Cockfighting is not per se prohibited under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, absent cruelty or gambling.

The petitioner sought permission to conduct a cock-fight event on 26.09.2026 at Athivakkam Village, Tiruvallur District.

He had submitted a representation dated 27.08.2026 to the Superintendent of Police requesting permission and police protection, but the representation had not been considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner assured the Court that no blades or knives would be tied to the cocks’ legs and that no gambling would take place during the event.

The respondents contended that cock-fighting was prohibited under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, relying on District Collector, Thanjavur District v. G. Manickam, Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.129 of 2026, dated 21.08.2026.

1. Whether cock-fighting, by itself, is prohibited under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, in the absence of gambling, cruelty, or the use of blades or other sharp instruments?

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration of his representation and permission, subject to safeguards governing the conduct of the event?

The Court applied Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, holding that the statutory prohibition is attracted where animals are subjected to cruelty, including by inducing them to fight in a manner causing injury, tying knives or blades to their legs, intoxication, or engaging in gambling connected with the event.

The Court held that cock-fighting per se is not prohibited if conducted within the statutory limits of the Act.

It relied on District Collector, Thanjavur District v. G. Manickam, Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.129 of 2026, dated 21.08.2026, concerning monitoring of cock-fighting within the framework of the 1960 Act, and on K. Saravanan v. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur, W.P.Crl.No.3454 of 2025, dated 31.01.2025, where similar safeguards were imposed.

The Court distinguished between cock-fighting as an event and the unlawful or cruel manner in which it may be conducted.

It held that Section 11 prohibits cruelty, gambling, intoxication of birds, and the use of knives or blades, but does not impose an absolute prohibition on cock-fighting itself.

Since the petitioner expressly undertook not to use sharp instruments or permit gambling, and since the event could be supervised by the police and a Government Veterinary Doctor, the Court considered that the event could proceed subject to strict safeguards.

The Court therefore directed the Superintendent of Police to decide the petitioner’s representation on merits and in accordance with law, while prescribing conditions to prevent cruelty, disorder, communal tension, unauthorised access, and gambling.

It directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 27.08.2026 and pass appropriate orders within 24 hours of receiving the order.

The event was to be subject to strict conditions, including supervision by the police and a Government Veterinary Doctor; prohibition of injury, intoxication, blades, knives, poisonous substances, gambling, communal songs or displays; payment of police and veterinary expenses by the petitioner; controlled access to the arena; provision of a separate spectator area; and compliance with all eligibility and safety requirements.

The petitioner was required to file an undertaking to comply with these conditions, and the police were authorised to take immediate action in accordance with law in the event of any violation.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.