Cockfights cannot be permitted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Madurai Bench rules, overruling earlier directions

The petitioners—the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and Inspector of Police, Thanjavur District—filed a review application under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of an order dated 17 May 2017 passed by a Coordinate Division Bench in W.P.(MD) No. 9157 of 2017.

The earlier order had issued directions concerning the manner in which a cockfight could be conducted. The review was sought on the ground that such directions were contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which, according to the petitioners, prohibited cockfights.

Whether the order dated 17 May 2017, permitting or regulating the conduct of a cockfight, was liable to be reviewed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as being contrary to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?

Whether the directions issued by the Coordinate Division Bench could operate as a precedent for seeking permission to conduct cockfights in future?

The Court applied Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permit review of a judgment or order on legally recognised grounds, including the discovery of an error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason.

It relied on Sections 3(2), 11, and 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as understood by the Court to prohibit cockfights under the statutory scheme.

The Court accepted the petitioners’ contention that the earlier Coordinate Bench directions concerning the manner of conducting a cockfight were inconsistent with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Since the Court considered cockfighting to be prohibited by Sections 3(2), 11, and 28 of the Act, it concluded that judicial directions regulating such an event could not validate or authorise conduct barred by statute.

The Review Application was allowed. The Court further directed that those directions should not operate as a precedent in any future application seeking permission to conduct a cockfight. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.