The Allahabad High Court has set aside state orders confiscating a commercial vehicle under cow slaughter laws, ordering the Uttar Pradesh government to pay its owner Rs 20,000 in monthly compensation from the date of its seizure until its release, along with Rs 25,000 for mental distress.
Justice Sandeep Jain ruled that the seizure of Vinod Kumar Singh’s Tata Ace was grounded in unproven assumptions rather than material evidence. The court directed state authorities to release the vehicle within one week of receiving a certified copy of the ruling, provided it is not required in any other matter.
Lack Of Evidence And Unfounded Presumptions
The court found that law enforcement and administrative authorities acted without factual basis when seizing the vehicle. Justice Jain highlighted that no beef, slaughtered cattle, or remains were recovered from the vehicle, removing the essential legal foundation needed to invoke statutory presumptions under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Addressing the prosecution’s case, the court noted that authorities relied entirely on conjecture by assuming the cattle were bound for slaughter in Bihar simply because Chandauli district borders the state. The judgment emphasized that no driver statements, documentary proof, or independent witness testimony were presented to establish that the animals were being taken across state lines or to a slaughterhouse. Furthermore, state assertions that a veterinary officer found the animals injured or kept in unsafe conditions were contradicted by the actual medical report.
Background Of Confiscation And Appeals
The case stems from a September 19, 2024 incident in which Chandauli police intercepted Singh’s light commercial vehicle following an alert alleging illegal cattle transport from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar. Police registered a case under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
While prosecution officials claimed three bovine animals were recovered during the interception, Singh maintained that only one cow and one calf were being transported locally following a sale between two individuals. Singh further alleged that his vehicle was targeted after the driver refused to pay a bribe to police officers.
Despite these objections, the District Magistrate of Chandauli ordered the vehicle confiscated on March 6, 2025, citing a veterinary report, lack of a transport permit, and statutory presumptions. The Commissioner of Varanasi Division subsequently dismissed Singh’s appeal on November 27, 2025, prompting him to petition the High Court.
Livelihood Impact And Officer Accountability
In its August 5 judgment, the High Court observed that the Tata Ace constituted Singh’s primary source of earning. Despite losing the vehicle, Singh continued paying monthly loan installments until November 2025, when financial hardship forced him to default.
The court affirmed that constitutional courts possess the authority to award monetary relief when state machinery arbitrarily deprives a citizen of their livelihood. In addition to ordering monthly compensation backdated to September 19, 2024, the court granted the state government permission to conduct an internal departmental inquiry to recover the compensation amount from the officers responsible for the unlawful confiscation.
