Introduction:
The Madras High Court, in the case of M. Muventhan v. The District Collector [W.P.(MD) No.27950 of 2025; 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 371], delivered a firm ruling that there exists no legal or constitutional right to conduct cockfights, as such activities are explicitly prohibited under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The judgment was delivered by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who underscored that the statute clearly bars any animal fight organized by human beings and that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to protect an act prohibited by law. The petitioner, who had approached the Court after being denied permission by the District Collector to conduct a cockfight (allegedly without knives), argued that such events are part of cultural traditions and should be permitted within limited bounds. However, the Court rejected this argument outright, reiterating that cultural practices cannot be used as a shield to justify acts of cruelty against animals. In doing so, the Court drew a clear line between lawful traditions and practices that violate statutory prohibitions, reaffirming the supremacy of the rule of law and the constitutional duty to prevent animal cruelty.
Arguments of the petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate S. Shanmugam, approached the Madras High Court challenging the decision of the District Collector, who had refused to grant permission for organizing a cockfight event in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner asserted that the intended event would not involve the use of knives or any sharp instruments, which are often associated with fatal cockfights. According to the petitioner, the event was to be conducted in a controlled environment as a cultural and recreational activity, without inflicting harm on the birds. He argued that cockfighting, stripped of violent instruments, should be treated as a harmless local custom and that it continues to form part of traditional celebrations and rural community gatherings.
In support of his plea, the petitioner relied on certain earlier decisions of single judges of the Madras High Court, in which similar petitions had been allowed, permitting cockfights to take place under the condition that no knives or harmful objects be used. He maintained that these precedents recognized cockfighting as part of local heritage and permitted it to continue under humane conditions. The petitioner further contended that the District Collector’s refusal violated his right to equality under Article 14 and his right to cultural expression under Article 29 of the Constitution. He pleaded that the event was not intended for gambling or profit but purely for entertainment and maintaining a cultural identity that had existed for generations in rural Tamil Nadu.
The petitioner also invoked the example of Jallikattu, the bull-taming sport that was once banned under the same Act but later legalized following massive public outcry and the 2017 amendment passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislature. Drawing a parallel, he argued that if Jallikattu, once condemned as cruel, could be restored as a recognized cultural sport through legislative intervention, cockfighting too deserved similar recognition. He contended that the government should either frame guidelines or propose an amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to regulate cockfights rather than ban them altogether. The petitioner appealed to the Court’s sense of cultural preservation, urging it to view cockfighting not as an act of cruelty but as a reflection of local tradition and social bonding.
Arguments of the respondents (State authorities):
On behalf of the respondents, Government Advocates M. Gangatharan and A. Albert James argued that the petitioner’s request was untenable in law and contrary to express statutory prohibitions. The respondents cited Sections 11(1)(m)(ii) and 11(1)(n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which criminalize the act of causing, encouraging, or organizing any fight between animals. These provisions, the State contended, make it explicitly illegal for any person to keep or use any premises for the purpose of organizing such animal fights, whether or not weapons or knives are used. The respondents maintained that the District Collector acted well within his legal duty in denying permission, as any contrary decision would amount to condoning an illegal activity.
The State further emphasized that the judiciary cannot compel public authorities to violate statutory prohibitions by issuing a writ of mandamus. The government counsel argued that a writ can only be issued to enforce an existing legal right, not to permit something that the law expressly forbids. Therefore, the petitioner’s request for mandamus to direct the authorities to allow a cockfight was not maintainable. The respondents also pointed out that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in a binding precedent from 2014, had categorically prohibited cockfights in Tamil Nadu. The State submitted that the petitioner’s reliance on contrary single-judge decisions was misplaced, as those judgments could not override the authority of a Division Bench ruling.
