cock fight as the Statute expressly prohibits an animal fight organised by humans. Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 11(1)(n) of the Prevention of
The Madras High Court recently observed that there was no legal right to conduct a cock fight as the Statute expressly prohibits an animal fight organised by humans.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 11(1)(n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act penalise any person who entices any animal to fight any other animal or who organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of any place for animal fighting. Thus, noting that there was a statutory bar, the court was not inclined to grant the relief.
“ A writ of mandamus can be issued only to enforce a legal right or a legal duty. The petitioner has no legal right. On the other hand, the statute expressly prohibits an animal fight event organized by human beings. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs,” the court said.
The court added that though cock fights were prevalent and well known, it could not be given a cultural status. The court added that the petitioner may have a legal right if the State decides to bring an amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, similar to one brought in 2017 following the Jallikattu issue.
“ Even though cock fight can be said to be prevalent and there is even a well known film “Aadukalam” featuring it as its central theme, I am afraid that cultural status cannot be conferred on cock fight in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner may have a case, if the State of Tamil Nadu enacts a law akin to the 2017 amendment made in the wake of Jallikattu agitation,” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a man against the District Collector’s refusal to grant permission for organising cock fight (without a knife). The petitioner relied on the previous orders of the court, where the court had allowed cock fights to be conducted without knives.
The court, however, was not inclined to take a similar view. The court held that the orders of the judges ran counter to a 2014 division bench order of the high court prohibiting cock fights. The court added that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act had expressly prohibited organising and conducting cock fights. The court held that when the decision of the single judges was opposed to that of the division bench, the court was obliged to follow what was laid down by the division bench.
Though the court noted that the Supreme Court had allowed cock fight in one of its decisions, it held that the Supreme Court could pass such orders to render substantial justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, but such leeway was not available to the High Courts.
Thus, noting that there was no enforceable right, the court dismissed the plea.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Shanmugam
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Gangatharan, Government Advocate, Mr. A. Albert James, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
Case Title: M Muventhan v. The District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
Case No: W.P(MD) No.27950 of 2025
