Madras HC Directs Tamil Nadu to Ensure No Cow or Calf Is Slaughtered on Bakrid or Any Other Day

A Madras High Court Division Bench allowed a Coimbatore activist's writ petition on 27 May 2026, directing the State to prevent cow and calf slaughter on Bakrid, drawing on Article 48 of the Constitution, the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, and a State Government Order that had already banned cow slaughter in all slaughter houses across Tamil Nadu.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, on 27 May 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by a Coimbatore resident and activist, K. Surya alias K. Surya Prasanth, directing the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure that no cow or calf is slaughtered on the eve of Bakrid or on any other day. The order was authored by Justice G. R. Swaminathan. The Bench held that the constitutional directive under Article 48, the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, a State Government Order banning cow slaughter in all slaughter houses, and the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and Rules together leave no room for cow slaughter outside designated slaughter houses — and, in the case of cows and calves, effectively prohibit it altogether absent strict statutory certification.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, a resident of Selvapuram, Coimbatore, submitted a representation dated 18 May 2026 to the authorities, complaining that arrangements had been made for slaughtering cows and calves in areas not designated as slaughter houses in connection with the Bakrid sacrifice (qurban). When the representation went unconsidered, he filed WP No. 20225 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act on his representation and prevent such slaughter.

The respondents — who included the Secretary to the Government (Animal Husbandry), the Director General of Police, the District Collector and Commissioner of Police (Coimbatore), the Commissioner of the Corporation, and local police officers — filed a counter affidavit. In it, they stated that on 21 May 2026 the police had visited the site and found that the concerned authorities had erected a temporary shed for cow slaughter in a non-public area, without obstructing traffic or offending the religious sentiments of other communities.

The Bench treated that counter affidavit as a concession: the respondents had effectively confirmed the factual averments in the petitioner's affidavit. The question the court then addressed was whether cows and calves can be sacrificed in places not designated as slaughter houses on the occasion of Bakrid.

Constitutional Directive and Supreme Court Precedents

The Bench opened its legal analysis with Article 48 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the State shall take steps for prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. The court noted that during the Constituent Assembly debates, the cow was described as a revered animal associated with Indian civilisation, and that cow protection was a cause dear to Mahatma Gandhi. It also observed that several States had passed legislation on the subject, and those laws had been upheld.

The Bench then drew on three Supreme Court decisions. In Mohammed Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731, the Supreme Court had observed that many Muslims do not sacrifice cows on Bakrid and that sacrifice of a cow on that day is not an obligatory overt act for a Muslim to exhibit religious belief. In State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri (1995) 1 SCC 189, the Supreme Court held that slaughtering of cows on Bakrid is neither essential to nor necessarily required as part of the religious ceremony. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534, the Supreme Court sustained Gujarat's ban on the slaughter of the progeny of cows enacted through an amendment to the Bombay Animal Preservation Act.

Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act and the Certification Requirement

Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958 prohibits the slaughter of any animal unless the owner has obtained a certificate from the competent authority in the prescribed form. Under Section 4(3)(a), a certificate can be granted only if the animal is over ten years of age and is unfit for work and breeding. Under Section 4(3)(b), a certificate may also be granted if the animal has become permanently incapacitated for work or breeding due to injury, deformity, or any incurable disease.

The Bench gave this provision a strict construction, reasoning that because it enables cow slaughter and is at variance with Article 48, it must be read narrowly. The word “and” in Section 4(3)(a) means both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously: the animal must be above ten years of age and unfit for both work and breeding. Section 4(3)(b) was read to require that the permanent incapacitation arise specifically from injury, deformity, or incurable disease. Without a certificate in the prescribed form signed by the competent authority, slaughter cannot be permitted at all.

The Government Order Banning Cow Slaughter in Tamil Nadu

The Bench also referred to G.O.Ms.No.1715, a Government Order issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, which the court located in Maneka Gandhi's Animal Laws of India. The order, signed by the Chief Secretary to Government, V. Karthikeyan, directed that the slaughter of cows and heifers be banned in all slaughter houses in Tamil Nadu with immediate effect. The stated reasons were that cow slaughter affects the rural economy by depriving marginal and small farmers of supplemental income, reducing breeding stock for upgrading milch animals, and reducing farmyard manure output.

The Bench held that since the executive power of the State is co-terminus with its legislative power, a Government Order banning cow slaughter is sustainable and has the force of law. It must be enforced.

Slaughter Only in Designated Places: Urban Local Bodies Law

On the separate question of whether sacrifice can be carried out in any place, the Bench examined Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and Rules 297 and 298 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023. Rule 298 prohibits any person from slaughtering any animal except in a slaughter house provided by the municipality or in a private slaughter house duly established with a valid licence. Private slaughter houses require a licence from the Commissioner, a No Objection Certificate from the Deputy Superintendent of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police, and compliance with an extensive set of structural, sanitary, and operational conditions. Slaughter houses must be enclosed and screened from public view.

The Bench concluded that the authorities cannot permit slaughter of any animal in a place other than a designated slaughter house. The temporary shed erected by the concerned authorities in Coimbatore — which the police had described in their counter affidavit as a non-public area — did not satisfy these requirements.

Earlier Division Bench Directions in 2020

The Bench also referred to directions issued by an earlier Division Bench on 30 July 2020 in W.P.No.10043 of 2020 (M/s. Madurai North Indian Welfare Association v. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu). Those interim directions had required strict implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, and a Central Government notification dated 18 June 2020. They had also prohibited slaughter of animals in public places and made clear that no exception exists in the slaughter rules for religious occasions — compliance was required in letter and spirit even on Bakrid.

Order

The Division Bench allowed the writ petition. It directed the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure that no cow or calf is slaughtered on the eve of Bakrid or on any other day. The Chief Secretary to the Government and the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) were specifically directed to issue suitable instructions to all officials concerned to ensure compliance. No costs were awarded. The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 29 May 2026.