The Tamil Nadu government on Wednesday approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court’s order imposing a blanket ban on cow slaughter, arguing that the order contravenes existing state laws.
The state argued that the Supreme Court’s May 27 order was contrary to the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, which allows cows more than 10 years old and unfit for work or breeding, to be slaughtered under a certificate issued by the competent authority, under the Life Act.
The government also pointed out that several other laws governing the slaughter of animals — including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughterhouses) Rules 2001, the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules 2023 — specify conditions under which animals may be slaughtered but do not impose a complete ban.
According to Live Law, the state also claimed that by issuing a blanket ban, the Supreme Court effectively overstepped the law enacted by the Legislature.
What does the Madras HC order say?
A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by K Surya Prasanth, general secretary of Hindu Makkal Katchi on May 27, a day before Bakrid. Prasanth sought directions to restrict cow slaughter to designated places. However, the Supreme Court went further and ordered a blanket ban on the slaughter of cows and calves anywhere in the state.
While issuing the order, the Supreme Court relied on a government order stating that a ban on cow slaughter would help improve milk production and boost the rural economy. She also referred to Supreme Court rulings that ruled that cow slaughter is not an essential religious practice associated with Bakrid, according to the Code of Life.
Tennessee government says order ‘inconsistent’
Arguing that a judicial direction cannot override or contravene an existing statutory provision, the Tamil Nadu government asserted that the Supreme Court’s order was inconsistent with the 1958 Act, which allows the slaughter of a specific category of cows under certain circumstances.
In the special leave petition, the state also claimed that the original PIL was limited to prohibiting the slaughter of cows in public places during the Bakrid festival in Coimbatore. However, the division bench widened the scope of the case and imposed what the government described as an “absolute and total ban” on the slaughter of cows, including in designated slaughterhouses, even though the petitioner had not sought such relief.
The state noted that while the Supreme Court’s ruling limiting slaughter to specific locations was correct, the blanket ban resulted in an internally contradictory ruling.
The petition also challenges the Supreme Court’s observation that the authorities have admitted that cows have been slaughtered or are likely to be slaughtered in public places.
According to the state government, the police clearly stated in their counter-affidavit that precautionary measures have already been taken to ensure that no slaughter takes place in public places, and that any ritual sacrifice will only be carried out in closed and non-public places, as per the law of life.
The government said that the Supreme Court’s decision was inconsistent with the position taken by the state.
(With input from the living law)
