Stray Dogs Won't Get Aggressive If You Feed And Care For Them: Bombay High Court Tells Residential Complex Management

“If the strays are left unattended, that includes feeding, sterilization, vaccination or necessary treatment when they are ill or sick, you will have a problem with the strays coming in (the society) looking for food and getting aggressive… This issue is best solved by working together. If you provide food and some amount of care, the dogs will not get aggressive,” Justice Gautam Patel heading a division bench observed.

The court added that it resolved the issue of strays in the Bombay High Court by feeding them. "Nobody can tell a dog or a tiger what its territorial limits are, they don't know your boundaries of Seawoods Estate. We had this problem (strays) in the Bombay High Court. We solved it by feeding them. Now they just sleep,” Justice Patel added with a laugh.

The court, however, observed that once dedicated spots were identified, the financial and physical obligations to feed, sterilize, vaccinate, neuter would fall on volunteers. It sought a list of such volunteers and adjourned the matter to March 20, 2023.

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.

At present, three feeding spots have been identified by Seawoods Estate Limited (SEL) on the periphery of its boundaries on the local authorities’ land. While the court was satisfied with one plot, which was a two-acre tree belt, Justice Patel orally rejected the other two plots.

The first was adjoining a main road so the court said there were chances of accidents, while the second spot was rejected for being opposite a school.

“It is possible for you to persuade us, it's not possible for you to persuade a dog,” Justice Patel said after SEL’s counsel Advocate Aditya Pratap suggested a boundary to avoid accidents. Advocate Abha Singh appeared for two dog bite victims and pointed out the tree belts.

“You will have to be careful about children using the area. We don't want a grizzly incident being repeated at Seawoods Estate,” Justice Patel added regarding identification of new feeding spots.

The court urged that parties find other feeding spots. “We may not create rights in favour of the petitioners (dog lovers), but we will create a series of obligations. The Seawoods Estate doesn't have to pay for upkeep but just provide a safe area. Individuals will maintain it, keep it clean,” the bench said.

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina, however, said there were nine dogs, one of them very old with a tumour, who would be torn apart if they were taken to the common feeding spot. Therefore, if an exception could be carved out to feed them.

“Give them to shelter homes,” suggested Advocate Abha Singh. Andhyarujina however pointed out that denying food to a stray was cruelty under the Act. “For a dog that is very old the one thing that will kill it is a change of environment,” Justice Patel said, leaving the question open regarding those dogs.