Courting controversy, in the name of the cow

Naming a national animal is the prerogative of the executive

The Rajasthan High Court’s verdict directing the Centre to christen the cow as India’s national animal is bound to raise several questions, particularly the tendency of some judges to get drawn into political controversies. The verdict urges the cow be given the status of a legal person and directs the state and its advocate general to be “persons in loco parentis” for the animal’s preservation. The Latin phrase is a legal doctrine under which an individual assumes parental rights, duties and obligations without going through the formalities of legal adoption. The judge has also recommended enhancement of punishment for cow slaughter from the present seven years to life imprisonment.

The judgement comes at a time when many states are protesting the Centre’s decision to ban the slaughter of all cattle – cows and buffaloes – bought in agricultural markets. It is likely to embolden vigilante groups who, in the name of cow protection, have carried out attacks on minorities suspected of cow slaughtering. Also, the obscurantist observations in the judgment offer an opportunity to critics to question the judges appointment system. The basic norm that judges should speak through their judgements and not outside has been violated here. This principle is reaffirmed through Justice Sharma’s interviews, which reflect that his judgement is tainted with personal bias. In an interview Justice Sharma gave a peculiar reason for his order – the supposed celibacy of peacocks. He said his suggestion was only because “it was a voice from my soul.”

Whether an animal should be declared national or not is the executive’s prerogative. Justice Sharma should have restricted himself to the allegations made in the petition filed by the NGO Jago Janta Society seeking directions to save cows kept in Jaipur’s Hingonia gaushala and other cow sheds, given the sensitivity attached to the issue.