KATHMANDU: Supreme Court has issued a mandamus order instructing the government to draft a dedicated law for the protection and promotion of cows, the country’s national animal.

The full text of the verdict issued last November by the joint bench of Justices Kumar Regmi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel has recently been made public.

The Court ruled that existing legal provisions—such as those in the Criminal Code—are inadequate to address the rising cases of cow neglect, abuse, and illegal trade.

In addition to the call for new legislation, the Court has issued 11 directives targeting federal, provincial, and local governments, urging coordinated action to safeguard cow welfare through shelters, awareness, policy reforms, and enforcement mechanisms.

This explainer will delve into the rationale behind the Supreme Court’s decision, the legal and policy gaps it aims to address, and the detailed responsibilities placed on government institutions.

What did the Supreme Court of Nepal order regarding cow protection?

The Supreme Court of Nepal issued a mandamus order to the government, directing it to draft a separate law for the protection and promotion of cows, Nepal’s national animal. While the existing Criminal Code already criminalizes cow slaughter, the Court found these provisions inadequate to ensure proper care and conservation.

In a verdict delivered by Justices Kumar Regmi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel on November 11, 2024, the Court emphasized that a dedicated “Cow Protection and Promotion Act” is essential to address increasing instances of abandonment, abuse, and export of cows.

The decision was in response to a writ petition highlighting how cows are often left stray, pushed off cliffs, drowned in rivers, or sold abroad. The ruling mandates legal reforms to criminalize such actions and promote responsible management of cows at all three levels of government—federal, provincial, and local.

Why did the Court find current laws on cow protection insufficient?

The Supreme Court noted that although Nepal’s Criminal Code prohibits cow slaughter, it fails to address other forms of cruelty or neglect.

The Court highlighted that abandoning cows, especially after they grow old or are no longer economically useful, remains a common practice. Actions such as pushing them off cliffs, letting them starve, or smuggling them out of the country are not adequately penalized under current law.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the existing provisions do not fulfill the constitutional obligation to protect the national animal. It emphasized the need for a comprehensive legal framework that not only prohibits cow slaughter but also actively supports their welfare, protection, and sustainable use.

The ruling cited previous directives regarding animal welfare but observed that no specific legal measures had been implemented for cows despite their national and symbolic importance.

What are the main directives issued by the Court to the government?

The Court issued 11 specific directives addressed to all three levels of government. These include:

• Drafting a dedicated Cow Protection and Promotion Bill and presenting it to the federal parliament.
• Ensuring that land and properties registered under cowsheds (gaushalas) are updated and used exclusively for cow conservation.
• Constructing at least one gaushala per local unit to shelter abandoned or stray cows.
• Making arrangements for distributing such cows to willing farmers or religious institutions.
• Promoting awareness campaigns about the economic and health benefits of cow products like milk, curd, and ghee.
• Providing free insurance for domesticated cows and support for market access for dairy products.
• Prohibiting the export of cows for slaughter, except for breeding purposes.
• Including cow-related education in school curricula.

How does the Supreme Court view the role of the state in cow protection?

The Supreme Court emphasized that protecting and promoting the national animal is a constitutional and moral obligation of the state. It stated that the federal, provincial, and local governments must work in coordination to fulfill this duty.

The Court referenced Nepal’s cultural, religious, environmental, and symbolic ties with the cow, asserting that neglecting the animal undermines national identity and biodiversity.

The verdict portrays cow protection not merely as a religious or ethical issue but as one intertwined with sustainable agriculture, organic farming, human health, and environmental conservation.

The Court also linked this duty to Nepal’s broader legal framework on animal welfare and its international commitments regarding biodiversity and humane treatment of animals.

 It concluded that safeguarding the cow requires not only symbolic recognition but concrete legal and administrative action.

What measures must local governments take according to the verdict?

Local governments are required to construct and operate at least one cow shelter (gaushala) within their jurisdiction, either directly or through partnerships with farmers, NGOs, or religious institutions. The shelters must house abandoned or stray cows, which can then be provided free of cost to interested livestock farmers or groups. Furthermore, local units must:

• Recommend suitable land for gaushalas to the federal government.
• Coordinate the insurance and health monitoring of cows.
• Prevent and monitor illegal export or abuse of cows.
• Promote public awareness programs about cow welfare.

This puts significant responsibility on municipal and rural municipalities to ensure the Court’s order is implemented at the grassroots level. It also urges local authorities to update data on gaushalas, and ensure their resources are used solely for cow-related activities.

Overall, local governments are viewed as crucial agents in managing the welfare of cows, especially those left unowned.

What role do cow products and organic farming play in the Court’s directive?

The Court emphasized the economic and environmental value of cow products, particularly in the context of organic agriculture. It pointed out the fertilizing properties of cow dung and urine, which can reduce chemical dependence and promote sustainable farming.

Additionally, it highlighted the nutritional benefits of milk, curd, ghee, and other dairy items, urging government agencies to raise awareness about their importance for human health. To encourage this, the Court ordered the government to:

• Facilitate markets for dairy products.
• Provide technical and logistical support to dairy farmers.
• Promote cow-based organic farming as a national priority.
  This approach frames cow protection not merely as animal welfare but as part of a holistic rural development and food security strategy. The verdict encourages the public to see cows as economically valuable, not burdensome, which could reduce the practice of abandonment.

How will the Supreme Court’s decision be monitored and enforced?

To ensure implementation, the Court instructed the Decision Implementation Directorate to conduct continuous monitoring of the verdict.

 The federal government must communicate the order to all seven provinces and 753 local units. In addition, the Attorney General’s Office and Nepal Police Headquarters are directed to:

• Take action based on reports or media coverage about cow abuse or slaughter.
• Investigate and prosecute violators under relevant laws.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Education is to incorporate cow-related content into school curricula, reinforcing long-term awareness. This multi-agency approach indicates the Court’s intent for strict follow-up and accountability mechanisms.