Criminalization of Cattle Slaughter and Individual Rights under the Indian Constitution

Abstract

The laws of the prohibition on cattle slaughter are not new-fangled. They were debated over in the constituent assembly and subsequently have been in existence ever since. However, these restrictions might not satisfy the test of reasonability and may lead to the infringement of fundamental rights. When the duties of the State under Directive Principles of State Policy and fundamental rights of the individuals come in direct conflict, their harmonization becomes a prerequisite. The harmonization of conflicting interests is the practice of the judiciary to make sure that the compelling state interests do not flatten the rights of the individuals. Thus, the issue dealt with here emerges from the preceding incidents where laws prohibiting cattle slaughter were made stricter and the country witnessed instances of mob lynching where the vigilante groups ‘punished’ the individuals who allegedly slaughtered cow or consumed beef. Several states now have laws that prohibit the slaughter of cattle either absolutely or partially. However, the law in each state differs on even basic grounds such as the definition of beef and the nature of restrictions. Therefore, it becomes essential to understand the principles upon which criminal law can be used and the limitations that control the overreaching impact of criminal law. It is also important to apply these principles to the restrictions on cattle slaughter and consumption of beef to know whether these acts demand the use of criminal law, and the sentimental holiness of the cow is more important than human rights? This paper focuses on the concept of overcriminalization in the Indian context with reference to the restrictions on beef.