Allahabad HC Slams Misuse of Cow Slaughter Act, Links 'Casual' FIRs to Rising Vigilantism

LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH – The Allahabad High Court has issued a stern rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh police and state government, taking serious judicial note of the "casual" and widespread misapplication of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. In a significant 17-page order, a division bench linked the indiscriminate filing of baseless FIRs under the Act to the "menace of cow vigilantism" and a general atmosphere where "violence, lynching and vigilantism is the order of the day."

The bench, comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, has directed the state's highest-ranking officials—the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police (DGP)—to file personal affidavits. They must explain why police are lodging FIRs "left and right" even when the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent, and why the state has failed to formally implement the Supreme Court's seven-year-old anti-lynching directives.

The Court's intervention came while granting interim protection from coercive action to Rahul Yadav, a vehicle owner implicated under the Act. The judgment not only provides relief to an individual but also signals a potential turning point in the state's approach to cow protection laws and mob violence, placing the onus of accountability squarely on the executive.

The Case of Rahul Yadav: A Microcosm of a Systemic Issue

The matter before the High Court stemmed from an FIR filed against Rahul Yadav, the owner of a vehicle. According to the facts presented, police found nine "progeny of the cow" tied inside his vehicle, which had been taken by his driver. He was booked under Sections 3, 5A, and 8 of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The division bench meticulously dismantled the prosecution's case, demonstrating a clear lack of application of mind by the police. The Court observed:

• No Offence Under Section 5-A: This section criminalizes the transport of a cow or its progeny for slaughter. The Court noted that an essential condition—transportation outside Uttar Pradesh—was not even alleged in the FIR, making the charge untenable.
• No Offence Under Sections 3 & 8: These sections pertain to the act of cow slaughter and its abetment. The Court highlighted the undisputed fact that the animals were found alive. Without any act of slaughter or even maiming, these sections were deemed inapplicable. The bench remarked, "Clearly, no offence is made out... It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner indulged in slaughtering of the progeny of the cow inasmuch as the progeny of the cow has been found alive."
• No Offence Under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act: The Court found that since the petitioner was merely the vehicle's owner and not the driver present at the scene, he could not be held liable under Section 11 of the 1960 Act for the alleged cruelty.

Finding that no prima facie offence was made out, the Court granted Yadav relief. However, it used this individual case as a launchpad to address the larger, more alarming trend of frivolous litigation that is overwhelming the judicial system.

Judicial Exasperation: "Deluged with Such Matters"

The High Court expressed grave concern over the flood of petitions challenging FIRs filed under the Cow Slaughter Act where the basic tenets of the law are ignored. The bench lamented the waste of judicial resources and the harassment faced by citizens.

"The matter cannot be treated to be so simple," the Court asserted, "inasmuch as this Court is deluged with such matters on the basis of First Information Reports being filed left and right by the authorities and complainants under the provisions of the Act, 1955."

The bench underscored that the legal position is not new or ambiguous. It cited its own precedent from over six decades ago, Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz (1962) , which established that mere preparation for slaughter does not constitute an offence under the 1955 Act. Despite this long-settled law, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, the bench noted with dismay that police continue to file FIRs without proper verification, forcing aggrieved individuals to "approach this Court, spending their valuable money and time."

In a move to enforce accountability, the Court has demanded that the affidavits from the Principal Secretary (Home) and DGP disclose what action is being taken against officers and complainants who file such "casual FIRs," wasting "the precious time of both the police authorities and this Court."

Connecting the Dots: Frivolous FIRs and Mob Vigilantism

Most significantly, the High Court directly linked the misuse of the Cow Slaughter Act to the rise of mob violence. The bench observed that the Act is being used as a "garb" for vigilantism, citing a recent incident where vigilantes stopped a car that subsequently went missing. This connection elevates the issue from one of procedural lapses to a fundamental threat to the rule of law.

The Court then turned its focus to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) . In that case, the Apex Court had issued a comprehensive set of preventive, remedial, and punitive guidelines for state governments to curb mob violence and lynching. The Supreme Court had explicitly stated that failure by officials to comply would be considered "deliberate negligence and misconduct."

The Allahabad High Court noted that despite the passage of nearly seven years, the Uttar Pradesh government has not issued a formal Government Order (G.O.) to implement these directives. While a circular was issued by the DGP, the Court deemed it insufficient, explaining the crucial constitutional distinction:

"...once the directions of the Apex Court are to the State Government, consequently, a Government order should have been issued in this regard... the Government order is an expression of the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, prima facie the circular as issued by the Director General of Police does not conform to the direction as issued by the Apex Court."

The Court has therefore mandated that the affidavits also detail the steps taken to comply with the Poonawalla judgment, effectively demanding an explanation for the state's executive inaction.

The Way Forward: A Demand for Systemic Change

The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 7, 2025, and has put the state government on notice. It warned that if frivolous FIRs under the 1955 Act continue to be filed, it may consider imposing exemplary costs on the authorities.

The bench also posed a pointed question to the officials: why should the state not be directed to issue a G.O. to ensure such frivolous cases are not registered in the future? This suggests the Court is prepared to move beyond case-specific relief and issue systemic directives if the executive fails to act.

If the affidavits are not filed within three weeks, the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP have been ordered to appear in person. This order from the Allahabad High Court represents a powerful judicial intervention aimed at restoring due process, curbing the weaponization of law, and holding the state accountable for its constitutional duty to prevent mob violence and protect its citizens from wrongful prosecution.