"Adoption Should Not Mean Strays Dogs Have To Be Brought To Home Of Feeders", Supreme Court Says While Hearing Plea Against HC Direction
The Supreme Court on Friday considered a petition filed challenging a recent decision of the Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) against feeding of stray dogs in public spaces.A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari however refused to pass an interim order that no coercive steps in pursuance of the High Court order should be taken in the meanwhile.During the hearing,...
The Supreme Court on Friday considered a petition filed challenging a recent decision of the Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) against feeding of stray dogs in public spaces.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari however refused to pass an interim order that no coercive steps in pursuance of the High Court order should be taken in the meanwhile.
During the hearing, Justice Khanna orally remarked, "The order is an omnibus direction which may require some modification. If stray dogs are not fed, they will become more aggressive. We need to have the assistance of the Municipal Corporation. At the same time, there has to be checks".
Justice Khanna orally remarked that the portion of the order that prohibits feeding dogs altogether unless adopted needs to be changed.
"Adoption should not mean that the strays will have to be brought to the homes of the feeders", Justice Khanna orally said.
The bench listed the matter next on November 16 and directed the petitioners to serve the copies on the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and the Animal Welfare Board.
However, the Bench refuses to grant interim relief and direct that coercive steps would not be taken against people found to violate the HC order till the next date. Khanna J says, "The fine is just Rs 200. It does not make a difference."
The impugned decision requires persons interested in feeding stray dogs to first adopt and register such dogs with Municipal Authorities or to put them in some shelter home. Meanwhile, the High Court also directed the concerned authorities under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to detain all stray dogs wandering in the public streets.
The Petitioners allege that these directions not only adversely affect the rights of street dogs, care-givers but are also contrary to both statutory provisions as well as the orders of the Supreme Court.
It avers that after the High Court's direction, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation has started picking up and detaining street dogs on a large scale. However, the authorities have failed to take into consideration that the Guidelines issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India in relation to feeding of stray dogs and the Guidelines with respect to harassment of citizens showing compassion towards other living creatures.
The plea highlights that there is no legislation which prohibits feeding of stray dogs or otherwise makes it a penal offence and thus contends that Article 226 cannot be invoked to direct statutory authorities to act contrary to law.
It states that blanket direction for detention of stray dogs is illegal inasmuch as Rule 7 of the Animal Birth Control Rules makes it abundantly clear that capturing/detention of dogs shall be based on "specific complaints" about nuisance or dog bite.
It refers to Supreme Court's decision in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja which recognized that animals' right to life and dignity and the right to get protection from human beings.
It is submitted that the High Court's decision is also inconsistent with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 3 whereof guarantees the right to get food, shelter to animals.
The plea asserts that "to have compassion for living creatures" is a constitutional mandate, as reflected in Article 51-A(g) under Part IV-A of the Constitution which declares Fundamental Duties of every citizen.
"Every citizen must show kindness and love towards non-vocal beings, including stray dogs," the plea states.
The petition has been filed by Advocate Abhay Antutkar, Adv. Bhavya Pande,Adv. Dhruv Tank and Adv. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR.
Case Title: Swati Sudhirchandra Chatterjee & Ors. v. Vijay Shankarrao Talewar & Ors.