Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
New Delhi/Shimla
In a significant verdict balancing judicial activism and constitutional limits, the Supreme Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh government, setting aside directions relating to minimum support prices (MSP), farm loan waivers, crop insurance and constitution of a State Farmers’ Commission, while leaving intact the High Court’s core directions concerning cow protection, gaushalas, gosadans and welfare of stray cattle.
The litigation stems from number of directions issued in 2014 when Bhartiya Govansh Rakshan Sanverdhan Parishad approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking protection of cows, establishment of modern gaushalas and gosadans, registration and tagging of cattle, prevention of cattle smuggling and stricter measures against cow slaughter.
The High Court treated the matter as one of immense public importance and issued a series of directions aimed at preserving cattle wealth and addressing the menace of abandoned cattle in the state.
In its landmark 2016 judgment, the High Court extensively referred to Article 48 of the Constitution, Constituent Assembly debates and various Supreme Court judgments dealing with cow protection and animal welfare. The court observed that preservation of cattle was not only a constitutional obligation but also an economic necessity for an agrarian society.
Also Read
HP High Court cracks down on Pong wetland encroachment, orders DC, forest Dept to act
Among its major directions, the High Court ordered the State government to strengthen the network of gaushalas and gosadans for abandoned and stray cattle. It directed the Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh to ensure release of sufficient funds for construction of gosadans across the state so that abandoned cattle could be properly sheltered and managed. This direction was not interfered with by the Supreme Court.
The High Court had also reiterated its earlier recommendation to the Union Government to consider enacting a national law prohibiting slaughter of cows and calves, import or export of cows and calves, and sale of beef and beef products across the country.
The court observed that while preservation of cattle falls under the State List, Parliament could also examine legislation under Entries 17 and 17-B of the Concurrent List relating to prevention of cruelty to animals and protection of animals.
It directed that necessary steps be considered within six months and ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the National Law Commission for consideration. The SC did not touch the issue on the direction issued to UOI while it mainly struck down the directions issued by HC with regards to State of Himachal Pradesh through its Chief Secretary.
During the proceedings, however, the High Court also expanded the scope of the case to address agrarian distress and issued directions relating to implementation of recommendations of the National Commission on Farmers headed by Prof. M.S. Swaminathan.
These included directions for MSP on 107 agricultural commodities, creation of a State Farmers’ Commission, farm loan waivers for small and marginal farmers and expansion of crop insurance schemes.
Challenging only these agriculture-related directions, the Himachal Pradesh government approached the Supreme Court.
The State informed the apex court that issues relating to cow welfare and cattle protection had already been addressed through enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Samvardhan Act, 2018 and therefore it was not pressing any challenge to those directions.
A three-judge Bench comprising of SC judges Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi in 25 page verdict of May 24, 2026 held that courts cannot compel governments to formulate specific policies relating to MSP, loan waivers, crop insurance or statutory commissions, as such decisions fall within the exclusive domain of the executive and legislature.
The court observed that policy-making requires assessment of financial resources, administrative feasibility and expert opinion, matters best left to elected governments.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directions concerning implementation of National Commission on Farmers recommendations, MSP, market intervention schemes, crop insurance expansion and farm loan waiver policies.
However, the apex court left untouched the directions relating to cow protection, establishment of gaushalas and gosadans, funding of cattle shelters and welfare of stray cattle.
It is worthwhile to mention that apex court quoted ‘Franfurter legacy’ and similar tarite of adopted by Indian Judiciary during its various verdicts while dealing article 226 of Indian Constitution which distinguish about separation of powers between three pillars of democracy and emphasis the role of executive on the matter of policy decisions.
The New York Times, in the Editorial, “The Frankfurter Legacy”, on 2-9-1962, while stating about the greatness of Felix Frankfurter, chose
the following expression:
“History will find greatness in Felix
Frankfurter as a Justice, not because of the results he reached but because of his attitude toward the process of decision. His guiding lights
were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble the end, and dedication to the Court as an institution.
Because he was human, Justice Frankfurter did not always live up to his own ideal. But he taught
us the lesson that there is importance in the process.”
The verdict is being seen as an important affirmation of the constitutional principle that while courts may intervene to protect public interests and fundamental concerns, formulation of economic and agricultural policies remains the prerogative of governments.
Apex court quoted a citation of judgement says.
Almost two decades and two years back, the Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] referred, with approval, the following passage
from Neely, C.J. [ Bernard Schwartz,
Administrative Law (2nd Edn.) 584.] : (SCC p. 681, para 82)
“82. … ‘I have very few illusions about
my own limitations as a Judge and from
those limitations I generalise to the
inherent limitations of all appellate courts
reviewing rate cases. It must be
remembered that this Court sees
approximately 1262 cases a year with five Judges. I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker, stockbroker, or systems management analyst. It is the height of folly to expect Judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of public utility operation.’…..”
(Emphasis Supplied)
At the same time, the judgment effectively preserves the High Court’s decade-long efforts aimed at strengthening cattle welfare infrastructure and protection of abandoned cows in Himachal Pradesh.
About the Author
