Manusmriti, Cow Slaughter And Secularism: The Debate Around Gujarat Court's Verdict

A Gujarat court's decision to sentence three men to life imprisonment in a cow-slaughter case has brought an ancient Hindu text, the Manusmriti, into a contemporary debate about religion and the judiciary. In its 76-page judgment, the court referred to the Manusmriti, the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures while discussing the religious significance of cows. It also observed that cows could become extinct if those responsible for their slaughter were not punished.

The verdict, delivered on October 26 by Additional Sessions Judge Brijeshkumari Rameshwarsinh Rajput at the Kalol court in Gandhinagar district, has drawn attention not only because of the punishment but also because of the religious references in the judgment. The three men were convicted under the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, as amended in 2017, and not under any religious text. The question is what role religious scriptures should have in judicial reasoning, particularly when courts are required to apply the Constitution and statutory law.

What the Gujarat court said about the Manusmriti and the cow

Traditionally attributed to Manu, the Manusmriti is an ancient Sanskrit Dharmashastra text dealing with social duties and religious norms. It is not a criminal statute or a source of binding criminal law in contemporary India.

In its judgment, the Gujarat court referred to the Manusmriti while discussing the position of cattle in Hindu religious traditions. It described cows and cattle as more than animals, referring to their significance as a pillar of society and religion.

LiveLaw reported that the judge cited the Rigveda's description of cows as Adhanya, meaning they should not be killed. The judgment also reproduced a Sanskrit verse describing the cow as the mother of all deities and the source of sacred rituals and pilgrimage sites.

Its English translation reads: ‘You are the mother of all deities, and you are the source and cause of all sacred yajnas. You are the holiest of all sacred waters and pilgrimage sites. O ever-pure, innocent and auspicious one, I always bow to you.’

The court also referred to the belief that Surabhi, or Kamadhenu, emerged when drops of nectar from Lord Brahma's mouth fell to the earth through penance. It described the cow as the “mother of the world”, an abode of 33 crore deities, with its four legs representing the four Vedas.

Another observation appeared in the sentencing discussion. Referring to the manner in which the cows were allegedly slaughtered, the judge wrote: “If such accused, who have cruelly cut the body parts of cows into pieces and separated them, are not punished in accordance with the law, then, over time, Gau Mata will become extinct from the earth.”

What Gujarat's cow-slaughter law actually says

The convictions, however, were based on state legislation. The Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, prohibits the slaughter of cows, calves, bulls and bullocks. Section 6A restricts the transportation of specified animals within Gujarat for slaughter, while Section 6B prohibits the sale, purchase, storage and transportation of beef and beef products.

The 2017 amendment made life imprisonment possible for cow slaughter under Section 8(2), with a minimum term of 10 years.

According to The Indian Express, the case followed a police raid on August 22, 2024, at a house in Dhankani Vaas, Jamla village, in Kalol taluka. Police recovered 277 kg of meat, subsequently confirmed as beef, along with weapons allegedly used for slaughter and a vehicle intended to transport it. The prosecution alleged that the accused had slaughtered cows for financial gain and intended to sell the meat. It produced 54 witnesses and 18 documentary records during the trial. The court found three of the six accused guilty.

Vasim Qureshi, Mohammad Rafiq Qureshi and Asfaq Behlim were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fined Rs 2 lakh each under Section 8(2). They were also sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 1 lakh each under Section 8(4), in relation to Sections 6A and 6B. The sentences will run concurrently, with the total fine amounting to Rs 3 lakh per convict.

The defence argued that the complaint had been lodged before the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report confirmed that the meat was beef. It also questioned whether the seized tools and vehicles had been properly examined. LiveLaw reported that the court rejected these arguments, relying on the testimony of the complainant, members of the raiding team, independent panch witnesses and a veterinary doctor, alongside the recovery and FSL evidence.

Two other accused were acquitted after receiving the benefit of doubt, while another died during the trial.

Can religious scriptures influence judicial reasoning?

The Constitution guarantees equality before the law under Article 14 and freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25, subject to public order, morality, health and other constitutional provisions.

In S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and that the state cannot identify itself with or favour any particular religion. Though the case did not concern religious references in criminal judgments, its understanding of secularism is relevant to this broader debate.

Bar and Bench reported that the judgment also quoted a Sanskrit verse stating: “Protecting cows is a religious duty, and justice is the protector of truth.”

The wider debate over religion, law and secular justice

Gujarat Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghavi welcomed the verdict in a post on X, writing: “Clear message that the law will never spare those who commit cow slaughter in Gujarat. Protecting the cow mother is Gujarat’s unwavering resolve.”

States can enforce legislation prohibiting cow slaughter, subject to constitutional limits. But citing religious texts does not automatically make a judgment unconstitutional, just as religious doctrine cannot replace statutory law. The questions are whether the court applied the law correctly, relied on evidence and remained within constitutional principles.

The Gujarat verdict brings these questions together: the enforcement of animal-preservation laws and the responsibility of courts to ground criminal decisions in statutory and constitutional principles. Its references to the Manusmriti and the Vedas have reopened the debate over how courts can acknowledge religious traditions without allowing religious doctrine to displace constitutional law.