Sanchayita Lahkar

The Madras High Court at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan dismissed a petition seeking permission to conduct a cockfight event in Madurai District, holding that there exists no legal right to organize such animal fights. The Court observed that Sections 11(1)(m)(ii) and 11(1)(n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, expressly prohibit and penalize any act of inciting or managing animal fights for entertainment. Citing the statutory bar against such activities, the Court declined to grant relief and reaffirmed that events involving animal fighting, even without weapons, fall within the scope of prohibited conduct.

The petitioner, M. Muventhan, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order issued by the District Collector of Madurai dated 19 September 2025, which denied permission to conduct a cock fight scheduled for 26 October 2025. The petitioner requested that the Court direct the respondents to grant permission to organize the event, asserting that the proposed cock fight would be conducted without knives attached to the birds.

Also Read: [Art. 226]: High Courts Not to Exercise Writ Jurisdiction in Service Matters Within Tribunal’s Scope: Supreme Court

The petitioner relied upon two earlier single-judge decisions of the Madras High Court: G. Diwahar v. District Collector, Theni District and others (2024) and Rajesh Kumar v. District Collector, Madurai District (2025), where permission had been granted for similar events. The petitioner contended that these precedents justified his right to conduct the proposed event.

However, the respondents argued that cock fights, whether with or without knives, amount to animal fighting prohibited under Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. They relied upon judicial and administrative directives forbidding such practices.

Referring to prior judicial precedents, the Court stated that he was “not persuaded” by the orders cited by the petitioner, as they were contrary to the Division Bench judgement in S. Kannan v. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and Others (2014) 3 CTC 676. The Bench noted that “Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 penalizes any person who solely with a view to providing entertainment incites any animal to fight any other animal or who organizes, keeps, uses or acts in the management of any place for animal fighting.”

The Bench observed that the Division Bench had interpreted the term “animal” to include birds, consistent with Section 2(a) of the Act, which defines an animal as “any living creature other than a human being.” Justice Swaminathan stated, “When the decision of the Single Judges is opposed to the decision of the Division Bench, I am obliged to follow what was laid down by the Division Bench.”

The Court also took note of a circular memorandum issued by the Director General of Police on 28 August 2025, which prohibited cock fights in accordance with directions issued by the High Court on 13 August 2025 in a batch of related petitions.

While the petitioner referred to an earlier Division Bench decision in M. Munusamy @ Chinnapaiyan v. Superintendent of Police (2023), which appeared to allow a cock fight, the Court held that the said order contained no discernible legal ratio and must be confined to its facts. “When I am faced with two conflicting decisions rendered by Benches of equal strength, I am obliged to follow that decision which is based on a principle and which reflects the legal position more accurately,”

Justice Swaminathan recorded, “When Section 11(1)(m) and (n) stare at my face, I cannot defy the statutory mandate. The Supreme Court in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution can pass any order to render substantial justice. Such leeway is not available to the High Courts.”

Also Read: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Men Who Gathered for Live Telecast of Ram Temple Consecration, Terms It Not Unlawful Assembly

“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.”

“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.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Shanmugam, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. M. Gangatharan, Government Advocate; Mr. A. Albert James, Government Advocate

Case Title: M. Muventhan v. The District Collector, Madurai District & Others
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No. 27950 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan