P. MURUGAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. W.P.(MD)NO.153 OF 2026 AND W.M.P.(MD)NO.136 OF 2026:

DATE: 07/01/2026

COURT: High Court of Madurai

BENCH: Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan

FACTS:

In this writ petition filed before the Madras High Court, the petitioner, Murugan, who identified himself as the President of the Avaniyapuram Village Jallikattu Committee, sought a mandamus directing the authorities to grant permission and provide adequate police protection for his committee to conduct the Jallikattu festival at Avaniyapuram village on January 15, 2026. The petition was based on the claim that the committee represented the village's interests in organizing the traditional event.

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, opposed the plea, stating that under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, and the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Animal Welfare Department on November 21, 2025, the Jallikattu at Avaniyapuram is organized directly by revenue officials with assistance from villagers forming part of an Advisory Committee. Due to the international significance of Jallikattu events at Avaniyapuram, Alanganallur, and Palamedu, the State takes direct responsibility for their organization, precluding independent committees from conducting them.

ISSUES:

The primary issues in this case revolved around whether the petitioner's committee should be granted independent permission and police protection to organize the Jallikattu festival at Avaniyapuram village on January 15, 2026, and whether the Advisory Committee assisting the State should include collective representation from all communities in the village to ensure fairness and inclusivity in the event's management.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition, recording the submissions from both sides, and directed that the Advisory Committee be constituted in accordance with previous practices and the guidelines issued by the court in a batch of writ petitions from 2020 (W.P.(MD)No.526 of 2020 etc., dated January 13, 2020). The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.

The court reasoned that the organization of Jallikattu at Avaniyapuram holds international importance, alongside similar events at Alanganallur and Palamedu, which justifies the State's direct involvement in conducting these festivals. As per the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, and the recent Standard Operating Procedure from the Animal Welfare Department dated November 21, 2025, the responsibility lies with revenue officials, assisted by an Advisory Committee comprising villagers. This framework ensures standardized and regulated execution, preventing independent entities like the petitioner's committee from seeking separate permissions, as it could undermine the State's oversight and the event's structured management.

Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioner's concern regarding the Advisory Committee's composition by accepting the State's assurance that it would follow established practices from prior years, aligned with the High Court's own guidelines from 2020. This approach promotes inclusivity without necessitating judicial intervention to mandate specific community representations, as the existing mechanisms were deemed sufficient to balance community interests while maintaining administrative efficiency and adherence to legal standards for such cultural events.

ANALYSIS:

This Madras High Court decision reinforces the State's exclusive authority over organizing major Jallikattu events at Avaniyapuram, Alanganallur, and Palamedu, treating them as events of international importance rather than purely local village affairs. By invoking the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, and the updated Standard Operating Procedure from the Animal Welfare Department (dated November 21, 2025), the court upheld a structured, government-led framework where revenue officials directly manage the festival with support from an Advisory Committee of villagers. This approach prevents fragmentation of control that could arise from independent committees, ensuring uniformity, regulatory compliance (including animal welfare and public safety), and centralized accountability. The ruling dismisses the petitioner's claim to independent permission, emphasizing that self-styled village committees lack any standalone right to conduct the event, particularly when the State has assumed direct responsibility to preserve its cultural significance while mitigating risks associated with large-scale public gatherings.

The court's handling of the inclusivity concern, regarding representation of all communities in the Advisory Committee demonstrates a pragmatic and restrained judicial approach. Rather than issuing a fresh mandate for specific composition changes, the bench accepted the State's assurance that the committee would be formed in line with established past practices and the High Court's own guidelines from the 2020 batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.526 of 2020 etc.). This deference to administrative continuity and prior judicial directions promotes community participation without judicial overreach, addressing potential social tensions in multi-community villages while maintaining administrative efficiency. Overall, the judgment balances cultural preservation, state sovereignty in public events, and limited inclusivity safeguards, underscoring that Jallikattu at these premier venues is now a regulated state-sponsored tradition, not amenable to private or localized claims, especially given its global recognition and the need for standardized execution amid ongoing animal rights and safety debates.