The State further contended that animal welfare is a constitutional responsibility under Article 51A(g), which casts a duty on citizens to have compassion for living creatures. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act embodies this constitutional spirit, ensuring that animals are protected from unnecessary suffering or exploitation in the name of entertainment or culture. The government advocates also highlighted that the Supreme Court, in multiple judgments, has reaffirmed the need to prioritize animal welfare over cultural claims when the two come into conflict. Hence, even if cockfights are considered prevalent in certain areas, their popularity or cultural familiarity cannot justify their legality when the law categorically prohibits them.
Court’s reasoning and judgment;
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, after carefully hearing both sides, delivered a detailed and reasoned order dismissing the writ petition. The Court categorically held that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to seek permission for conducting a cockfight, even one purportedly without knives. Justice Swaminathan emphasized that a writ of mandamus can be issued only to enforce a legal right or a corresponding legal duty. In the present case, the petitioner sought to compel the authorities to permit an activity that was explicitly barred by the statute itself. The Court held that when the law expressly prohibits an act, no citizen can claim it as a legal right.
The Court referred to Sections 11(1)(m)(ii) and 11(1)(n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which penalize any person who either directly participates in or facilitates animal fights. Justice Swaminathan clarified that these provisions leave no room for interpretation or relaxation—the law unambiguously prohibits organizing or managing any event involving animal fights, irrespective of whether knives are used. The Court rejected the argument that cockfighting without knives is permissible, reasoning that cruelty does not depend solely on the use of weapons but on the very act of forcing animals to engage in violent behavior for human amusement.
Addressing the petitioner’s claim that cockfighting is a part of Tamil Nadu’s cultural tradition, the Court observed that while the sport may have historical prevalence and even cinematic representation—citing the popular Tamil film Aadukalam, which portrays cockfighting as a central theme—such cultural familiarity does not translate into legal legitimacy. The Court observed that “even though cockfight 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 cockfight in the State of Tamil Nadu.” Justice Swaminathan firmly held that the judiciary cannot confer cultural recognition on an activity that is expressly prohibited by statute.
The Court further noted that the petitioner might have a case if the State of Tamil Nadu were to enact a specific amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, akin to the 2017 amendment that legalized Jallikattu following widespread protests. However, until such legislation is passed, the Court cannot recognize cockfighting as a permissible activity under existing law. The judge stated, “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 the Jallikattu agitation.”
Justice Swaminathan also addressed the issue of conflicting judicial opinions. He noted that while some single judges had previously allowed cockfights without knives, those orders were inconsistent with the binding decision of the Division Bench rendered in 2014, which had prohibited cockfighting altogether. The Court reiterated that when single-judge decisions conflict with a Division Bench ruling, judicial discipline mandates that the latter must prevail. Thus, any earlier decisions permitting cockfights could not be relied upon.
Regarding the reference to a Supreme Court decision where cockfights had been allowed, Justice Swaminathan clarified that the Supreme Court enjoys special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass orders for complete justice, even in situations where strict application of the law may lead to injustice. However, the High Court does not possess similar powers, and hence cannot make exceptions to statutory prohibitions. Therefore, the High Court was constrained by law and bound to dismiss the petition.
Concluding his judgment, Justice Swaminathan held: “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’s decision reaffirms the principle that compassion and legality must take precedence over cultural practices when they conflict, emphasizing that India’s constitutional morality places the protection of all living beings at the forefront of legal policy.
Conclusion:
The Madras High Court’s judgment in this case stands as a clear and emphatic reaffirmation that cruelty to animals cannot be disguised as culture or tradition. Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s ruling reminds us that compassion, not cruelty, defines the moral core of a civilized society. By refusing to legitimize cockfighting even without knives, the Court upheld both the letter and the spirit of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, ensuring that animals are not made to suffer for human amusement. The decision also draws a crucial distinction between legitimate cultural practices and acts of violence that violate statutory and constitutional principles. While the judgment leaves open the theoretical possibility of future legislation akin to the Jallikattu amendment, it firmly closes the door on judicial endorsement of cockfighting under the current legal regime. In doing so, the Madras High Court has reinforced India’s constitutional values of compassion, equality, and respect for all living beings, asserting that entertainment can never come at the expense of ethics and humanity.