Back
Awards Compensation Following Illegal Vehicle Confiscation Under Cow Slaughter Act Laws
The has delivered a landmark ruling, quashing the of a transport vehicle under the . Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J., presiding over the case, not only set aside the orders passed by the and the but also awarded significant financial compensation to the petitioner, Vinod Kumar Singh, for the violation of his .
A Dispute Over Transit and Allegations
The case originated on , when police from intercepted the petitioner's vehicle, a Tata Ace Gold, on suspicion of illegal cattle transport. While the authorities claimed three bovine animals were being moved to Bihar for slaughter in violation of the 1955 Act, the petitioner maintained that he was transporting only two animals within the State of Uttar Pradesh, and that the police fabricated the case following a failed demand for illegal gratification.
Arguments and Legal Scrutiny
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the confiscation orders were based on pure conjecture, as the authorities assumed that proximity to the Bihar border was equivalent to intent for cross-border slaughter. Crucially, the petitioner asserted that no beef or slaughtered remains were found, and that the vehicle was his primary source of income, bought via a loan from .
The State maintained that the lack of a transport permit justified the confiscation, relying on a of guilt under Section 5-A(10) of the Act. However, the High Court noted that the presumption is not automatic and requires —such as confirmed possession of beef or remains—which was entirely absent in this case.
Judicial Analysis and Principles
The Court clarified that the requirement for a permit under , only applies to the transportation of bovine animals
outside
the State.
"The existence of an international or inter-State boundary by itself cannot constitute proof of illegal transportation,"
the Court noted.
Furthermore, the Court found the veterinary report to be a critical
, observing:
"The report nowhere records that the animals had sustained any injury or were being transported in such a condition so as to indicate cruelty within the meaning of law."
Key Observations
-
"The findings recorded by both the authorities, therefore, are based entirely upon assumptions rather than ."
-
"The foundational facts necessary for drawing the are, therefore, completely absent."
-
" protects not merely life but also the ."
A Constitutional Remedy
Finding that the state's arbitrary action deprived the petitioner of his livelihood, the Court ordered: 1. The immediate quashing of the confiscation orders dated and . 2. Release of the vehicle within one week. 3. Payment of ₹20,000 per month as compensation for loss of income from September 2024, plus an additional ₹25,000 for mental agony and harassment.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder to state authorities that statutory powers must be exercised within the bounds of evidence, and that the without legal justification constitutes a compensable infringement of constitutional rights.
