Observing that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 formulated by the Central Government notified on March 10, 2023 answers the question of feeding strays or community dogs inside a housing society “optimally”, the Bombay High Court disposed of a petition involving warring management of Seawoods Estate Limited and dog lovers from the society.Clause 20 of the Rules published by the...
Observing that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 formulated by the Central Government notified on March 10, 2023 answers the question of feeding strays or community dogs inside a housing society “optimally”, the Bombay High Court disposed of a petition involving warring management of Seawoods Estate Limited and dog lovers from the society.
Clause 20 of the Rules published by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, states that feeding of Community Animals on the society premises or in the area shall be the responsibility of the Apartment Owner Association or Local Body representative of the area who intends to feed animals as a compassionate gesture.
Food spots must be designated mutually – away from children’s play areas, entry and exit points, staircases or places that are likely to be frequented by children and senior citizens. It further states that feeders should ensure there is no littering or violation of the Resident Associations guidelines.
Significantly, in case a dispute arises between the apartment owners and care givers, a 7 member Animal Welfare Committee would be formed and its decision would be final.
“If this is the architecture of the Rules, then clearly there is no issue for us to decide. There is now legislative framework that occupies the field,” Justice Patel said while clarifying that Seawoods Estate Limited would “without any doubt” fall under the definition of Resident Welfare Association.
However, the court took exception that the 7-member Animal Welfare Committee, constituted in case of a conflict, did not include dog feeders “who are themselves taking on the burden of feeding and caring for community animals.” “We believe this is necessary and we recommend it,” the judge added.
Justice Patel noted the Rules are not enacted in a vacuum and have a legislative and constitutional context to them.
The Rules are enacted under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to have compassion for all living creatures. Moreover, Part IV of the Directive Principles of State Policy do justify and warrant such rules to be framed.
“Whether this is improving as far Article 48A is perhaps a debate for another day. There is at least some law, and certainly this has been developed overseas that fundamental constitution safeguards guaranteed by the constitution must be held to vest even in non-human actors.”
It added that there has been a trend in HCs recently to recognise these rights. “While it has been brought in sufficiently at least in American jurisprudence to include representative action on behalf of other non-human living creatures. A recent trend being in this country, in some High Courts is been to recognise the vesting of such rights.”
The court said that these dimensions could be examined in an appropriate case alongside India’s international obligations.
It appreciated the fact that the Rules were not limited to dogs and excluded only wild animals and pets.
Facts of the Case
The bench was hearing a petition filed by six residents of a residential complex at Seawoods in Navi Mumbai, seeking a direction to the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) to identify and demarcate feeding stations for stray dogs in public places.
The residents have also challenged fines imposed on them by their housing society for feeding strays. The petitioners and the Seawoods Estates Limited (SEL), which manages the residential complex, have been at loggerheads over the issue.
During the previous hearing, the court sought assistance from an NGO ‘The Welfare of Stray Dogs’ (WSD) which has been working in the sphere for the last several decades.
Order
Since the matter regarding Seawood’s would have to be referred to a 7-member committee under Rule 21, the HC said that CEO of ‘The Welfare of Stray Dogs’ – Abodh Aras should be a part of the committee as a ‘Recognised Animal Welfare Organisation’ as he had already filed two reports on the present issue and since his recommendations were measured.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina – Amicus Curiae
Advocate Aditya Pratap – Seawoods Estate Ltd
Advocate Abha Singh – Dog bite complainant
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 148