Cockfighting: Tradition vs. Law - Governance Dilemma

Y Babji

Practices deeply rooted in culture and tradition often resist control through laws alone. Cockfighting during Pongal/Sankranti festival in Andhra Pradesh exemplifies this tension. Despite the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act); AP Gaming Act, 1974; repeated High Court orders; police advisories; Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) interventions and PETA’s presence, betting and related activities persist underground.

Everyone acknowledges cockfighting's prevalence during this harvest festival across East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna and Guntur districts in Andhra Pradesh, with reports from parts of Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Odisha. Specially bred and fed roosters, fitted with sharp blades, compete in brutal fights while enormous sums are wagered, despite clear legal prohibition. This year alone, nearly 500 arenas reportedly operated in the two Godavari districts, with one single-fight betting reaching ₹1.5 crore, underscoring the blood sport's massive scale.

The Madras High Court recently reinforced the ban. In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a District Collector's order as illegal and violative of natural justice, seeking permission for a "knife-less" cockfight on October 26, 2025, at Kaaraikeni, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai, Justice G.R. Swaminathan dismissed it outright. The court held that organizing or inciting animals or birds to fight for entertainment violates Sections 11 (1) (m) (ii) and (n) of the PCA Act, 1960 leaving no room for cultural exemptions.

The public knows. Elected representatives know. Police and judiciary know cockfighting constitutes cruel and illegal activity. Entire government machinery is aware. Yet enforcement fails. Under tradition's guise, authorities turn a "Nelson's eye."

Regulation vs. Prohibition

Should government consider strict regulation through a dedicated authority akin to the BCCI for cricket sport to monitor, control and tax cockfighting, rather than tolerating underground operations? Could legalization reduce cruelty while generating state revenue?

No. This approach fundamentally misreads Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Article 51 A (g) imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to show compassion for living creatures and protect the environment. Article 21 extends this to animals through judicial interpretation. Regulating cruelty legitimizes it, undermining PCA Act Section 23's explicit prohibition on animal fights.

A "Cockfighting Authority of India" would face immediate judicial invalidation as ultra vires beyond legal competence. Courts have struck down similar state attempts (Andhra Pradesh notifications, Tamil Nadu permissions) as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court (2018) clarified that no tradition justifies statutory violations.

Governance Alternatives

Revenue arguments fail ethically and practically. Underground economies evade taxes anyway. Better alternatives exist:

• Eco-tourism festivals celebrating harvest without violence
• Rooster beauty contests preserving breed heritage humanely
• Digital gaming platforms channeling betting impulses legally
• Strengthened enforcement via AWBI-led task forces, drone surveillance and FIRs under BNS Sections 189 (public mischief) and 221 (disobedience)

Governance principles demand upholding constitutional bylaws over populist revenue. True leadership regulates lawful traditions, not cruelty masquerading as culture. Prohibition works when enforced - witness declining Jallikattu injuries post-regulation. Cockfighting's end requires political will, not public will, not compromise.