Supreme Court stays Madras High Court's order on ban on 'Jallikattu'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today stayed the order of the Madras High Court, which had imposed a ban on the slaughter of cows or bullocks on Bakrid or any other day in Tamil Nadu. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjeev Mehta issued an interim order while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Tamil Nadu government.

The state government had challenged the High Court's decision, which had directed a complete ban on the slaughter of cows and bullocks across the state. The bench said that the last paragraph of the High Court's order, which directed a ban across the state, prima facie requires modification. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for the state government.

The state government argued that the High Court's order was contrary to the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958. Under this law, cows over 10 years old that are unfit for work and breeding can be slaughtered with a certificate from a competent authority.

The government also said that other laws such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughterhouse) Rules, 2001, the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023 regulate the slaughter process and conditions, but none of them provide for a complete ban. The state said that by imposing a complete ban, the High Court has made a judicial law in place of a legislative one.

A bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshmi Narayanan, had passed the order on May 27, just before Bakrid. The order was passed on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by K Suriya Prakash, General Secretary of the Hindu Makkal Katchi. The petitioner had only sought that the slaughter be carried out only at designated places, but the High Court went further and imposed a complete ban on the slaughter of cows and bullocks anywhere and on any day.

While delivering its verdict, the Madras High Court cited a government order that said a ban on cow slaughter was necessary to stabilize milk production and the rural economy. The court also cited previous Supreme Court judgments that said that cow slaughter on Bakrid was not an essential religious practice in Islam.

The state government said that when the existing law allows the slaughter of a specific type of cow at designated places, no judicial direction can be issued to the contrary. The government also objected to the High Court citing a government order, whose legal status or enforceability was never questioned before the court. The government said that no administrative order can be above the laws in force in the state.

In its Special Leave Petition, the state government said that the writ petition filed before the High Court was limited to preventing public slaughter on Bakrid in Coimbatore. However, the Division Bench expanded the scope of the case and imposed a ban on cow slaughter across the state in all circumstances, even in approved slaughterhouses, although the petitioner had not sought such relief. The government said that the court granted relief that was not sought and not argued.

The state government said that the High Court, in one part of its order, acknowledged that animal slaughter can only be carried out in approved slaughterhouses, but on the other hand, it also directed that no cow or bullock should be slaughtered on Bakrid or any other day. According to the government, these two statements are contradictory, and the order becomes self-contradictory.

In its petition, the government also questioned the High Court's assumption that cow slaughter was being carried out or would be carried out in public places, while the police had stated in their counter affidavit that all precautionary measures had already been taken. The government said that it was ensured that no slaughter took place in public places and that religious sacrifices were limited to closed and secluded areas. The government said that the High Court's conclusion was contrary to the facts presented by the state.