Court recognizes customary practices subject to legal restrictions, allowing cock fighting with conditions to prevent animal cruelty.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 26.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY S.Desingu Raja ... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Collector, District Collector's Office, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police Office, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thirukkurungudi Polic eStation, Tirunelveli District.

5.The Assistant Director, Veterinary Hospital Campus, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.En. 28/se.mu.aa/Ka.thou.ka/Nanguneri/2026, dated 17.02.2026 by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission and police protection for conducting Rooster Fighting at Mavadi, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, on 08.03.2026 or any other date in order to celebrate Tamilnadu Chief Minister's Birthday.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Naresh Prabu Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Thambidurai (for R1, R5 and R6)

Government Advocate Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, (for R2 to R4)

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.En.28/se.mu.aa/Ka.thou.ka/Nanguneri/2026, dated 17.02.2026 by the third respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to grant permission and police protection for conducting Rooster Fighting at Mavadi, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, on 08.03.2026 or any other date in order to celebrate Tamilnadu Chief Minister's Birthday.

2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that, on the very same facts and in respect of the same village, an earlier writ petition was filed in W.P.(MD) No. 11611 of 2025, and this Court, vide order dated 28.04.2025, rejected the permission sought. In the said order, it was stated that rooster fighting (cock fighting) has not been recognized as a cultural event. Hence, rooster fighting (cock fighting) is illegal under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (in short, “PCA Act, 1960”). However, there are several other orders wherein, permission was granted. In one such order passed in W.P.Crl.(MD) No.2575 of 2025 dated 05.01.2026, this Court referred to various earlier orders and arrived at a conclusion. The same is extracted hereunder:

4. The contention of the petitioner is that ‘Cock-Flight’ is one of the customary festivals in Tamil Nadu and the same is conducted during the ‘Thai Pongal’ festival. Since it is a customary practice, the petitioner seeks to continue the same.

5. Per contra, the respondents vehemently objected, stating that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court declined permission vide order dated 21.05.2014 in W.P.(MD) No.8040 of 2014. Following the same, a learned Single Judge of this Court also declined permission vide order dated 09.10.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.27950 of 2025. However, another Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.(MD) No. 13048 of 2025, permitted the conduct of ‘Kidaa-Muttu’. Since ‘Cock-Flight’ is stated to be similar in nature, the petitioner seeks similar permission.

6. Further, another learned Single Judge of the Principal Bench at Madras, vide order dated 15.04.2025 in W.P. No.13309 of 2025, had permitted the conduct of ‘Cock-Flight’.

7. Since there are inconsistent orders, the respondent police submitted that permission cannot be granted. However, the learned counsel ap