Madras High Court Denies Cultural Status to Cockfights, Upholds Legal Prohibition

 

The Madras High Court recently reaffirmed the legal prohibition on cockfights in Tamil Nadu, emphasizing that such activities cannot be granted cultural status. Justice G.R. Swaminathan dismissed a petition seeking permission to organize a cockfight without weapons, citing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which explicitly prohibits animal fights organized by humans.

Legal Framework and Court's Reasoning

The court referenced Sections 11(1)(m)(ii) and 11(1)(n) of the Act, which penalize individuals who entice animals to fight or manage places for animal fighting. Justice Swaminathan noted that a writ of mandamus can only be issued to enforce a legal right or duty, and since the statute expressly prohibits such events, the petitioner had no legal right to claim permission. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, stating, "This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs."

Cultural Claims and Judicial Precedents

The petitioner argued that cockfights are a longstanding tradition in Tamil Nadu and should be recognized as part of the state's cultural heritage. While acknowledging that cockfights have been prevalent and even featured in popular media, the court held that cultural status cannot override statutory prohibitions. Justice Swaminathan suggested that the petitioner might have a case if the state enacts a law akin to the 2017 amendment related to Jallikattu, which allowed certain traditional practices under regulated conditions.

Consistency with Prior Judgments

The court also referred to a 2014 division bench order of the Madras High Court that prohibited cockfights. It emphasized that the orders of single judges cannot contravene binding division bench decisions, reinforcing the principle of judicial discipline and consistency.

In conclusion, the Madras High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding animal welfare laws and ensuring that cultural practices do not infringe upon legal and ethical standards. The ruling reaffirms that statutory prohibitions take precedence over claims of cultural tradition when they involve harm to animals.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community