Cumbum Temple Bullock-Cart Race: Madras HC Orders Permission With Welfare Safeguards, Alternative Route If Needed

In brief

The question

1. Whether the fourth respondent’s rejection of permission to conduct the proposed Rekla race should be quashed

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the fourth respondent’s impugned proceedings and directed the respondents to permit the Rekla race subject to the listed conditions.

It also directed

The fourth respondent was to verify the feasibility of the proposed route for 4 November 2026 and, if it was unsuitable, provide an alternative route

No costs were awarded

01Facts

The petitioner sought permission to conduct a double bullock-cart (Rekla) race on 4 November 2026, in connection with the Arulmigu Bagavathi Amman temple festival in Cumbum.

p. 2

After the fourth respondent rejected his request by proceedings dated 24 October 2026, the petitioner challenged that decision and sought permission and police protection.

p. 2

He relied on earlier High Court orders permitting similar races.

p. 2

The State opposed the request on grounds of possible public inconvenience and traffic disruption

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the fourth respondent’s rejection of permission to conduct the proposed Rekla race should be quashed

p. 2, 4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to conduct the race, subject to safety, animal-welfare and public-order conditions and verification of the proposed route

pp. 4–7

03Law Applied

The Court followed the directions of the Madras High Court Division Bench in WP(MD) No. 21022 of 2024 and referred to conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 68 of 2013

pp. 4, 6–7

Those conditions require, among other safeguards, separate tracks, veterinary inspection and care, prohibition of whipping or otherwise causing cruelty to bulls, and penal action for cruelty under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

pp. 4–6

The Court also imposed conditions addressing route selection, timing, participant safety, oversight and the prevention of disruption or unlawful activity

pp. 4–5

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s willingness to comply with conditions and applied the safeguards laid down in the cited High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

pp. 3–7

In light of the State’s concerns about traffic and public inconvenience, it made permission conditional on compliance with the specified safeguards and directed the fourth respondent to assess the feasibility of the proposed route.

pp. 3–7

If that route was not feasible, the authorities were to provide an alternative

pp. 3–7

05Holding

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the fourth respondent’s impugned proceedings and directed the respondents to permit the Rekla race subject to the listed conditions.

pp. 4–7

The fourth respondent was to verify the feasibility of the proposed route for 4 November 2026 and, if it was unsuitable, provide an alternative route

pp. 4–7

No costs were awarded

p. 7

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF