Madras High Court Directs Govt To Consider Representation Seeking Regulation Of Pet Boarding Facilities Across State

The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq thus disposed of a plea field by Antony Clement Rubin, an animal rights activist. The court directed the State to consider Rubin's representation and pass orders on merit within eight weeks.

In his plea, Rubin highlighted that post Covid- there has been a substantial increase in the number of pet owners who would require pet boarding facilities for a number of reasons. He added that with the increase in demand for pet boarding facility, there was also an imperative demand that these facilities be governed by a separate set of rules and regulations to prevent the horrendous abuse of the animals.

He pointed out that presently the establishments were governed by the Indian Veterinary Council Act 1984, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules 2018 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and Marketing) Rules 2016 which deals with the requirements of registration/license/ approval etc.

Rubin submitted that these rules, however, had included a boarding kennel operator within the definition of a “breeder” which was completely incorrect. He pointed out that a boarding kennel operator was different from a breeder or a pet shop owner. Rubin added that since the boarding facility is a commercial establishment, it was essential to have the establishment properly inspected before giving approval.

Rubin added that the state could daw an outline for the rules and regulations from the United Kingdom, where the Animal Welfare (Licensing of activities involving animals) (England) Regulations 2018 was introduced to update the licensing system for various services including boarding facility.

Rubin submitted that by taking inspiration from the UK laws, the state could ensure that the boarding facilities include properly trained staff, prompt access to medical facilities, ample amount of open and closed space for pets, fire/sanitation certification, CCTV surveillance, proper security etc. He also suggested that the caretakers should be qualified to handle and interact with the pets, giving them a safe environment.

Rubin informed the court that he had sent representation to relevant authorities requesting a stringent criminal liability against Dog Boarding kennel Operators and creation of a separate set of rules to govern the running of Pet Boarding Facilities. However, since there was no response to the representations, he approached th court for suitable relief.

During the hearing, the state informed the court that it will consider Rubin's representation and pass orders on merit. Taking note of this submission, the court disposed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.Kadambri Suresh for Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam

Counsel for the respondent: Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader, Mr.V.Chandrasekaran

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 231

Case Title: Antony Clement Rubin v M Vignesh

Case No: W.P.Nos.12709 and 12710 of 2024