Justice Abdul Moin of Allahabad High Court Condemns Misuse of Cow Slaughter Act, Citing Rise in Vigilantism

The Allahabad High Court has expressed its strong concern with regard to the heavy misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, in a scathing critique of the law enforcement of the state. A bench headed by Justice Abdul Moin noted that the informal registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) under this act has resulted in the alarming increase in violence, lynching, and vigilantism with a damning verdict that it has become the order of the day. The remarks by the court were strong when it was hearing a plea by a person who wrongly implicated due to the act.

The court pointed out that there was a vast gap between the legislative provisions of the law and their application on the ground. It has indicated that FIRs are often registered where there is little evidence between the fact that no slaughter is done nor any evidence of a desire to slaughter. Not only does this relaxed attitude by the police violate the basic right of the citizens, but it also adds an undue burden to the already overstretched judicial system that is already dealing with a huge number of cases.

The bench headed by Justice Moin emphasized the fact that it is the abuse of this specific law that is contributing to the atmosphere of fear and the empowerment of vigilantes. These organizations in the name of cow protection tend to administer justice to themselves and as such mob violence and lynchings are witnessed. The court was outraged by the reality that the practice of such extra-judicial actions is getting normalized, and this is a serious threat to the rule of law and societal cohesion. The bench deplored that the act is now being used to score personal points and harass innocent people, which is not in line with the idea behind its enactment in the first place.

In the case, the court was tough to the administration by insisting on responsibility of the topmost police authority in the state. It has addressed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police, in person, on the issue of absence of due procedural protection and inability to avoid filing of frivolous cases. The state government has also been impressed by the court on the need of giving transparent guidelines to curb this menace as a measure of ensuring that the law does not serve as a form of oppression. The court involvement illuminates on a burning question which is a combination of the law and social facts, in that the police should be reformed and that the sensitive laws should be applied more responsibly.

It is surprising that the learned single judge entertained the writ petition in Chennai, when Karur falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the High Court, where in fact petitions relating to the same incident were pending before a Division Bench.
It is reported that Justice Senthil Kumar’s mother had been a DMK MLA from 2006-2011, and she had been working actively for the DMK even thereafter as a District Gen Secy of the party. If these allegations are correct, apprehensions of bias can arise, but I do not propose to delve into this issue