No Legal Right To Conduct Cock Fight, Cultural Status Cannot Be Conferred: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that a cultural status cannot be conferred on cock fight in the State of Tamil Nadu and there exists no legal right to conduct it.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition whereby a person had sought permission to organize a cock fight event.

The Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminanthan observed, "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 Supreme Court case mentioned above pertains to Telangana region. 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......A writ of mandamus can be issued only to enforce a legal right or a legal duty. The petitioner has no legal right..."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate S. Shanmugam, while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate M.Gangatharan.

The Court rejected the reliance placed on an order of the single judge bench citing a division bench's ruling in S.Kannan Vs. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and Others, 2014.

"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 Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid decision gave a purposive interpretation to the word animal as including birds. This approach is in consonance with the definition of the term animal found in Section 2(a) of the Act. “Animal”, as per the statutory definition, means any living creature other than a human being. 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 observed.

With respect to a division bench's ruling in M.Munusamy @ Chinnapaiyan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, 2023 whereby cockfight was allowed, the Court ruled, "I carefully went through the said order. I could not discern any ratio therein. 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. The 2014 decision (Kannan) is in accord with the statutory scheme. In the latter decision, there is no reference to Section 11 of the Act at all. The 2023 decision should therefore be confined to the facts of that case."

Addressing the argument about the Supreme Court allowing cockfight in 2018, the Court stressed that it cannot defy the statutory mandate as provided in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as the Supreme Court in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution can pass any order to render substantial justice, while such leeway is not available to the High Courts.

"....There are exempting provisions in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Section 28 reads that nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community. Section 17 enables experiments to be performed for scientific purposes with minimal suffering. In the name of culture, certain events such as Jallikattu have been permitted. Even Article 29 of the Constitution of India was invoked for that purpose....", the Court stated.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: M Muventhan v. The District Collector

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate S. Shanmugam, 

Respondent- Government Advocate M.Gangathara, Government Advocate A.Albert James

Click here to read/ download Order