. In his judgment, Justice Swaminathan referred to Article 48 of the Constitution, a Directive Principle of State Policy, which calls upon the State to take steps to prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle. The judgment also cited discussions in the Constituent Assembly, noting the cultural and civilizational significance attached to the cow.
In its appeal, the Tamil Nadu government argued that the High Court exceeded its judicial authority by introducing a prohibition that the legislature had consciously not enacted. According to the state, the court effectively replaced statutory provisions with its own interpretation, thereby crossing the limits of judicial review.
The government emphasized that the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act already contains safeguards governing cow slaughter. It argued that the High Court's direction for a complete ban is inconsistent with the legislative intent and the scheme of the Act, which permits slaughter in specific circumstances after due certification by competent authorities.
The Madras High Court's order was passed on a petition filed by Surya, the state general secretary of Hindu Makkal Katchi, seeking action against the alleged illegal slaughter of cows in public places. The petitioner claimed that despite submitting representations to the authorities, no effective steps had been taken to curb such practices.
During the proceedings, the High Court relied on Article 48 of the Constitution and examined Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958. The bench observed that the provision permits the slaughter of a cow only if it is above 10 years of age, unfit for work or breeding, and certified by the competent authority. Stressing that the provision should be interpreted strictly in the light of Article 48, the court held that slaughter could be permitted only after obtaining the prescribed certificate.
The Supreme Court is now expected to examine whether the High Court's blanket prohibition is consistent with the existing statutory framework or whether it amounts to an expansion of the law beyond the legislature's intent.
Leave Your Comment