"Cattle census data expose contradictions in India's cow slaughter prohibition regime"
Article 48 (DPSP)
Non-justiciable constitutional directive mandating state prohibition of cow slaughter and improvement of cattle breeds.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test
Judicial test to determine if a practice is mandatory from a religion's origin, qualifying for Article 25 protection.
Cow protection in India has deep constitutional roots. Article 48 of the Constitution places the prohibition of cow slaughter within the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), making it a non-justiciable but constitutionally recognised goal. The Constituent Assembly debates of November 1948 reveal that the placement was deliberate. Even Muslim members such as Z.H. Lari and Mohammad Saadullah argued for a stronger provision, preferring a fundamental right over a directive principle. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar ultimately settled the matter by placing it in Part IV, balancing religious sentiment with constitutional pluralism.
Following this, most states enacted their own cow slaughter prohibition laws. Today, over 20 states have such legislation. Only Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Manipur, Mizoram, and Kerala do not have such laws. The legal framework was tested early in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs State of Bihar (1958), where the Supreme Court upheld state bans on cow slaughter while also ruling that cow slaughter on Bakr-Eid is not an essential Islamic practice. This judgment remains the foundational precedent on the subject.
Historically, cow protection has not been the exclusive domain of any single political formation. The cow protection movement of the late 19th century was noted by Viceroy Lord Lansdowne as having transformed the Indian National Congress into a genuine political force. The cow and calf were Congress election symbols for decades. This history matters because it shows that the politics of cow protection predates and cuts across contemporary party lines.
The constitutional tension in cow protection laws runs along three axes. First, Article 48 (DPSP) directs the state to prohibit cow slaughter. Second, Articles 19 and 21 protect the rights to livelihood and personal liberty, which courts have interpreted to include the right to choose one's occupation (including cattle trade) and, more recently, dietary choices under the right to privacy affirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India. Third, Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, raising the question of whether beef consumption or cow slaughter is an essential religious practice for any community.
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test is the judicial tool used to resolve Article 25 claims. A practice qualifies for constitutional protection only if it is mandatory from the very origin of the religion and is integral to it. The Supreme Court in Hanif Quareshi applied this test to find that cow slaughter on Bakr-Eid is not essential to Islam. Scholars have also questioned whether cow reverence meets the ERP test for Hinduism, noting that classical texts classified cow slaughter as a minor sin (upapataka) rather than a major offence (mahapataka), and that prescriptive traditions were not uniform. …
Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.
Indian Constitution exhibits centralising tendencies to maintain unity and integrity of the nation. Elucidate in the perspective of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897; The Disaster Management Act, 2005 and recently passed Farm Acts.
Consider the following statements regarding cow protection under the Indian Constitution:
1.Article 48 places the prohibition of cow slaughter under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
2.Article 48 is justiciable and can be enforced in a court of law.
3.The Constituent Assembly debates saw Muslim members argue for placing cow protection under Fundamental Rights rather than Directive Principles.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs State of Bihar (1958), consider the following statements:
1.The Court upheld state laws prohibiting cow slaughter as constitutionally valid.
2.The Court held that cow slaughter on Bakr-Eid is an essential Islamic practice protected under Article 25.
3.The judgment applied the Essential Religious Practices test to determine the scope of Article 25 protection.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Match the following states with their position on cow slaughter prohibition laws:
List I (State) — List II (Position)
A.Kerala — 1. Has cow slaughter prohibition law
B.Gujarat — 2. Does not have cow slaughter prohibition law
C.Nagaland — 3. Introduced life imprisonment for cow slaughter
D.Uttar Pradesh — 4. Has cow slaughter prohibition law
Select the correct answer using the codes below:
Consider the following statements regarding cattle census data in India since 1951:
1.The cow population has grown at a faster rate than the buffalo population.
2.Male cattle populations have declined in states with the most stringent cow slaughter prohibition laws.
3.West Bengal, despite having less stringent cow slaughter laws, recorded a smaller decline in male cattle population than Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following states does NOT have a cow slaughter prohibition law?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account