Introduction:

In the matter of Gau Gyan Foundation v. State of Odisha & Ors. [W.P.(C) (PIL) No. 7048 of 2018], decided on August 7, 2025, the Orissa High Court, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, expressed deep concern over the rampant illegal cow slaughter taking place across the state despite the Odisha Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 (“1960 Act”) which imposes an absolute prohibition on cow slaughter overriding any contrary custom or usage. The petition was filed by Gau Gyan Foundation as a public interest litigation, highlighting that extra-legal slaughter practices were being carried out in violation of statutory mandates, rendering the legislative intent ineffective. The Court’s observations came in the backdrop of earlier judicial pronouncements, including a previous order in 2024 by then Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho, which had clarified the scope of Section 3 of the Act and reinforced the legislative bar on slaughtering cows irrespective of tradition or usage.

Arguments:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Piyush Panda, contended that despite the enactment of the 1960 Act, cow slaughter continued unabated in several districts of Odisha due to the non-appointment of a ‘competent authority’ as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the Act, which had resulted in key provisions becoming unworkable. It was argued that Section 3 of the Act categorically prohibits the slaughter of cows, and any exception to this rule, such as the slaughter of bulls or bullocks, is permissible only upon obtaining a written certificate from the competent authority certifying that the animal is over a certain age, permanently incapacitated, or unfit for breeding or draught purposes. However, in the absence of such authority, no lawful certification could be issued, and therefore any slaughter taking place was prima facie illegal. The petitioner also submitted that the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1966, being subsidiary legislation, did not provide any form or procedure for slaughtering cows since the Act imposes an absolute prohibition, thus further reinforcing that such slaughter is unlawful. Counsel stressed that the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 and the Odisha Municipality Act, 1950 could not be interpreted to override or dilute the provisions of the 1960 Act, as the latter is a special enactment with an overriding clause. In response, the State, represented by Additional Government Advocate Debasish Tripathy, acknowledged the legislative provisions but contended that there were administrative and procedural difficulties in the immediate appointment of competent authorities across all districts. It was further submitted that certain exceptions under Section 4 of the Act, which also contains a non-obstante clause, allow slaughter under specific contingencies such as when the animal is suffering from a contagious disease or poses a public health risk, and in such cases, municipal provisions and veterinary protocols also come into play. Senior Advocate P.K. Mohanty, appearing for the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, argued that municipal laws relating to slaughterhouses, hygiene, and licensing had to be harmoniously read with the 1960 Act to ensure both public health safeguards and animal welfare protections. The respondents suggested that complete enforcement required inter-departmental coordination between the animal husbandry department, municipal authorities, and law enforcement agencies.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the submissions, the Bench reiterated that the 1960 Act is not a dead letter and cannot be consigned to “cold storage” in light of its objectives and the socio-cultural importance attached to its provisions. Referring to Section 3, the Court emphasized that the prohibition on cow slaughter is absolute, overriding any custom or usage to the contrary, and that exceptions only apply to bulls and bullocks upon written certification from the competent authority. The Court noted with dismay that despite the clear legislative framework, the State had failed to appoint the competent authority for decades, thereby rendering the certification process inoperative and indirectly enabling illegal slaughter. It held that Section 562 of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 and provisions of the 1960 Act must be read conjointly, but on a harmonious reading, the legislative intent is unmistakably to prohibit cow slaughter in the State. The Court further clarified that even if certain municipal provisions appeared to conflict with the 1960 Act, the special legislation prevails by virtue of its overriding clause. The Bench examined Section 4 and concluded that even with its specific contingencies allowing slaughter of bulls or bullocks under prescribed conditions, the slaughter of cows remains impermissible in absolute terms. The judges also criticized the government’s inaction in appointing a competent authority, stressing that this lapse directly hampers the enforceability of several provisions of the Act. The Court categorically stated that the State cannot shirk its responsibility and directed the Government to appoint the competent authority within three weeks of receiving the order. It ordered that the report of such appointment be submitted to the Court on the next date of hearing, scheduled for September 1, 2025. The Bench also implied that continued failure to implement statutory mandates could invite judicial intervention of a coercive nature. The judgment reinforces that legislative enactments protecting animal welfare, once passed, must be enforced in letter and spirit, and administrative negligence cannot be used as a shield for non-implementation. The order thus serves both as a reaffirmation of statutory supremacy in matters of animal protection and as a warning to the State regarding its duty-bound obligations under the law.