Vehicle Confiscation Under Cow Slaughter Act Requires Independent Laboratory Confirmation That Seized Meat Is Beef

On October 18, 2024, the police intercepted the petitioner’s vehicle (Mahindra Pickup No. DL-1L-AL1964) and allegedly recovered meat of five cows

An FIR was registered under Sections 3, 5, 5A/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and other penal laws

A veterinary report dated October 18, 2024, stated the meat was only "suspected" to be cow progeny and requested confirmatory diagnosis, which was never obtained

Despite no conclusive proof that the meat was beef, the District Magistrate, Baghpat, ordered the confiscation of the vehicle on June 16, 2025

This order was subsequently affirmed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, on November 14, 2025

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition, citing the illegal deprivation of his livelihood for 18 months

1. Whether a vehicle can be confiscated under Section 5-A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act without a conclusive laboratory report confirming the seized meat is beef

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to damages for the economic loss caused by the arbitrary seizure and confiscation of his transport vehicle

Section 2(a) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, which defines "beef" as the flesh of a cow

Sections 5 and 5-A(7) prohibit the transport of beef and empower the State to confiscate vehicles used for such transport

Section 5-A(6) and 5-A(10) mandate that for a conviction or confiscation, the seized substance must be "confirmed to be beef by the competent authority or authorised laboratory"

Precedent set in Indibily Creative Private Ltd. v. Government of West Bengal (2020), which established that the State is liable to pay remedial compensation for violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 through arbitrary administrative action

The court found that the State failed to discharge its burden of proof. The veterinary examiner’s report was inconclusive, merely stating the meat was "suspected" beef and explicitly requesting further testing that was never performed

Under Section 5-A(6) of the Act, a confirmatory report from an authorized laboratory is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating confiscation proceedings

The court observed that the lower authorities acted arbitrarily by ordering confiscation without a definitive finding on the nature of the meat

Since the vehicle was the petitioner’s primary source of livelihood and had been illegally detained for 18 months, the court determined that the State’s action was a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights, necessitating the grant of damages in public law

The court ordered the respondents to release the vehicle within three days and directed the State to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in damages to the petitioner within seven days for economic loss and arbitrary deprivation of property. The State was granted liberty to recover this amount from the responsible officials