High Courts Can Hear Stray Dogs Issue, Clarifies Supreme Court; Seeks Dog Bite Statistics Of Last 7 Years

A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari clarified that an earlier order of the Supreme Court on November 18, 2015 did not intend for all proceedings before High Courts to come to a standstill, in cases pertaining to stray dogs. Highlighting this, the court said,

"The order of this court dated 18.11.2015, last paragraph requires clarification. We do not think it is the intent of this court in the said order that all Writ petitions and proceedings before High Courts should come to a standstill and no effective orders can be passed by High Courts in cases pertaining to stray dogs…..Accordingly, to avoid ambiguity, we clarify that order dated 18.11.2015 does not bar or prohibit the authorities, individuals including associations and societies from approaching jurisdictional High Courts."

The Court further pointed out that there would be individual cases relating to applicability and enforcement of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 1960, Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules as well as state laws which may require detailed hearing of parties and location-specific orders.

While passing the order, the Supreme Court reminded that High Courts would have to bear in mind the previous orders and precedents set by the Top Court.

These directions were passed in batch of appeals passed by the Animal Welfare Board of India challenging the orders passed by different High Courts in relation to stray dogs issues. The Animal Welfare Board was represented by Advocate Manisha Karia.

During the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of a Residential Complex in Navy Mumbai that 10-15 dog-bite cases  took place in the last one year, within its premises.

Senior Advocate C U Singh, opposing this, told that dog-feeding was allowed only in designated areas and that fines were imposed on those persons violating the rule. He requested that the matter be heard by the High Court and not the Top Court.

Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal, appearing for Gauri Maulekhi, trustee for People for Animal Welfare and Ahinsa Trust, submitted that the proceedings before the Bombay High Court had come to a standstill in the light of the Supreme Court considering the issue.

The Top Court observed that approaching the High Court is the appropriate remedy as the area-specific problems will have to be taken into consideration,

 Accordingly, the court ordered for the related writ petition and as well the contempt petition before the Bombay High Court to be decided on law.

"We don't want to deal with specific individual cases. We will issue only general guidelines. But cases whether feeding should be permitted, whether there is problem in that particular complex. These are area-specific, occasion-specific".

Further, the Bench added,

"You may have a genuine concern. If I were in your place, if my children have gone out to play, I would be scared. I will not like to go to a complex like this, where dog-bites are reported. We will permit you to go to the High Court. If any adverse order passed, you can come here".

The Court however clarified that it will adjudicate the larger legal issue relating to the repugnancy between the State rules and Central rules in relation to stray dog control.

Kerala High Court to continue hearing In Re Bruno Case, SC

During the hearing, Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh, appearing for an animal rights advocacy group,  informed the bench of the suo motu case before the Kerala High Court - In Re Bruno case and how a special bench was constituted to hear individual cases pertaining to violence against dogs as well as dog-bite cases. In that light, the request was that High Court be permitted to continue hearing the matter.

Advocate VK Biju opposed this request.

"These arguments will not convince us that HC should not deal with the matter", the court said in response and ordered for the case to be continued before the High Court.

"Proceedings before Kerala High Court in Re Bruno shall continue in accordance with the laws. Pendency of these SLPs and appeals would not come in the way of the said proceedings. It goes without saying that orders passed by this court would apply", read the court's order.

The Court also noted that the problem in Kerala was quite "peculiar".

"In Kerala, the problem seems to be quite peculiar. All of us are dog lovers but if there's a problem, it has to be dealt with."

Animal Welfare Board to Give Numbers of Dog-Bite Cases, SC

The Court further directed the Animal Welfare Board (Board) to file an affidavit on statistics of dog bites during the last 7 years in different states and prominent cities and to indicate the steps taken to curb it.

It further asked the Board to indicate whether they would like Supreme court to lay down certain guidelines on the issue. The Board has also been asked state whether local authorities have complied and implemented the orders dated November 18, 2015 and March 9, 2016.

The Bench also granted liberty to the parties to file a short synopsis with regard to enforcement of provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 1960 and applicable rules.

The Bench also allowed the parties to file objections of the report submitted by the Justice Sir Jagan Commission regarding stray dog menace in Kerala. The committee report stated that stray dog population can'be reduced by ABC measures alone and sought for alternate methods.

The bench was hearing a batch of appeals filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India and other parties against a 2015 judgment of the Kerala High Court which permitted capturing and destruction of stray dogs.

Wrongdoers will be punished, SC

As the hearing drew to a close, Senior Advocate Venugopal pointed out that uncontrolled garbage which have been neglected by municipal bodies was one of the primary reasons for multiplication of dogs and mice etc. "If they are sterilised, this issue would not have occurred", the Bench was told.

Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria pointed out that people indulging in animal cruelty should be punished. The Bench did not have an opposing view.

"Anyone dealing with animal cruelty, they have to be dealt with in accordance with law. We have not said otherwise…", the bench orally said.

The matters have bene adjourned to February, 2023.

Case Title: Animal Welfare Board of India Vs People for Elimination of Stray Troubles and Ors. - CA No. 5988/2019