Allahabad HC Flags Rampant Misuse of Cow Slaughter Law

A bench of Justices Abdul Moin and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observations while hearing a plea filed by Rahul Yadav, who sought quashing of an FIR lodged against him in Pratapgarh under Sections 3, 5A, and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Yadav, the owner of a Bolero pickup, contended that his driver had taken the vehicle and did not return, and that he later discovered the vehicle was seized with nine cow progeny allegedly being transported for slaughter. He maintained he had no role in the alleged offence but was being harassed by police.

According to the FIR, Sub-Inspector Sandeep Kumar Tiwari of Kotwali Nagar police station received information that cow progeny were being moved from Amethi towards Pratapgarh for slaughter. When police signalled the vehicle to stop, the occupants fled. Nine cow progeny were found tied and panting inside the pickup.

Court, however, found no material to justify the offences invoked. “From the perusal of the FIR, it emerges that the animals were found alive, and there is no allegation that they were being transported outside the State,” the bench noted, observing that Section 5A of the Cow Slaughter Act applies only to interstate transport. Similarly, since no slaughter or maiming was alleged, Sections 3 and 8 were inapplicable.

Court also said that since the petitioner was neither the driver nor present in the vehicle, provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act did not prima facie apply.

Referring to earlier judgments, including Kaliya v. State of U.P. (2023), which held that transporting cows within the state is not a crime, and Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz (1962), where the court clarified that “mere preparation for slaughter is not an offence,” the bench emphasised that law enforcement officers must apply the law correctly.

Observing that the court was “deluged” with similar petitions, the bench questioned why police continue to register such FIRs despite decades-old clarity in law.

"Mob vigilantism and mob violence are to be prevented by the Governments by taking strict action and by the vigil society who ought to report such incidents to the State machinery and the police instead of taking the law and order into their own hands," court stated. 

It directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP to file personal affidavits within three weeks explaining the reasons and detailing proposed disciplinary action against officials responsible for such casual cases.

"The personal affidavits would also indicate the action which is to be taken against the officials/complainants who file such casual First Information Reports wasting the precious time of both the police authorities who spent their valuable time in such investigations as well as this Court to repeatedly stress on the provisions of the Act, 1955," the order read. 

Court also raised the issue of cow vigilantism, referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), which mandated preventive and punitive measures against mob violence. The bench noted that despite apex court directions, incidents linked to vigilantism “continue to see the light of day".

The bench further asked whether the State had issued any government order implementing the Supreme Court’s directions and warned that, failing affidavits, both top officials would have to appear personally before the court on November 7.

While granting interim protection to the petitioner, the bench observed that frivolous cases not only burden citizens but also waste judicial and administrative time. “Such FIRs could have been nipped in the bud by the State itself,” the court remarked, hinting that exemplary costs may be imposed if such practices continue.

"Personal affidavits would also indicate that in case such frivolous cases continue to come to the highest Court of the State as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed against the authorities who have not applied their mind while lodging the First Information Reports under the Act, 1955," the order stated.

Case Title: Rahul Yadav Vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

Order Date: October 9, 2025