Madras High Court Allows Review Application Against Cock Fighting Directions Due to Legal Prohibition. Directions permitting cock fighting were found to be contrary to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits such events.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Madurai In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The review application was filed by the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and Inspector of Police of Thanjavur District seeking to revisit the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by a Coordinate Division Bench in WP(MD) No. 9157 of 2017. The primary ground for the review was the legality of cock fighting in light of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which explicitly prohibits such activities under Sections 3(2), 11, and 28. The court noted that the previous directions allowing cock fighting were contrary to the provisions of the Act and should not be considered as a precedent for future permissions. Consequently, the court allowed the review application, stating that the directions were unwarranted and reaffirmed the illegality of cock fighting. The review application was allowed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Headnote

A) Animal Welfare - Legality of Cock Fighting - Directions regarding cock fighting deemed illegal - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Sections 3(2), 11, 28 - The court held that the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench regarding cock fighting were contrary to law as the Act prohibits such events, thus allowing the review application and stating that these directions should not serve as a precedent for future applications (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the directions regarding cock fighting issued by the Coordinate Division Bench should be revisited.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the review application, stating that the directions regarding cock fighting were contrary to law and should not act as a precedent for future applications.

Law Points

  • Review application
  • directions
  • Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
  • cock fighting legality
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (08) 238

Rev. Aplc(MD)No.129 of 2026

2026-08-21

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, R.SAKTHIVEL

M/s.S.I.Muthiah

District Collector Thanjavur District, Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District, Inspector of Police Town Police Station, Pattukottai

G.Manickam

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Review application against previous court directions

Remedy Sought

Review of the order permitting cock fighting

Filing Reason

Directions issued by the Coordinate Bench were contrary to law

Previous Decisions

Order dated 17.05.2017 in WP(MD) No. 9157 of 2017

Issues

Legality of cock fighting under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

Submissions/Arguments

The directions regarding cock fighting should be revisited due to legal prohibitions. The previous order allowing cock fighting is contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court reaffirmed that cock fighting is illegal under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and previous directions permitting it were unwarranted.

Judgment Excerpts

The only ground on which review is sought is that the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench regarding the manner in which the cock fight should be permitted have to be necessarily revisited. In view of the fact that the Statute prohibits such an event from taking place, we would allow the review application and hold that the directions issued by the Division Bench are contrary to law.

Procedural History

Review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order in WP(MD).No. 9157 of 2017 dated 17.05.2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: 3(2), 11, 28
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Supplier's Interpretation of Mixed Load HT Tariff in Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Clause (c) requiring 'Demand Charges plus Energy Charges' held to mean cumulative payment of both components, not an alterna...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Suspension of Life Sentence in Murder Case — Bail Granted Without Proper Application of Mind. High Court Failed to Consider Seriousness of Offence and Prima Facie Guilt Under Section 302 IPC.