The Supreme Court of India has issued an interim stay on a Madras High Court directive that imposed a comprehensive ban on the slaughter of cows and calves within the state of Tamil Nadu.

印度最高法院已發出臨時禁制令，暫緩馬德拉斯高等法院一項全面禁止在泰米爾納德邦屠宰牛隻及小牛的指令。

The judicial intervention occurred following a Special Leave Petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, challenging a May 27 judgment. The contested order, issued by Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan, had mandated that the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police prevent all bovine slaughter, regardless of the date or occasion, including the festival of Bakrid. This directive originated from a public interest litigation filed by K Surya Prasanth of the Hindu Makkal Katchi, although the state contended that the court's final mandate exceeded the scope of the original prayers, which sought only to prevent slaughter in non-designated areas of Coimbatore.

在泰米爾納德邦政府針對 5 月 27 日的判決提交特別許可請願書後，法院介入了。由 GR Swaminathan 與 V Lakshminarayanan 法官發出的爭議指令，要求首席秘書與警察總監防止所有牛隻屠宰，無論日期或場合，包括 Bakrid 節日。此指令源於由印度人民黨 (Hindu Makkal Katchi) 的 K Surya Prasanth 提起的公益訴訟，但邦政府主張法院最終的指令超出了原請願的範圍，原請願僅要求防止在 Coimbatore 非指定區域內屠宰。

Legal friction centers on the perceived divergence between the judicial mandate and the existing statutory framework. The state administration, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, asserted that the high court engaged in judicial legislation by overriding the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act of 1958. Under this statute, the slaughter of cows exceeding ten years of age is permissible, provided a competent authority certifies the animal as permanently unfit for breeding or labor. The state further argued that the high court's reliance on a 1976 executive order—intended to bolster milk production and the rural economy—was improper, as executive instructions cannot supersede legislative statutes.

法律衝突的核心在於司法指令與現有法定框架之間被視為的分歧。由高級律師 Abhishek Manu Singhvi 代表的邦政府聲稱，高等法院透過推翻 1958 年的《泰米爾納德邦動物保護法》進行了「司法立法」。根據該法令，若權限機關證明牛隻永久不適合繁殖或勞作，年滿 10 歲的牛隻是被允許屠宰的。邦政府進一步主張，高等法院依賴 1976 年一份旨在增加牛奶產量與促進鄉村經濟的行政命令是不恰當的，因為行政指令不能取代立法法規。

Furthermore, the state highlighted a systemic contradiction within the high court's ruling. While the judgment acknowledged that slaughter is restricted to designated facilities under current law, it simultaneously imposed a blanket prohibition. The administration also disputed the high court's finding that authorities had conceded to the occurrence of public slaughter, maintaining that preventive measures were already in place to confine ritual sacrifices to non-public, enclosed locations.

此外，邦政府強調高等法院的裁決中存在系統性矛盾。雖然判決承認根據現行法律，屠宰僅限於指定設施，但同時又施加了全面禁止。政府亦反駁高等法院關於當局已承認發生公眾屠宰的認定，並堅持已採取預防措施，將祭祀活動限制在非公共的封閉地點。

The Supreme Court has stayed the operative portion of the high court's order and issued notice to the respondents for further adjudication.

最高法院已暫緩高等法院指令的執行部分，並通知回應者以作進一步裁決。