Cow slaughter affects ‘law and order’ or ‘public order’?

In a ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a person suspected of slaughtering cows and cattle could be kept in detention under the provisions of the National Security Act.

The court drew a distinction between a mere law and order problem, and an alleged crime that amounted to a disruption in public order. The import of this difference is that were it not for the public order aspect, the accused could not be kept behind bars by way of preventive detention—to stop him from committing a similar offence in the near future.

This preventive detention on the basis of suspicion for violating public order means that the accused would have to spend time in jail even if he is acquitted at the end of the trial. And, because he has already spent eight months in gaol without the trial even having started, it would indeed be a travesty if his liberty is curtailed for a longer period.

What riles one is the basis on which the high court has termed the act a violation of public order—that it hurts the religious sentiments of the majority of the population.

On 21 February, a bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Rekha Dikshit, hearing a writ petition by one Riyazuddin, refused to grant him bail, because his purported actions, the honourable justices felt could endanger communal harmony and pose a threat to public order.

The prosecution stated that on the night of 22 January 2016, on the basis of a complaint by locals of Jalaun district, an FIR was lodged against Riyazuddin and 15 others under the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. Allegedly, the 16 had gotten together to slaughter 48 cows and take away the meat for selling. When the locals arrived at the spot, they found the carcasses and entrails strewn about in a field. In no time, the situation looked to be veering towards that of a communal riot, as more and more irate villagers and leaders of Hindutva organisations rushed to the spot.

It was the case of the prosecution that a dagger was recovered from the possession of Riyazuddin and his son. On his part, Riyazuddin claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case merely because of his previous criminal antecedents, and that the recovery of the dagger as the only piece of allegedly incriminating evidence did not in any way point to his involvement in the offence. Hence, his preventive detention under the National Security Act was based on unfounded suspicion, and he should be granted bail, he contended in his petition.

Rejecting Riyazuddin’s plea, Justice Rekha Dikshit, who wrote the Order for the bench, observed that the case registered against Riyazuddin did not fall in the category of a “law and order” problem, but, based on the proportionality of the alleged offence, fell in the category of a crime against “public order”.

Relying on previous precedents laid down by the high court, Justice Dikshit held that slaughtering of a large number of cows was different from the act of killing a cow in the confines of one’s own home due to poverty or hunger. The former act offends the religious feelings of the section forming the majority of society which venerates the cow and its progeny, and disturbs the even tempo of society by being likely to incite communal passions, she held.

As the last phases of polling are underway, communal speeches seemed to have reached a crescendo, prompting the Election Commission to issue a strong note urging candidates to desist from raking up issues of caste and religion in their campaigns.

The polarising issues of beef-consumption and cow slaughter have not been raised till now, but with the memories of the 2015 Dadri lynching still fresh in the minds of both politicians and the electorate, it could well be just a matter of time before it is used as a poll-plank.

This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own.