The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court took strong exception to police filing “frivolous FIRs” under the UP Cow Slaughter Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, noting that these provisions are being invoked against people in a casual manner across the state. It also raised concerns over cow vigilantism.
The court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) and the Principal Secretary (Home) to file personal affidavits within three weeks, explaining the action to be taken against police personnel who file such “casual” FIRs, and why directions should not be issued to the State to ensure such cases are not filed.
The bench of Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Abdul Moin issued the directions while hearing a petition by Rahul Yadav, who challenged an FIR filed against him on January 3 in Pratapgarh district on charges of transporting nine calves, slaughter and causing grievous hurt.
The court found the charge of transportation not applicable, stating that transportation within the state is not a crime. It also said the charge of slaughter was false as the nine calves were found alive.
Directing that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner until further orders, the court observed, “The matter cannot be treated to be so simple inasmuch, as this court is deluged with such matters on the basis of First Information Reports being filed left and right by authorities and complainants under provisions of the Act.”
Directing UP’s top officers to file the personal affidavits, the court stated, “…, we require the Principal Secretary (Home) as well as the Director General of Police to file their personal affidavits indicating as to why such casual First Information Reports are being filed against persons left and right which has resulted in various petitions being filed before this Court even though the provisions of the Act, 1955 [Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act] are not attracted.”
The court further said, “The personal affidavits would also indicate the action which is to be taken against officials/complainants who file such casual First Information Reports, wasting precious time of both police authorities… as well as this court to repeatedly stress on the provisions of the Act, 1955… and why directions not be issued to the State to issue a government order to ensure that such casual First Information Reports are not filed under the Act…”
Story continues below this ad
In its observation over cases of vigilantism, the court stated, “Another connected aspect of the matter under the garb of the Act… is vigilantism… by various persons. Why we say this is because a few days ago, a Bench of this Court was seized of a matter in which a person’s car was stopped by vigilantes and, thereafter, it was not traceable. In the said writ, instructions have been called for by the Court. Violence, lynching and vigilantism is the order of the day.”
The court referred to the 2018 Supreme Court guidelines and stated, “Mob vigilantism and mob violence are to be prevented by governments by taking strict action, by… society who ought to report such incidents to the state machinery, and by police instead of taking law and order into their own hands.”
It said the apex court had issued detailed guidelines laying out preventive, remedial and punitive measures with specific instructions to the courts, central and state government, DGP, Home Secretary and even to investigating officers.
Despite this, the HC observed in its order, cases pertaining to vigilantism still continue to see the light of the day.
Story continues below this ad
The court also directed the top officers to mention the action taken by the State pursuant to the SC’s directions in their affidavits.
Observing that frivolous FIRs are being lodged, it stated, “The aggrieved persons are constrained to approach this court for redressal of their grievances… spending their valuable money and time… At the same time, precious judicial time… is also wasted in dealing with such cases which could have been nipped in the bud by the State itself… Personal affidavits would also indicate that in case such frivolous cases continue to come to the highest Court of the State, why exemplary cost should not be imposed against the authorities who have not applied their mind while lodging the First Information Reports under the Act…”
It fixed the next date of hearing on November 7 with a direction that in case the affidavits are not filed, then the Principal Secretary (Home) and DGP shall appear in person before the court.
